CAR_Public/191210.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, December 10, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 246

                            Headlines

2U INC: Faces Harper Securities Suit Over Decline of Share Price
ABBVIE INC: Niaspan Direct Purchasers Win Class Certification
ACCEPTANCE SOLUTIONS: Davis Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometrics
ADT INC: Brand Class Action Suit over TCPA Breaches Underway
ADT INC: Dismissed from Fitzhenry's TCPA Class Suit in Florida

ADT INC: Reaches Agreement to Settle, Drop Shareholder Suit
ADT INC: Settlement Checks Sent, Wireless Encryption Suit Dropped
ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: Pays $23 Million Settlement Balance
ALLERGAN PLC: Agreement in Principle Reached in Namenda(R) Suit
ALLERGAN PLC: Continues to Defend AbbVie Merger-Related Class Suit

ALLERGAN PLC: Final Dismissal Order Entered in Asacol(R) Suit
ALLERGAN PLC: Trial in Loestrin(R) 24 Suit to Begin January 2020
ALLERGAN PLC: Trial in Restasis(R) Suit to Begin in April 2020
AMERICAN RENAL: Continues to Defend Vandevar Class Action
ANTARES PHARMA: Court Urged to Dismiss Smith Suit

ANTHEM INC: Faces Cobb Class Suit Over Violations of FLSA & FCRA
APOLLO GLOBAL: Settlement Reached in IDT IPO-Related Class Suits
AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Discovery Motions Underway in D.C. Case
AUTOMATIC DATA: Class Suits over Biometric Data Use Ongoing
AVANOS MEDICAL: Appeal in Bahamas Surgery Case Remains Pending

AVANOS MEDICAL: Appeal in Jackson Class Action Remains Pending
BAUSCH HEALTH: Awaits Court Approval of Catucci Case Settlement
BAUSCH HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss RICO-Related Class Suit Pending
BAUSCH HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Timber Hill Class Suit Denied
BAUSCH HEALTH: Continues to Defend Glumetza(R)-Related Class Suits

BAUSCH HEALTH: Fails to Shake Off Pricing Antitrust Litigation
BAUSCH HEALTH: Interlocutory Appeal in Valeant Pharma Suit Pending
BF ADVANCE: Calls Cellphone in Violation of TCPA, Fabricant Says
BUCHANAN EXPRESS: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Diaz Claims
BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Denial of Class Certification Affirmed

BURNS & MCDONNELL: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wage, Baxter Says
CAMPING WORLD: Bid to Dismiss IUOE Class Action Still Ongoing
CAMPING WORLD: Bid to Nix Ronge & Strougo Lawsuit Remains Pending
CAMPING WORLD: Geis Suit Stayed Pending Bid to Nix Ronge Class Suit
CASA SYSTEMS: Continues to Defend Class Suit over Hook IPO

CASA SYSTEMS: Continues to Defend Panther Partners Class Suit
CASA SYSTEMS: Massachusetts Business Court Takes Suit over IPO
CBS CORP: Bid to Nix New York Consolidated Class Suit Still Pending
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Says Plaintiff Didn't Timely File Appeal Notice
CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Silken Brown Settlement Agreement Funded

CONSOL ENERGY: Still Defends Casey-Fitzwater Consolidated Suit
DEUTSCHE BANK: Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Class Suit
DJ SOUTHOLD: Court Narrows Claims in Torres Wage & Hour Suit
DXC TECHNOLOGY: 3 Purported Class Suits in California Underway
DXC TECHNOLOGY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Nix Class Suit in Virginia

DXC TECHNOLOGY: Settlement Talks Continue over Age Bias Complaints
EL MESON LATIN: Ruiz Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
ELIXINOL LLC: McCarthy Sues Over Illegally Sold CBD Products
EVERI HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Rehman Class Suit
EVERI HOLDINGS: Penn National Gaming Dismissed from Jessop Suit

EVOLENT HEALTH: Still Defends Plymouth County Retirement Suit
FEDEX GROUND: Martinous Seeks Damages for Unpaid Overtime Pay
FIDELITY NATIONAL: 401(k) Plan-Related Suit v. Reliance Ongoing
FLAGSTAR BANK: Court Certifies Mortgage Loan Owner Class
FORTERRA INC: Settlement Agreement Reached in IPO-Related Suit

FRANKLIN MADISON: Withheld Insurance Pricing Info, Quezada Claims
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Fernandez-Cryer Accord Gets Final Court Okay
FTS INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss Glock Class Suit Pending
GLOBE LIFE: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Jan. 2020
GREENLANE HOLDINGS: 5 Class Suits over IPO Matters Underway

HC2 HOLDINGS: Awaits Final Court OK of Settlement in Suit vs. CGI
HC2 HOLDINGS: Schuff Stockholders Litigation Still Ongoing
HENRY SCHEIN: Agreement Between Objector & Plaintiffs Approved
HENRY SCHEIN: Appeal in Marion Diagnostic Center Suit Pending
HENRY SCHEIN: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in NY

HERON THERAPEUTICS: Lead Plaintiffs, Counsel Named in Wong Suit
HERTZ GLOBAL: Bid to Appeal in Ramirez Class Action Pending
HILLS BANCORPORATION: Still Defends Overdraft Fees Class Suit
ILLINOIS: Court Certifies Class of African American Children
INOGEN INC: Bid to Dismiss California Securities Suit Pending

INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks to Dismiss Amended DeSmet Suit
INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Jansen Class Action Ongoing
INTERNATIONAL MONEY: In Talks over Settlement of Sawyer Class Suit
INTERSECT ENT: Lead Plaintiff Appointed in Yaron Class Suit
J&W GRADING: Brown, et al. Seek to Certify Class of Laborers

JELD-WEN HOLDING: Must Face Interior Molded Antitrust Litigation
KINGSTONE COMPANIES: Still Faces Woolgar Securities Class Action
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Bid to Dismiss Veal Class Action Granted
LIVENT CORP: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Pennsylvania
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Jan. 17 Final Hearing to Approve Kramer Accord

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Mason Suit Wins Conditional Class Certification
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Settlement in Gold Suit Awaits Court Approval
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Steele Class Action in Canada Still Ongoing
MAKITA USA: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Guglielmo Claims
MALLINCKRODT PLC: 2,315 Suits Filed Over Opioid Sales at Nov. 5

MALLINCKRODT PLC: City of Rockford Class Suit Still Ongoing
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Continues to Defend Strougo Class Suit
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Solomon Suit Awaits Resolution of Shenk Case
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Still Defends Consolidated Class Suit in D.C.
MAMMOTH ENERGY: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Oklahoma

MAMMOTH ENERGY: Still Faces Putative Class Action in Puerto Rico
MAMMOTH ENERGY: Zeisset Class Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration
MARRIOTT INT'L: Continues to Defend Suits over Data Theft
MASIMO CORP: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in PHI Suit
MCDERMOTT INT'L: Consolidated Texas Class Action Ongoing

MDL 2492: Gaddis Suit v. NCAA Over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Hill Suit v. NCAA Over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Johnson Suit v. NCAA Over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Oubre Suit v. NCAA Over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Redd Suit v. NCAA Over Health Issues Consolidated

MDL 2492: Rembert Suit v. NCAA Over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Rhodes Suit v. NCAA Over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Rice Suit v. NCAA Over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Saytumah Suit v. NCAA Over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Sevald Suit v. NCAA Over Health Issues Consolidated

MDL 2492: Wakely Suit v. NCAA Over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Walker Suit v. NCAA Over Health Issues Consolidated
MERCK & CO: Dismissal of Zetia Litigation Recommended
MERCK & CO: Limited Discovery in Rotavirus Vaccines Suit Ongoing
MEREDITH CORP: Securities Suits in New York and Iowa Underway

METLIFE INC: Appeal in Martin Class Action Still Pending
METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend Parchmann Class Suit
METLIFE INC: Julian & McKinney Class Action Ongoing
METLIFE INC: Newman Seeks Preliminary Approval of Settlement
METLIFE INC: Settlement in Owens Suit Preliminarily Approved

METLIFE INC: Westland Police & Fire Retirement Suit Still Ongoing
METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Mag. Judge Recommends DeCapua Suit Dismissal
MONEY ONE: Sued by Curry Over Deficient Repossession Notices
MOSAIC COMPANY: Examination in Uberaba EHS Suit Still Pending
MYLAN NV: Class Suit over Valsartan Recalls Ongoing in New Jersey

MYLAN NV: Israeli Securities Suit Still Stayed
MYLAN NV: Trial Date in EpiPen(R) Suit Set for April 2021
NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS: Still Faces Consolidated Class Suit in N.Y.
NEWELL BRANDS: Continues to Defend Oklahoma Firefighters Suit
NEWELL BRANDS: Cosolidated Class Suit in New Jersey Ongoing

NEWMONT GOLDCORP: Class Action in Canada Still Ongoing
NII HOLDINGS: Amended Complaint Filed in Nayman Class Action
P.F. CHANG'S: Belt et al. Seek Conditional Class Certification
PHH MORTGAGE: Mathews Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida
POTBELLY CORP: Assistant Managers' Class Suit Resolved

PRESIDIO INC: Pension Fund's Bid to Halt Merger Vote Denied
PROTECTIVE LIFE: Unit Still Faces Advance Trust & Life's Suit
PROTHENA CORP: $15.75MM Settlement Wins Final Approval
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Approval of Behfarin Case Settlement Sought
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Huffman Class Action Now Closed

PSIGHTS ON SERVICE: Montoya Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
REALREAL INC: Defending Against Shareholder Suit in Marin County
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Puerto Rico Class Suit Pending
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses Mexican Bonds Antitrust Suit
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Deka Securities Suit Discovery Remains Stayed

SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: Mediation in Agar Suit Set for Wednesday
SNAP INC: Court Certifies Class in Securities Litigation
SOC LLC: Court Refuses to Reconsider Class Decertification Ruling
STATE FARM: Lech Sues Over Excessive Cost of Insurance Charges
SURFACE ONCOLOGY: Ang Putative Class Suit in New York Underway

SWITCH INC: Discovery Ongoing in Cai Putative Class Suit
SYNCHRONOSS TECH: Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint Pending
TECHNIPFMC PLC: Still Faces Prause Securities Class Suit in Texas
TELIGENT INC: Amended Complaint Filed in Pension Fund Suit
TELIGENT INC: Bid to Drop Econazole Antitrust Suit Remains Pending

TIVITY HEALTH: Trial in Okla. Firefighters Suit to Begin in 2021
TOPCO ASSOCIATES: Mislabels Vanilla Almond Milk, Cummings Claims
TRAVELCENTERS: Renewed Motion to Dismiss Ohio Class Suit Pending
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action in Australia Still Ongoing
UNIFIED LIFE: Court Grants Class Certification Bid in Butler Case

VENATOR MATERIALS: Petititon for Wirt of Mandamus Pending
VIESTE SPE: Crossfit Bank May File Second Amended Complaint
VISTRA ENERGY: Wisconsin Price-Fixing Class Action Ongoing
VMSB LLC: Luis Seeks to Recover Damages for Unpaid Overtime Wages
WABCO HOLDINGS: Voluntary Dismissal Filed in Merger-Related Suits

WAL-MART STORES: Faces Pargett Suit Over Mislabeled LED Bulbs
WATKINS AND SHEPARD: Romero Seeks Wages for Terminated Employees
WELBILT INC: Schlimm Class Suit in Florida Ongoing
WELLS FARGO: Hernandez et al. Seek to Certify Classes & Subclasses
WESTLAKE CHEMICAL: Bid to Dismiss Caustic Soda Class Suits Pending

ZIMMER BIOMET: Shah Class Certification Bid Still Pending
ZION OIL: Bid to Dismiss Texas Class Suit Still Pending
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Continues to Defend Evans Class Action
ZYNERBA PHARMA: Continues to Defend Pennsylvania Class Action

                            *********

2U INC: Faces Harper Securities Suit Over Decline of Share Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Harper, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. 2U, INC., CHRISTOPHER J. PAUCEK, and CATHERINE A.
GRAHAM, Case No. 8:19-cv-03455-TDC (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 4, 2019), is
brought on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired 2U securities between February 25, 2019, and
July 30, 2019, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On May 7, 2019, the Company lowered its revenue guidance for fiscal
2019 to a range of $534 to $537 million, from prior guidance range
of $546.6 to $550.8 million, due to declining average enrollments
in some of its largest graduate programs. On this news, the
Company's share price fell $15.16, or nearly 26%, to close at
$44.77 per share on May 8, 2019, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

On July 30, 2019, after the market closed, the Company reported a
larger-than expected loss for second quarter 2019. The Company also
revised its guidance for fiscal 2019, expecting a net loss between
$157.5 and $151.5 million, compared to prior net loss guidance
between $79.0 and $77.2 million, because it would "moderate its
grad program launch cadence." On this news, the Company's share
price fell $23.70, or nearly 65%, to close at $12.80 per share on
July 31, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company faced increasing competition in
online education and particularly regarding graduate programs; (2)
that the Company faced certain program-specific issues that
negatively impacted its performance; (3) that, as a result, the
Company's business model was not sustainable; (4) that the Company
would slow its program launches; and (5) that, as a result, the
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased 2U securities during the Class Period and
is damaged by the decline of the Company's stock price.

2U is an education technology company that works with universities
to provide online graduate programs and certificates for working
adults.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


ABBVIE INC: Niaspan Direct Purchasers Win Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the court has certified a
class of direct purchasers of Niaspan.

Lawsuits are pending against AbbVie and others generally alleging
that the 2005 patent litigation settlement involving Niaspan
entered into between Kos Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a company acquired
by Abbott in 2006 and presently a subsidiary of AbbVie) and a
generic company violates federal and state antitrust laws and state
unfair and deceptive trade practices and unjust enrichment laws.

Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages and/or injunctive relief
and attorneys' fees.

The lawsuits consist of four individual plaintiff lawsuits and two
consolidated purported class actions: one brought by Niaspan direct
purchasers and one brought by Niaspan end-payers. The cases are
pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial
proceedings under the MDL Rules as In re: Niaspan Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 2460.

In August 2019, the court certified a class of direct purchasers of
Niaspan.

In October 2016, the Orange County, California District Attorney's
Office filed a lawsuit on behalf of the State of California
regarding the Niaspan patent litigation settlement in Orange County
Superior Court, asserting a claim under the unfair competition
provision of the California Business and Professions Code seeking
injunctive relief, restitution, civil penalties and attorneys'
fees.

In May 2018, the California Court of Appeal ruled that the District
Attorney's Office may not bring monetary claims beyond the scope of
Orange County, which the District Attorney's Office is appealing.

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


ACCEPTANCE SOLUTIONS: Davis Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometrics
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ACCEPTANCE SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC., Case No. 2019CH13973
(Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Dec. 4, 2019), is brought against the
Defendant to stop its unlawful collection, use, storage, and
disclosure of the Plaintiff's and the proposed Class's sensitive,
private, and personal biometric data.

Unlike ID badges or time cards--which can be changed or replaced if
stolen or compromised--biometrics are unique, permanent biometric
identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes the
Defendant's employees, including the Plaintiff, to serious and
irreversible privacy risks. Recognizing the need to protect its
citizens from situations like these, Illinois enacted the Biometric
Information Privacy Act, specifically to regulate companies that
collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics. Notwithstanding
the clear and unequivocal requirements of the law, the Plaintiff
alleges, the Defendant disregards employees' statutorily protected
privacy rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses employees'
biometric data in violation of BIPA.

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

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in Illinois.

Acceptance Solutions Group, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with
places of business in Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ADT INC: Brand Class Action Suit over TCPA Breaches Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
ADT Inc. is facing a putative Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") class action lawsuit captioned, Todd Brand v. ADT LLC,
Safe Streets USA LLC and Resource Marketing Corp., filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2019.

The Company was served with the lawsuit on November 7, 2019.

Plaintiff seeks to recover statutory damages allowed under the TCPA
on behalf of himself and others similarly situated based on his
receipt of marketing text messages allegedly made by or on behalf
of a third-party ADT authorized dealer.  The Company is being
defended and indemnified by this third-party ADT authorized
dealer.

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


ADT INC: Dismissed from Fitzhenry's TCPA Class Suit in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
ADT Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September
30, 2019, that the Company has been dismissed from the putative
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") class action lawsuit
captioned, Mark Fitzhenry v. ADT LLC and Safe Streets USA LLC,
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.

The Company was served with the lawsuit on May 13, 2019.

Plaintiff sought to recover statutory damages allowed under the
TCPA on behalf of himself and others similarly situated based on
his receipt of a single telemarketing call allegedly made by or on
behalf of a third-party ADT authorized dealer.

In August 2019, the Company was dismissed from the lawsuit.

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


ADT INC: Reaches Agreement to Settle, Drop Shareholder Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
ADT Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September
30, 2019, that the parties in the shareholder litigation have
reached an agreement in principle to settle the actions pending in
both the state court and the federal court and the federal court
action has been voluntarily dismissed.

Five substantially similar shareholder class action lawsuits
related to the January 2018 initial public offering (IPO) of ADT
Inc. common stock were filed in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth
Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida in March,
April, and May 2018 and have been consolidated for discovery and
trial and entitled In re ADT Inc. Shareholder Litigation.  The lead
plaintiffs seek to represent a class of similarly situated
shareholders and assert claims for alleged violations of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended ("Securities Act").

The plaintiffs allege that the Company defendants violated the
Securities Act because the registration statement and prospectus
used to effectuate the IPO were false and misleading in that they
allegedly misled investors with respect to litigation involving the
Company, the Company's efforts to protect its intellectual
property, and the competitive pressures faced by the Company.  The
defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint in October
2018.

In July 2019 the Florida state court denied the Company's motions
to dismiss the complaint, but reserved its ruling on the motion to
dismiss by the Company's outside directors and requested further
briefing.

A similar shareholder class action lawsuit entitled Perdomo v ADT
Inc., also related to the January 2018 IPO, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida in May 2018,
for which the plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in January 2019
as directed by the Court.

In September 2019, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle the actions pending in both the state court and the federal
court and the federal court action has been voluntarily dismissed.

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


ADT INC: Settlement Checks Sent, Wireless Encryption Suit Dropped
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ADT Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September
30, 2019, that settlement checks to the qualified class members in
the Wireless Encryption Litigation were mailed the week of
September 9, 2019, and all five pending lawsuits have been
dismissed.

The Company was subject to five class action claims regarding
wireless encryption in certain ADT security systems.
Jurisdictionally, three of the five cases were in Federal Court (in
districts within Illinois, Arizona, and California), and both of
the remaining two cases were in Florida State Court (both in Palm
Beach County Circuit Court).  Each of the five plaintiffs brought a
claim under the respective state's consumer fraud statute alleging
that the Company made misrepresentations and material omissions in
its advertising regarding the unencrypted wireless signal pathways
in certain security systems monitored by the Company.  The
complaints in all five cases further alleged that certain security
systems monitored by the Company were not secure because the
wireless signal pathways were unencrypted and could be easily
hacked.

In January 2017, the parties agreed to settle all five class action
lawsuits.

In October 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California entered an order granting preliminary approval of the
settlement.  Notice to class members was issued in November 2017,
and the claim submittal process has been completed.  A fairness
hearing regarding the settlement was conducted in February 2018,
after which trial court stayed the settlement proceedings pending
an appellate ruling on a related legal issue.

The appellate court issued a ruling in early June 2019, and in July
2019 the trial court entered an order granting final approval of
the settlement.

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


ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: Pays $23 Million Settlement Balance
-------------------------------------------------------
Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. paid the $23.0 million balance related to
a class action settlement, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5,
2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019.

On December 30, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, or the Court, alleging violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA.

The complaint does not allege that Alarm.com itself violated the
TCPA, but instead seeks to hold the company responsible for the
marketing activities of one of the company's service providers as
well as calls made by one of this service provider's sub-dealer
agents under principles of agency and vicarious liability.

On August 30, 2018, the company reached an agreement in principle
to settle the case for total cash consideration of $28.0 million.

On October 25, 2018, the company entered into a definitive
settlement agreement, or Settlement Agreement, and submitted it to
the Court for approval. In entering into the definitive settlement
agreement, the company is making no admission of liability.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, among other things, (1) the
company agreed to pay total cash consideration of $28.0 million
into a settlement fund, (2) the company agreed to implement certain
business practice changes to increase awareness of TCPA compliance,
(3) each party to the Settlement Agreement agreed to a mutual
release of claims relating to any claim or potential claim relating
to the marketing activities described in the complaint, and (4)
each party covenanted not to sue the other with regard to the
released claims. In addition, the company agreed to no longer allow
the service provider identified in the litigation as purportedly
violating the TCPA to continue activating new accounts for
Alarm.com products and services following preliminary Court
approval of the Settlement Agreement.

On December 19, 2018, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement and certified the
class for settlement purposes.

Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, the administrator
provided notice of the settlement to class members, and class
members had to file claims, opt out of the settlement or object to
the settlement by April 16, 2019. The Final Approval Hearing was
held on August 13, 2019, and the Court approved the Settlement
Agreement.

The company made an initial payment of $5.0 million to the
settlement administrator on January 2, 2019, and the remaining
payment of $23.0 million was made on September 30, 2019.

Alarm.com said, "The release of claims includes all alleged damages
incurred related to the lawsuit. Any attorneys' fees awarded by the
Court and all costs of notice and claims administration will be
paid from the settlement fund. The $28.0 million settlement was
reflected in general and administrative expenses within our
condensed consolidated statements of operations for the three and
nine months ended September 30, 2018."

Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. provides cloud-based software platform
solutions for smart residential and commercial properties in the
United States and internationally. Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Tysons, Virginia.


ALLERGAN PLC: Agreement in Principle Reached in Namenda(R) Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that prior to the start of trial,
the parties in the direct purchaser class action related to
Namenda(R) have reached an agreement in principle to settle the
litigation.

In 2014, the State of New York filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that Forest
was acting to prevent or delay generic competition to Namenda(R) in
violation of federal and New York antitrust laws and committed
other fraudulent acts in connection with its commercial plans for
Namenda(R) XR.

The district court granted the state's motion for a preliminary
injunction which was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.

The parties in that case then reached a settlement to resolve the
dispute.

Following the conclusion of the New York Attorney General Matter,
putative class actions were filed on behalf of direct and indirect
purchasers in the same federal court.

The class action complaints make claims similar to those asserted
by the New York Attorney General and also include claims that
Namenda(R) patent litigation settlements between a Company
subsidiary and generic companies also violated the antitrust laws.


The court had denied defendants' motion for summary judgment in the
direct purchaser action, certified the direct purchaser class of
plaintiffs and set a trial date for October 28, 2019.   

Prior to the start of the trial, the parties in the direct
purchaser class action reached an agreement in principle to settle
that litigation.  

Allergan said, "The agreement, which contains no admission of
liability, remains subject to court approval. Based on the
tentative settlement, the Company has recorded an accrual of $750.0
million."

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


ALLERGAN PLC: Continues to Defend AbbVie Merger-Related Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit related to AbbVie Inc.'s acquisition of
the company.

On June 25, 2019, the Company and AbbVie Inc. announced that the
companies had entered into a definitive transaction agreement
whereby AbbVie will acquire the Company in a cash and stock
transaction.  

On September 20, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company by one of its shareholders alleging that the
Company and its Board of Directors violated the Securities laws by
omitting or misrepresenting material information in the proxy
statement the Company filed on September 16, 2019 seeking
shareholder approval of the transaction with AbbVie.

The Company has not yet responded to this complaint.  

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


ALLERGAN PLC: Final Dismissal Order Entered in Asacol(R) Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that a court has recently entered
a final order dismissing the Asacol(R) litigation in its entirety.

Class action complaints have been filed against certain
subsidiaries of the Company on behalf of putative classes of direct
and indirect purchasers. The lawsuits have been consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The complaints allege that plaintiffs paid higher prices for
Asacol(R) HD and Delzicol(R) as a result of alleged actions
preventing or delaying generic competition in the market for an
older Asacol(R) product in violation of U.S. federal antitrust laws
and/or state laws.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified injunctive relief, treble damages
and/or attorneys' fees.

The Company has settled the claims brought by the direct purchaser
plaintiffs.

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

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

Recently, defendants made offers of judgment to the three remaining
individual plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedures which the plaintiffs have accepted.  The court
recently entered a final order dismissing this litigation in its
entirety.

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


ALLERGAN PLC: Trial in Loestrin(R) 24 Suit to Begin January 2020
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that trial in Loestrin(R) 24
Litigation is scheduled to begin in January 2020.

Putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers as well as
opt-out direct purchasers have filed complaints that have been
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode
Island.

The lawsuits allege that subsidiaries of the Company engaged in
anticompetitive conduct, including when settling patent lawsuits
related to Loestrin(R) 24 Fe, in violation of federal and state
antitrust and consumer protection laws.

The complaints each seek declaratory and injunctive relief and
compensatory damages in the billions of dollars which, if
plaintiffs are successful, are subject to trebling under the
antitrust laws.

The court recently granted the direct purchaser plaintiffs' class
certification motion and has yet to rule on the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs' class motion.  Summary judgement motions are fully
briefed and oral arguments were held on September 11 and 12, 2019.


Trial in this action is scheduled to begin in January 2020.

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


ALLERGAN PLC: Trial in Restasis(R) Suit to Begin in April 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that trial in the class suit
related to sales of Restasis(R) is scheduled to begin in April
2020.

Several class actions were filed on behalf of putative classes of
direct and indirect purchasers of Restasis(R) alleging that
subsidiaries of the company harmed competition by engaging in
conduct to delay the market entry of generic versions of
Restasis(R) in violation of the federal antitrust laws as well as
state antitrust and consumer-protection laws and unjust enrichment.


The cases have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

All plaintiffs seek compensatory damages in the billions of dollars
which, if plaintiffs are successful are subject to trebling under
the antitrust laws, as well as declaratory relief, and injunctive
relief. The parties are currently engaged in discovery.  

Trial in this action is scheduled to begin in April 2020.

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


AMERICAN RENAL: Continues to Defend Vandevar Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
American Renal Associates Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2019, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class
action suit entitled, Ali Vandevar, et al. v. American Renal
Associates Holdings Inc., et al., No. 19-09074-ES-MA.

On March 28, 2019 and April 19, 2019, putative shareholder class
action complaints were filed in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain of
its current and former executive officers.

Both complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder related to the matters disclosed in the March 27 Form
8-K and certain prior filings.

The complaints seek unspecified damages on behalf of the
individuals or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired ARA's
securities from August 10, 2016 to March 27, 2019.

On July 3, 2019, the complaints were consolidated and a lead
plaintiff was appointed for the putative shareholder class action
complaint, captioned Ali Vandevar, et al. v. American Renal
Associates Holdings Inc., et al., No. 19-09074-ES-MA (the "Vandevar
Action").

An amended consolidated complaint is due to be filed on November
11, 2019.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these
claims.

American Renal Associates Holdings, Inc. is a national provider of
kidney dialysis services for patients suffering from chronic kidney
failure, also known as end stage renal disease, or ESRD. As of
March 31, 2017, the Company owned and operated 217 dialysis clinics
treating 14,735 patients in 25 states and the District of Columbia.
The Company's operating model is based on shared ownership of its
facilities with physicians, known as nephrologists, who specialize
in treating kidney-related diseases in the local market served by
the clinic. Each clinic is maintained as a separate joint venture,
or JV, in which the Company has a controlling interest and its
local nephrologist partners have noncontrolling interests.


ANTARES PHARMA: Court Urged to Dismiss Smith Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Antares Pharma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the defendants
filed their reply in support of their motion to dismiss the class
action suit initiated by Randy Smith.

On October 23, 2017, Randy Smith filed a complaint in the District
of New Jersey, captioned Randy Smith, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Antares Pharma, Inc., Robert F.
Apple and Fred M. Powell ("Smith"), Case No. 3:17-cv-08945-MAS-DEA,
on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired Antares securities between December 21, 2016 and October
12, 2017, inclusive, asserting claims for purported violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, against Antares, Robert F. Apple and Fred M. Powell.  

The Smith complaint contends that defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Antares
had provided insufficient data to the FDA in connection with the
NDA for XYOSTED(R); and (ii) accordingly, Antares had overstated
the approval prospects for XYOSTED(R).  

On July 27, 2018, the court entered an order appointing Serghei
Lungu as lead plaintiff, Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel, and Lite
DePalma Greenberg, LLC as liaison counsel for plaintiff.  

On August 3, 2018, the parties submitted a stipulation and proposed
order, setting forth an agreed-upon schedule for responding to the
complaint, which the court granted.

Pursuant to that order, plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint on October 9, 2018. On November 26, 2018,
defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion on January 10, 2019 and
defendants filed a reply in support of their motion on February 25,
2019.

On July 2, 2019, the court dismissed the complaint in its entirety
without prejudice. On July 29, 2019, plaintiff filed a Consolidated
Second Amended Class Action Complaint against the same parties
alleging substantially similar claims.

On September 12, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Second Amended Class Action Complaint. Plaintiffs'
opposition was filed on October 28, 2019.

The Company believes that the claims in the Smith action lack merit
and intends to defend them vigorously.

Antares Pharma, Inc. focuses on developing and commercializing
self-administered parenteral pharmaceutical products and
technologies worldwide. The company was founded in 1978 and is
headquartered in Ewing, New Jersey.


ANTHEM INC: Faces Cobb Class Suit Over Violations of FLSA & FCRA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shelita Cobb, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Anthem, Inc. and The Anthem Companies, Inc., Case No.
3:19-cv-00897-JAG (E.D. Va., Dec. 4, 2019), arises from the
Defendants' willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff worked as a Consumer Service Associates at
Defendants' call centers. The Plaintiff alleges that because
Associates typically work at least 40 hours per week, the
Defendants' failure to pay them for pre-shift, mid-shift, and
post-shift time violates the FLSA's overtime requirements, which
mandates that employees be paid for each hour worked in excess of
40 in a workweek at a rate not less than 1.5 their regular rate of
pay.

The Defendants also have willfully and systematically violated the
FCRA by taking adverse action on the Plaintiff and other putative
class members based on the procured consumer reports without
providing proper pre-adverse action notice, copies of the reports,
a written description of rights, and reasonable time to respond to
the Defendants or dispute the reports, says the complaint.

The Defendants provide health insurance services nationwide.
Anthem, Inc. is one of the largest health benefits companies in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Curtis Daniel Cannon, Esq.
          GOLDBERG & FINNEGAN, LLC
          8401 Colesville Road, Suite 630
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Phone: (301) 589-2999
          Fax: (301) 589-2644
          Email: CCanon@GoldbergFinnegan.com

               - and -

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
          Lotus Cannon, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
          Jersey City, NJ 07310
          Phone: (877) 561-0000
          Fax: (855) 582-5297
          Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                 nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
                 lotus.cannon@jtblawgroup.com


APOLLO GLOBAL: Settlement Reached in IDT IPO-Related Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that all parties
to the class action suits entitled, In re ADT Inc. Shareholder
Litigation and Perdomo v. ADT Inc., have reached a settlement in
principle, subject to court approval.

Five shareholders filed substantially similar putative class action
lawsuits in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in
and for Palm Beach County, Florida in March, April, and May 2018,
alleging violations of the Securities Act in connection with the
January 19, 2018 initial public offering (IPO) of ADT Inc. common
stock.

The actions were consolidated on July 10, 2018, and the case was
re-captioned In re ADT Inc. Shareholder Litigation.

On August 24, 2018, the state-court plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint naming as defendants ADT Inc., several ADT officers and
directors, the IPO underwriters (including Apollo Global
Securities, LLC), AGM Inc. and certain other Apollo affiliates.

Plaintiffs generally allege that the registration statement and
prospectus for the IPO contained false and misleading statements
and failed to disclose material information about certain
litigation in which ADT was involved, ADT's efforts to protect its
intellectual property, and competitive pressures ADT faced.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint on
October 23, 2018, and those motions are fully briefed.

On May 21, 2018, a similar shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Florida, naming as defendants ADT, several officers and
directors, and AGM Inc.

The federal action, captioned Perdomo v. ADT Inc., generally
alleges that the registration statement was materially misleading
because it failed to disclose ongoing deterioration in ADT's
financial results, along with certain customer and business
metrics.

On July 20, 2018, several alleged ADT shareholders filed competing
motions to be named lead plaintiff in the federal action.

On November 20, 2018, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, and on
January 15, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.  

The amended complaint names the same Apollo-affiliated defendants
as the state-court action, along with three new Apollo entities.  

Defendants filed motions to dismiss on March 25, 2019, and those
motions are fully briefed. On July 26, 2019, the state court denied
defendants' motions to dismiss, except it reserved judgment on the
question whether it has personal jurisdiction over certain
defendants, including the Apollo defendants.

On September 12, 2019, all parties to the state and federal actions
reached a settlement in principle of both actions, subject to court
approval.

The settlement requires no payment from any Apollo defendants.

Apollo Global Management, LLC is a publicly owned investment
manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and
sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and
individual investors. Apollo Global Management, LLC was founded in
1990 and is headquartered in New York City.


AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Discovery Motions Underway in D.C. Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that summary
judgment motions and Daubert motions relating to expert witnesses
are currently stayed pending the Court's resolution of discovery
motions in the case entitled, In re Suboxone (Buprenorphine
Hydrochloride and Naloxone) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2445, or
the Suboxone MDL.

On September 22, 2016, forty-one states and the District of
Columbia, or the States, brought suit against Indivior and the
company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, alleging violations of federal and state antitrust
statutes and state unfair trade and consumer protection laws
relating to Indivior's launch of Suboxone Sublingual Film in 2010
and seeking an injunction, civil penalties, and disgorgement.

After filing, the case was consolidated for pre-trial purposes with
the In re Suboxone (Buprenorphine Hydrochloride and Naloxone)
Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2445, or the Suboxone MDL, a
multidistrict litigation relating to putative class actions on
behalf of various private plaintiffs against Indivior relating to
its launch of Suboxone Sublingual Film.

While the company is not named as a defendant in the original
Suboxone MDL cases, the action brought by the States alleges that
the company participated in an antitrust conspiracy with Indivior
in connection with Indivior's launch of Suboxone Sublingual Film
and engaged in related conduct in violation of federal and state
antitrust law.

The company moved to dismiss the States' conspiracy claims, but by
order dated October 30, 2017, the Court denied the company's motion
to dismiss. The company filed an answer denying the States' claims
on November 20, 2017.

The fact discovery period closed on July 27, 2018, but the parties
agreed to conduct certain fact depositions in August 2018. The
expert discovery phase closed May 30, 2019, but additional reports
and depositions were conducted through August 1, 2019.

Summary judgment motions and Daubert motions relating to expert
witnesses are currently stayed pending the Court's resolution of
discovery motions in the MDL case.  

Aquestive said, "We are not able to determine or predict the
ultimate outcome of this proceeding or provide a reasonable
estimate, or range of estimates, of the possible outcome or loss,
if any, in this matter."

Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
focuses on identifying, developing, and commercializing various
products to address unmet medical needs. The Company markets
Sympazan, an oral soluble film formulation of clobazam for the
treatment of lennox-gastaut syndrome; Suboxone, a sublingual film
formulation of buprenorphine and naloxone for the treatment of
opioid dependence; and Zuplenz, an oral soluble film formulation of
ondansetron for the treatment of nausea and vomiting associated
with chemotherapy and post-operative recovery in the United States
and internationally. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in
2004 and is headquartered in Warren, New Jersey.


AUTOMATIC DATA: Class Suits over Biometric Data Use Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Automatic Data Processing, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit related to the company's
violation of the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act.

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

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

In addition, similar potential class action complaints have been
filed in Illinois state courts against ADP and/or certain of its
clients with respect to the collection, use and storage of
biometric data of the employees of these clients.

All of these claims are still in their earliest stages and the
Company is unable to estimate any reasonably possible loss, or
range of loss, with respect to these matters.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits.

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

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


AVANOS MEDICAL: Appeal in Bahamas Surgery Case Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Avanos Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company's
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the
class action suit entitled, Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC v.
Kimberly-Clark Corporation and Halyard Health, Inc., No.
2:14-cv-08390-DMG-SH (C.D. Cal.), remains pending.

The company has an Indemnification Obligation for the matter styled
Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation and
Halyard Health, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-08390-DMG-SH (C.D. Cal.)
("Bahamas"), filed on October 29, 2014.

In that case, the plaintiff brought a putative class action
asserting claims for common law fraud (affirmative
misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment) and violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law in connection with our
marketing and sale of MicroCool surgical gowns.

On April 7, 2017, a jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff,
finding that Kimberly-Clark was liable for $3.9 million in
compensatory damages (not including prejudgment interest) and
$350.0 million in punitive damages, and that Avanos was liable for
$0.3 million in compensatory damages (not including prejudgment
interest) and $100.0 million in punitive damages.

Subsequently, the court also ruled on the plaintiff's UCL claim and
request for injunctive relief. The court found in favor of the
plaintiff on the UCL claim but denied the plaintiff's request for
restitution.

The court also denied the plaintiff's request for injunctive
relief.

On May 25, 2017, the company filed post-trial motions seeking,
among other things, to have the award of punitive damages reduced.
On April 11, 2018, the court issued an Amended Judgment in favor of
the plaintiff and against the company and Kimberly-Clark that
substantially reduced the punitive damages awards.

The judgment against the company is now $0.3 million in
compensatory damages and pre-judgment interest and $1.3 million in
punitive damages. The judgment against Kimberly-Clark is now $3.9
million in compensatory damages, $1.3 million in pre-judgment
interest, and $19.4 million in punitive damages.

On April 12, 2018, the company filed a notice of appeal to the
Ninth Circuit.

Avanos said, "We intend to continue our vigorous defense of the
Bahamas matter."

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

Avanos Medical, Inc. operates as a medical technology company that
focuses on delivering medical device solutions to improve patients'
quality of life worldwide. Avanos Medical, Inc. was incorporated in
2014 and is headquartered in Alpharetta, Georgia.


AVANOS MEDICAL: Appeal in Jackson Class Action Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Avanos Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the appeal in the
class action suit entitled, Jackson v. Halyard Health, Inc., Robert
E. Abernathy, Steven E. Voskuil, et al., remains pending.

The company was served with a complaint in a matter styled Jackson
v. Halyard Health, Inc., Robert E. Abernathy, Steven E. Voskuil, et
al., No. 1:16-cv-05093-LTS (S.D.N.Y.), filed on June 28, 2016.

In that case, the plaintiff brings a putative class action against
the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer, its former Chief
Financial Officer and other defendants, asserting claims for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act, Sections 10(b) and
20(a).

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made misrepresentations
and failed to disclose certain information about the safety and
effectiveness of the company's MicroCool gowns and thereby
artificially inflated the Company's stock prices during the
respective class periods.

The alleged class period for purchasers of Kimberly-Clark
securities who subsequently received Avanos securities is February
25, 2013 to October 21, 2014, and the alleged class period for
purchasers of Avanos securities is October 21, 2014 to April 29,
2016.

On February 16, 2017, the company moved to dismiss the case. On
March 30, 2018, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss
and entered judgment in its favor.

On April 27, 2018, the plaintiff filed a Motion for Relief from the
Judgment and for Leave to Amend. On April 1, 2019, the court denied
the plaintiff's motion.

On May 1, 2019, Jackson appealed the dismissal of the action to the
2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

Avanos said, "We intend to continue our vigorous defense of this
matter."

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

Avanos Medical, Inc. operates as a medical technology company that
focuses on delivering medical device solutions to improve patients'
quality of life worldwide. Avanos Medical, Inc. was incorporated in
2014 and is headquartered in Alpharetta, Georgia.


BAUSCH HEALTH: Awaits Court Approval of Catucci Case Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the Quebec
Superior Court of Justice held a hearing on the motion brought by
the plaintiffs in the Catucci action for approval of a settlement
between the class and the Company's auditors.

In 2015, six putative class actions were filed and served against
the Company and certain current or former officers and directors in
Canada in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, as
previously reported in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2018, filed on February 20, 2019.   

The actions generally allege violations of Canadian provincial
securities legislation on behalf of putative classes of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the Company for
periods commencing as early as January 1, 2013 and ending as late
as November 16, 2015. The alleged violations relate to the same
matters described in the U.S. Securities Litigation description
above.

The Rosseau-Godbout action was stayed by the Quebec Superior Court
by consent order. The Kowalyshyn action has been consolidated with
the O'Brien action and that consolidated action is stayed in favor
of the Catucci action.

In the Catucci action, on August 29, 2017, the judge granted the
plaintiffs leave to proceed with their claims under the Quebec
Securities Act and authorized the class proceeding.

On October 26, 2017, the plaintiffs issued their Judicial
Application Originating Class Proceedings. A timetable for certain
pre-trial procedural matters in the action has been set and the
notice of certification has been disseminated to class members.

Among other things, the timetable established a deadline of June
19, 2018 for class members to exercise their right to opt-out of
the class.

The Company is aware of two additional putative class actions that
have been filed with the applicable court but which have not yet
been served on the Company, as previously reported in the Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018,
filed on February 20, 2019, and the factual allegations made in
these actions are substantially similar to those outlined above.

The Company has been advised that the plaintiffs in these actions
do not intend to pursue the actions.

In addition to the class proceedings, on April 12, 2018, the
Company was served with an application for leave filed in the
Quebec Superior Court of Justice to pursue an action under the
Quebec Securities Act against the Company and certain current or
former officers and directors.

This proceeding is captioned BlackRock Asset Management Canada
Limited et al. v. Valeant, et al. (Court File No.
500-11-054155-185). The allegations in the proceeding are similar
to those made by plaintiffs in the Catucci class action. On June
18, 2018, the same BlackRock entities filed an originating
application (Court File No. 500-17-103749-183) against the same
defendants asserting claims under the Quebec Civil Code in respect
of the same alleged misrepresentations.

The Company is aware that certain other members of the Catucci
class exercised their opt-out rights prior to the June 19, 2018
deadline. On February 15, 2019, one of the entities which exercised
its opt-out rights served the Company with an application in the
Quebec Superior Court of Justice for leave to pursue an action
under the Quebec Securities Act against the Company, certain
current or former officers and directors of the Company and its
auditor.

That proceeding is captioned California State Teachers' Retirement
System v. Bausch Health Companies Inc. et al. (Court File No.
500-11-055722-181).

The allegations in the proceeding are similar to those made by the
plaintiffs in the Catucci class action and in the BlackRock opt-out
proceedings. On that same date, California State Teachers'
Retirement System also served the Company with proceedings (Court
File No. 500-17-106044-186) against the same defendants asserting
claims under the Quebec Civil Code in respect of the same alleged
misrepresentations.

A settlement approval hearing has been scheduled for November 11,
2019 in the Quebec Superior Court of Justice to hear a motion
brought by the plaintiffs in the Catucci action for approval of a
settlement between the class and the Company's auditors.

The Company believes that it has viable defenses in each of these
actions. In each case, the Company intends to defend itself
vigorously.

Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.


BAUSCH HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss RICO-Related Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the motion
to dismiss the class action suit entitled, In re Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Third-Party Payor Litigation,
No. 3:16-cv-03087, is pending.

Between May 27, 2016 and September 16, 2016, three virtually
identical actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey against the Company and various
third-parties, alleging claims under the federal Racketeer
Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") on behalf of a
putative class of certain third-party payors that paid claims
submitted by Philidor for certain Company branded drugs between
January 2, 2013 and November 9, 2015.  

On November 30, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating the
three actions under the caption In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. Third-Party Payor Litigation, No.
3:16-cv-03087.

A consolidated class action complaint was filed on December 14,
2016. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that
the defendants committed predicate acts of mail and wire fraud by
submitting or causing to be submitted prescription reimbursement
requests that misstated or omitted facts regarding (1) the identity
and licensing status of the dispensing pharmacy; (2) the
resubmission of previously denied claims; (3) patient co-pay
waivers; (4) the availability of generic alternatives; and (5) the
insured's consent to renew the prescription.  

The complaint further alleges that these acts constitute a pattern
of racketeering or a racketeering conspiracy in violation of the
RICO statute and caused plaintiffs and the putative class
unspecified damages, which may be trebled under the RICO statute.

The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on February
13, 2017.

On March 14, 2017, other defendants filed a motion to stay the RICO
class action pending the resolution of criminal proceedings against
Andrew Davenport and Gary Tanner.

On August 9, 2017, the Court granted the motion to stay and entered
an order staying all proceedings in the case and accordingly
terminating other pending motions. On April 12, 2019, the court
lifted the stay. On July 30, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint.

On August 28, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. Briefing on this motion concluded on October 25,
2019.

The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to
defend itself vigorously.

Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.


BAUSCH HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Timber Hill Class Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the motion
to dismiss the class action suit entitled, Timber Hill LLC, v.
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al., has been
denied.

On June 6, 2018, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company
and certain current or former officers and directors. This action,
captioned Timber Hill LLC, v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc., et al., (Case No. 2:18-cv-10246), asserts
securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased
call options or sold put options on the Company's common stock
during the period January 4, 2013 through August 11, 2016.

On June 11, 2018, this action was consolidated with In re Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Securities Litigation, (Case
No. 3:15-cv-07658).

On January 14, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Timber Hill complaint. Briefing on that motion was completed on
February 13, 2019.

On August 15, 2019, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the
Timber Hill action, holding that this complaint was a legal nullity
as a result of the June 11, 2018 consolidation order.

Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.


BAUSCH HEALTH: Continues to Defend Glumetza(R)-Related Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend several class action suits related to the sales
of Glumetza(R).

In August, September and October 2019, six putative antitrust class
actions were filed in the Northern District of California against
the Company, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., Salix Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., and Santarus, Inc. (among other defendants).

Four of the cases were filed by direct purchasers and two of the
cases were filed by end payer purchasers.

The direct purchaser defendants seek damages under federal
antitrust laws and the end payer purchasers seek damages under
state antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment laws as
well as injunctive relief under federal antitrust laws. The
lawsuits allege that a 2012 settlement of a patent litigation
regarding Glumetza(R) delayed generic entry in exchange for an
agreement not to launch an authorized generic of Glumetza(R) or
grant any other company a license to do so.

The complaints allege that the settlement agreement resulted in
higher prices for Glumetza(R) and metformin hydrochloride both
prior to and after generic entry.

The Company and its affiliates named in these cases dispute the
claims against them and intend to vigorously defend these matters.

Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.


BAUSCH HEALTH: Fails to Shake Off Pricing Antitrust Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the court
has denied the company's motion to dismiss the class action suit
entitled, In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust
Litigation, pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania (MDL 2724, 16-MD-2724).

As of June 2018, the Company's subsidiaries, Oceanside
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Bausch Health US, LLC (formerly Valeant
Pharmaceuticals North America LLC), and Bausch Health Americas,
Inc. (formerly Valeant Pharmaceuticals International) (for the
purposes of this subsection, collectively, the "Company"), were
added as defendants in putative class action multidistrict
antitrust litigation entitled In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals
Pricing Antitrust Litigation, pending in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (MDL 2724,
16-MD-2724).

The lawsuit to which the Company was added was filed by direct
purchaser plaintiffs and seeks damages under federal antitrust
laws, alleging that the Company's subsidiaries entered into a
conspiracy to fix, stabilize, and raise prices, rig bids and engage
in market and customer allocation for generic pharmaceuticals.
Specific claims against the Company's subsidiaries relate to
generic pricing of the Company's metronidazole vaginal product as
part of an alleged overarching conspiracy among generic drug
manufacturers.

As of December 2018, three direct purchaser plaintiffs that had
opted out of the putative class filed an amended complaint in the
MDL that added Oceanside, Bausch Health US and Bausch Health
Americas, alleging similar claims as the direct purchaser
plaintiffs' putative class action complaint.

On October 18, 2019, Humana Inc. filed a related complaint against
Oceanside, Bausch Health US and Bausch Health Americas, as well as
other defendants, alleging similar claims.

Separate complaints by other plaintiffs which had been consolidated
in the same multidistrict litigation do not name the Company or any
of its subsidiaries as a defendant. The Company has filed motions
to dismiss the earlier-filed actions.

On August 15, 2019, the Court denied defendants' joint motion to
dismiss claims asserting the existence of an overarching multi-drug
conspiracy.

The Company's individual motion to dismiss the earlier-filed
actions remains pending. Discovery against the Company's
subsidiaries has commenced. The Company continues to vigorously
defend these matters.

On July 18, 2019, 87 health plans filed a Praecipe to commence an
action in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County against
the Company and other defendants related to the multidistrict
litigation. As of the date hereof, Plaintiffs have not filed a
Complaint.

Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.


BAUSCH HEALTH: Interlocutory Appeal in Valeant Pharma Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the
interlocutory appeal from a ruling in the class action suit
entitled, In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:15-cv-07658, is pending.

In October 2015, four putative securities class actions were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against
the Company and certain current or former officers and directors.
The allegations related to, among other things, allegedly false and
misleading statements and/or failures to disclose information about
the Company's business and prospects, including relating to drug
pricing, the Company's use of specialty pharmacies, and the
Company's relationship with Philidor.

On May 31, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating the four
actions under the caption In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:15-cv-07658.


On June 24, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint
asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against the Company, and certain current or former officers and
directors, as well as claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company, certain current or
former officers and directors, and certain other parties.

The lead plaintiff seeks to bring these claims on behalf of a
putative class of persons who purchased the Company's equity
securities and senior notes in the United States between January 4,
2013 and March 15, 2016, including all those who purchased the
Company’s securities in the United States in the Company's debt
and stock offerings between July 2013 to March 2015.

On September 13, 2016, the Company and the other defendants moved
to dismiss the consolidated complaint.

On April 28, 2017, the Court dismissed certain claims arising out
of the Company's private placement offerings and otherwise denied
the motions to dismiss. On September 20, 2018, lead plaintiff filed
an amended complaint, adding claims against ValueAct Capital
Management L.P. and affiliated entities ("ValueAct").

On October 31, 2018, a third party defendant, ValueAct, filed a
motion to dismiss.

On June 30, 2019, the Court denied the motion to dismiss and
ValueAct has filed for interlocutory appeal of this decision.

Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.


BF ADVANCE: Calls Cellphone in Violation of TCPA, Fabricant Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Fabricant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BF ADVANCE LLC d/b/a BUSINESS FINANCE ADVANCE, and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:19-cv-10281
(C.D. Cal., Dec. 4, 2019), is seeking damages and other remedies
resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendants in negligently
contacting the Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading the
Plaintiff's privacy.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used an "automatic
telephone dialing system" to place its call to the Plaintiff
seeking to solicit its services. The Defendants' calls constituted
calls that were not for emergency purposes. The Defendant did not
possess Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using
an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone pursuant to the TCPA.

The Plaintiff requested for the Defendant to stop calling the
Plaintiff during one of the initial calls from the Defendant, thus
revoking any prior express consent that had existed and terminating
any established business relationship that had existed. Despite
this, the Defendant continued to call the Plaintiff in an attempt
to solicit its services and in violation of the National
Do-Not-Call provisions of the TCPA, says the complaint.

Terry Fabricant is a natural person residing in Winnetka,
California.

BF ADVANCE LLC d/b/a BUSINESS FINANCE ADVANCE is a business lending
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Phone: (323) 306-4234
          Fax: (866) 633-0228
          Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                 abacon@toddflaw.com
                 mgeorge@toddflaw.com


BUCHANAN EXPRESS: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Diaz Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fernando Diaz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. BUCHANAN EXPRESS LLC, BEST EXPRESS TRANSPORTATION, LLC,
SALVADOR MUNOZ and JUAN A. BUCHANA, Case No. 3:19-cv-00354 (W.D.
Tex., Dec. 4, 2019), arises from the Defendants' failure to pay
overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that he has been denied overtime pay by the
Defendants. Despite the fact that he regularly works more than 60
hours per week, he contends, the Defendants failed to pay him his
actual hours according to his time sheet. Additionally, the
Defendants unlawfully deducted several fees under the section
"Adjustments to Net Pay," which were never authorized by the
Plaintiff, says the complaint.

Fernando Diaz was employed by the Defendants as a driver from April
23, 2018, through July 28, 2019.

The Defendants are a transportation fleets company in El Paso,
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carlos M. Quinonez, Esq.
          11890 Vista Del Sol Dr., Suite A-115
          El Paso, TX 79936
          Phone: (915) 533-0009
          Fax: (888) 301-1116
          Email: carlos@quinonezlawfirm.com


BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Denial of Class Certification Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4,
2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has
affirmed a District Court's denial of class certification in the
class action suit entitled, In re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge
Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1869.

Beginning May 14, 2007, some 30 similar class action complaints
were filed in six federal district courts around the country by
rail shippers against BNSF Railway and other Class I railroads
alleging that they have conspired to fix fuel surcharges with
respect to unregulated freight transportation services in violation
of the antitrust laws. The complaints seek injunctive relief and
unspecified treble damages.

These cases were consolidated and are currently pending in the
federal District Court for the District of Columbia for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings. (In re: Rail Freight Fuel
Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1869).

Consolidated amended class action complaints were filed against
BNSF Railway and three other Class I railroads in April 2008. On
June 21, 2012, the District Court certified the class sought by the
plaintiffs.

BNSF Railway and the other three Class I railroads appealed the
class certification decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

On August 9, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals vacated the District
Court's class certification decision and remanded the case to
permit the District Court to reconsider its decision in light of
the United States Supreme Court case of Comcast Corp. v. Behrend.

In September 2016, the District Court held a hearing to determine
whether to certify a class. On October 10, 2017, the District Court
denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class.

The plaintiffs appealed the denial of class certification to the
U.S. Court of Appeals. In September 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals
held a hearing on the appeal of the denial of class certification.


On August 16, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the District
Court's denial of class certification.  

The Company continues to believe that these allegations are without
merit and will continue to vigorously dispute any such claims in
any subsequent litigation by individual parties involving such
allegations.  

The Company does not believe that the outcome of these proceedings
will have a material effect on its financial condition, results of
operations or liquidity.

Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC, through its subsidiaries,
provides freight rail transportation services in North America. The
company was incorporated in 1994 and is based in Fort Worth, Texas.
As of February 22, 2019, Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC operates
as a subsidiary of National Indemnity Company.


BURNS & MCDONNELL: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wage, Baxter Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory K. Baxter, Individually and for Other Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03241-DLB (D. Md., Nov. 8, 2019),
alleges that the Defendant did not pay overtime wages as required
by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law,
and the New York Labor Law.

Mr. Baxter worked for Burns & McDonnell from May 2011 through April
2018. Within the past 3 years, Burns & McDonnell employed Baxter in
Maryland during at least one week in which he worked more than 40
hours. Within the past 6 years, Burn & McDonnell employed him in
New York during at least one week in which he worked more than 40
hours without being paid proper overtime premium, Mr. Baxter
asserts.

Burns & McDonnell is a full service engineering, architecture,
construction, environmental, and consulting solutions firm. Its
staff of over 7,000 engineers, architects, construction
professionals, planners, estimators, economists, technicians,
scientists, and other employees represent virtually all design
disciplines for Burns & McDonnel to plan, design, permit,
construct, and manage projects worldwide for its clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713 352-1100
          Facsimile: 713 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713-877-8788
          Facsimile: 713-877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


CAMPING WORLD: Bid to Dismiss IUOE Class Action Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Camping World Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2019, that the parties in the class action
styled International Union of Operating Engineers Benefit Funds of
Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware v. Camping World Holdings Inc.,
et al., argued the merits of defendants' motion to dismiss before
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Commercial Division, on
September 6, 2019.  The motion remains pending.

On December 12, 2018, a putative class action complaint styled
International Union of Operating Engineers Benefit Funds of Eastern
Pennsylvania and Delaware v. Camping World Holdings Inc., et al.
was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York
County, on behalf of all purchasers of Camping World Class A common
stock issued pursuant and/or traceable to a secondary offering of
such securities in October 2017 ("IUOE Complaint").

The IUOE Complaint names as defendants the Company, and certain of
its officers and directors, among others, and alleges violations of
Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on
allegedly materially misleading statements or omissions of material
facts necessary to make certain statements not misleading and seeks
compensatory damages, including prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and any equitable or
injunctive relief the court deems just and proper, including
rescission.

On February 28, 2019, the Company, along with the other defendants,
moved to dismiss this action.  The parties argued the merits of
defendants' motion to dismiss before the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, Commercial Division, on September 6, 2019.

Camping World Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as
an outdoor and camping retailer. The company operates through three
segments: Consumer Services and Plans, Dealership, and Retail.
Camping World Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is
headquartered in Lincolnshire, Illinois.


CAMPING WORLD: Bid to Nix Ronge & Strougo Lawsuit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated Ronge and
Strougo class action lawsuit in the Northern District of Illinois
is still pending, according to Camping World Holdings, Inc.'s Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019.

The defendants filed to motion in May 2019. No further updates were
provided in the Company's SEC report.

On October 19, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit, captioned Ronge v. Camping World
Holdings, Inc. et al., in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against the Company, certain of the
Company's officers and directors, and Crestview Partners II GP,
L.P. and Crestview Advisors, L.L.C. (the "Ronge Complaint").

On October 25, 2018, a different purported stockholder of the
Company filed a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Strougo v.
Camping World Holdings, Inc. et al., in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company,
certain of the Company's officers and directors, and Crestview
Partners II GP, L.P. and Crestview Advisors, L.L.C. (the "Strougo
Complaint").

The Ronge and Strougo Complaints were consolidated and lead
plaintiffs appointed by the court.

On February 27, 2019, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint against the Company, certain of the Company's officers
and directors, Crestview Partners II GP, L.P. and Crestview
Advisors, L.L.C., and the underwriters of the May and October 2017
secondary offerings of the Company's Class A common stock (the
"Consolidated Complaint").

The Consolidated Complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as well as Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and rule 10b-5
thereunder, based on allegedly materially misleading statements or
omissions of material facts necessary to make certain statements
not misleading related to the business, operations, and management
of the Company.  Additionally, it alleges that certain of the
Company's officers and directors, Crestview Partners II GP, L.P.,
and Crestview Advisors, L.L.C. violated Section 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, by allegedly acting as controlling persons
of the Company.

The lawsuit brings claims on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of the Company's Class A common stock between March 8,
2017 and August 7, 2018, and seeks compensatory damages,
rescission, attorneys' fees and costs, and any equitable or
injunctive relief the court deems just and proper.

On May 17, 2019, the Company, along with the other defendants,
moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.

Camping World Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as
an outdoor and camping retailer. The company operates through three
segments: Consumer Services and Plans, Dealership, and Retail.
Camping World Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is
headquartered in Lincolnshire, Illinois.


CAMPING WORLD: Geis Suit Stayed Pending Bid to Nix Ronge Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Camping World Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the case styled, styled
Daniel Geis v. Camping World Holdings, Inc., et al., remains stayed
pending resolution of the motion to dismiss the Consolidated Ronge
and Strougo Complaint, which is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois.

On February 22, 2019, a putative class action complaint styled
Daniel Geis v. Camping World Holdings, Inc., et al. was filed in
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, on
behalf of all purchasers of Camping World Class A common stock in
and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering on
October 6, 2016 ("Geis Complaint").  The Geis Complaint names as
defendants the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and
the underwriters of the offering, and alleges violations of
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based
on allegedly materially misleading statements or omissions of
material facts necessary to make certain statements not misleading.
The Geis Complaint seeks compensatory damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and any other
and further relief the court deems just and proper.

On April 19, 2019, the Company, along with the other defendants,
moved to dismiss this action.  The parties argued the merits of
defendants' motion to dismiss before the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, Chancery Division on August 20, 2019.

On August 26, 2019, the Court stayed the Geis Complaint pending
resolution of the motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint that
is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

Camping World Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as
an outdoor and camping retailer. The company operates through three
segments: Consumer Services and Plans, Dealership, and Retail.
Camping World Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is
headquartered in Lincolnshire, Illinois.


CASA SYSTEMS: Continues to Defend Class Suit over Hook IPO
----------------------------------------------------------
Casa Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Donald Hook v.
Casa Systems, Inc. et al.

On August 9, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit, Donald Hook v.
Casa Systems, Inc. et al., was filed in the Supreme Court of New
York, New York County, against the Company, certain of its current
and former executive officers and directors, Summit Partners, one
of the company's largest investors, and the underwriters from the
company's initial public offering (IPO).  

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all purchasers of
the company's common stock in and/or traceable to its IPO and
generally alleges that (i) each of the defendants violated Section
11 and/or Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, or the Securities Act, because documents related to the
Company's IPO including its registration statement and prospectus
were materially misleading by containing untrue statements of
material fact and/or omitting to state material facts necessary to
make such statements not misleading and (ii) the individual
defendants and Summit Partners acted as controlling persons within
the meaning and in violation of Section 15 of the Securities Act.


The complaint seeks compensatory damages, costs and expenses,
including counsel and expert fees, rescission or a rescissory
measure of damages, disgorgement, and equitable and injunctive
relief.  

Casa Systems, Inc., incorporated on February 28, 2003, is provides
a software-centric infrastructure solutions. In addition, the
Company offers solutions for next-generation distributed and
virtualized architectures in cable operator, fixed telecom and
wireless networks. Its products include axyom software platform,
delivery platforms, multi-service applications, capacity expansion
products. The company is based in Andover, Massachusetts.


CASA SYSTEMS: Continues to Defend Panther Partners Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Casa Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Panther
Partners, Inc. v. Guo et al.

On August 13, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit, Panther
Partners, Inc. v. Guo et al., was filed in the Supreme Court of New
York, New York County, against the Company, certain of its current
and former executive officers and directors, and the underwriters
from the company's April 30, 2018 follow-on offering of common
stock, which the company refers to as its Follow-on Offering.  

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all purchasers of
the company's common stock in its Follow-on Offering and generally
alleges that (i) each of the defendants, other than Abraham
Pucheril, violated Section 11 of the Securities Act, and each of
the defendants violated Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act,
because documents related to the Company's Follow-on Offering,
including its registration statement and prospectus, was materially
misleading by containing untrue statements of material fact and/or
omitting to state material facts necessary to make such statements
not misleading and (ii) the individual defendants acted as
controlling persons within the meaning and in violation of Section
15 of the Securities Act.  

The complaint seeks compensatory damages, costs and expenses,
including counsel and expert fees, rescission or a rescissory
measure of damages, and equitable and injunctive relief.  

Casa Systems, Inc., incorporated on February 28, 2003, is provides
a software-centric infrastructure solutions. In addition, the
Company offers solutions for next-generation distributed and
virtualized architectures in cable operator, fixed telecom and
wireless networks. Its products include axyom software platform,
delivery platforms, multi-service applications, capacity expansion
products. The company is based in Andover, Massachusetts.


CASA SYSTEMS: Massachusetts Business Court Takes Suit over IPO
--------------------------------------------------------------
Casa Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the Business
Litigation Session of the Massachusetts Superior Court (BLS) has
accepted a consolidated action related to the company's initial
public offering into its session for further proceedings.

On May 29, 2019 and July 3, 2019, two putative class action
lawsuits, Shen v. Chen et al. and Baig v. Chen et al., were filed
in the Massachusetts Superior Court against the Company, certain of
its current and former executive officers and directors, Summit
Partners, one of the company's largest investors, and the
underwriters from the company's December 15, 2017 initial public
offering (IPO).  

These complaints purport to be brought on behalf of all purchasers
of the company's common stock in and/or traceable to its IPO.  

The complaints generally allege that (i) each of the defendants
violated Section 11 and/or Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, because documents related to the Company's IPO
including its registration statement and prospectus were materially
misleading by containing untrue statements of material fact and/or
omitting to state material facts necessary to make such statements
not misleading and (ii) the individual defendants and Summit
Partners acted as controlling persons within the meaning and in
violation of Section 15 of the Securities Act.  

Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including
counsel and expert fees, rescission or a rescissory measure of
damages, and equitable and injunctive relief.  

On August 13, 2019, the Court consolidated these actions and
referred the consolidated actions to the Business Litigation
Session of the Massachusetts Superior Court (the "BLS").  

On September 3, 2019, the BLS accepted the consolidated action into
its session for further proceedings.  

Casa Systems said, "The plaintiffs have informed us that they
intend to file a consolidated complaint."

Casa Systems, Inc., incorporated on February 28, 2003, is provides
a software-centric infrastructure solutions. In addition, the
Company offers solutions for next-generation distributed and
virtualized architectures in cable operator, fixed telecom and
wireless networks. Its products include axyom software platform,
delivery platforms, multi-service applications, capacity expansion
products. The company is based in Andover, Massachusetts.


CBS CORP: Bid to Nix New York Consolidated Class Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019, that the defendants' motions to dismiss the
consolidated "Samit and Lantz" class suit remain pending.

On August 27, 2018 and on October 1, 2018, each of Gene Samit and
John Lantz, respectively, filed putative class action suits in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, for claims
that are similar to those alleged in the amended complaint.

On November 6, 2018, the Court entered an order consolidating the
two actions.

On November 30, 2018, the Court appointed Construction Laborers
Pension Trust for Southern California as the lead plaintiff of the
consolidated action.

On February 11, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended putative class action complaint against the Company,
certain current and former senior executives and members of the
Board.  The consolidated action is stated to be on behalf of
purchasers of CBS Corp.'s Class A Common Stock and Class B Common
Stock between September 26, 2016 and December 4, 2018.

This action seeks to recover damages arising during this time
period allegedly caused by the defendants' purported violations of
the federal securities laws, including by allegedly making
materially false and misleading statements or failing to disclose
material information, and seeks costs and expenses as well as
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On April 12, 2019, the defendants filed motions to dismiss this
action, which are pending.

CBS Corporation said, "The Company believes that the claims are
without merit and is currently unable to determine a range of
potential liability, if any.  Accordingly, no accrual for this
matter has been made in the Company's consolidated financial
statements."

CBS Corporation operates as a mass media company worldwide. The
company operates in four segments: Entertainment, Cable Networks,
Publishing, and Local Media. The company was founded in 1986 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Says Plaintiff Didn't Timely File Appeal Notice
------------------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 29, 2019, that the Kansas Court of
Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of a consolidated
shareholder litigation in September 2019, and that the Plaintiff
did not file a notice of appeal from this last decision before the
expiration of the deadline to do so.

Following the January 16, 2014 announcement that CEC Entertainment
had entered into an agreement ("Merger Agreement"), pursuant to
which an entity controlled by Apollo Global Management, Inc. and
its subsidiaries merged with and into CEC Entertainment, with CEC
Entertainment surviving the merger ("the Merger"), four putative
shareholder class actions were filed in the District Court of
Shawnee County, Kansas, on behalf of purported stockholders of CEC
Entertainment, against A.P.  VIII Queso Holdings, L.P., CEC
Entertainment, CEC Entertainment's directors, Apollo and Merger Sub
(as defined in the Merger Agreement), in connection with the Merger
Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby.

These actions were consolidated into one action (the "Consolidated
Shareholder Litigation") in March 2014, and on July 21, 2015, a
consolidated class action petition was filed as the operative
consolidated complaint, asserting claims against CEC's former
directors, adding The Goldman Sachs Group ("Goldman Sachs") as a
defendant, and removing all Apollo entities as defendants (the
"Consolidated Class Action Petition").

On October 8, 2018, the Plaintiff in the Consolidated Shareholder
Litigation appealed the District Court's decision to dismiss the
lawsuit in its entirety, but after conducting oral arguments, on
September 27, 2019 the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial
court's dismissal of the case, and Plaintiff did not file a notice
of appeal from this last decision before the expiration of the
deadline to do so.

CEC Entertainment, Inc. develops, operates, and franchises family
dining and entertainment centers (venues) under the names of Chuck
E. Cheese's and Peter Piper Pizza in the United States and
internationally. The company was formerly known as ShowBiz Pizza
Place, Inc. and changed its name to CEC Entertainment, Inc. in
1998. CEC Entertainment, Inc. was founded in 1977 and is
headquartered in Irving, Texas. CEC Entertainment, Inc. is a
subsidiary of Queso Holdings Inc.  


CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Silken Brown Settlement Agreement Funded
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cinemark Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company has
funded the appropriate amounts required under the settlement
agreement in the Silken Brown v. Cinemark USA, Inc., Case No.
3:13cv05669, with the class claims administrator.

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

The company denies the claims, denies that class certification is
appropriate, denies that the plaintiff has standing to assert the
claims alleged and is vigorously defending against the claims. The
Company denies any violation of law; however, to avoid the cost and
uncertainty associated with litigation the Company and the
plaintiff entered into a Joint Stipulation of Class Action
Settlement and Release of Claims to fully and finally dismiss all
claims that would be brought in the case.  

The Settlement Agreement was approved by the Court in September
2019.  

The Company funded the appropriate amounts required under the
Settlement Agreement with the administrator of the class claims in
October 2019.

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


CONSOL ENERGY: Still Defends Casey-Fitzwater Consolidated Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend the consolidated Casey-Fitzwater class action
suit in West Virginia federal court.

A class action lawsuit was filed on August 23, 2017 on behalf of
two nonunion retired coal miners against Fola Coal Company LLC,
Consolidation Coal Company ("CCC") and CONSOL of Kentucky Inc.,
CONSOL Buchanan Mining Co., LLC and Kurt Salvatori in West Virginia
Federal Court alleging ERISA violations in the termination of
retiree health care benefits.

Filed by the same lawyers who filed the Fitzwater litigation, and
raising nearly identical claims, the Plaintiffs contend they relied
to their detriment on oral promises of "lifetime health benefits"
allegedly made by various members of management during Plaintiffs'
employment and that they were not provided with copies of Summary
Plan Documents clearly reserving to the Company the right to modify
or terminate the Retiree Health and Welfare Plan.

Plaintiffs request that retiree health benefits be reinstated for
them and their dependents and seek to represent a class of all
nonunion retirees of any subsidiary of the Company's former parent
that operated or employed individuals in McDowell or Mercer
Counties, West Virginia, or Buchanan or Tazewell Counties, Virginia
whose retiree welfare benefits were terminated.

On December 1, 2017, the trial court judge in Fitzwater signed an
order to consolidate Fitzwater with Casey.

The Casey complaint was amended on March 1, 2018 to add new
plaintiffs, add defendant CONSOL Pennsylvania Coal Company, LLC and
eliminate defendant CONSOL Buchanan Mining Co., LLC in an attempt
to expand the class of retirees.

On October 15, 2019, Plantiffs' supplemental motion for class
certification was denied on all counts and a scheduling order for
the remaining individual claims was set on October 16, 2019.

The Company believes it has a meritorious defense and intends to
vigorously defend this suit.

CONSOL Energy Inc. produces and exports bituminous coal. It owns
and operates its mining operations in the Northern Appalachian
Basin. The company owns and operates the Pennsylvania Mining
Complex (PAMC), which comprises three underground mines, including
Bailey, Enlow Fork, and Harvey; and CONSOL Marine Terminal located
in the port of Baltimore. CONSOL Energy Inc. was founded in 1864
and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order granting Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss the case captioned Dale Green, individually and behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Deutsche Bank
Aktiengesellschaft et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-5104 (AJN),
(S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiff Dale Green bring this putative securities class action
lawsuit in relation to alleged misstatements in Defendant Deutsche
Bank Aktiengesellschafts' SEC filings. Deutsche Bank filed a motion
to dismiss.


LEGAL STANDARD

To withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A plaintiff is not
required to provide detailed factual allegations in the complaint
but must assert more than labels and conclusions. Ultimately, the
factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above
the speculative level. The Court must accept the allegations in the
complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the
non-movant's favor.  

The elements of a private securities fraud claim under Section
10(b) and Rule 10b-5 are (1) a material misrepresentation or
omission by the defendant (2) scienter (3) a connection between the
misrepresentation or omission and the purchase or sale of a
security (4) reliance upon the misrepresentation or omission (5)
economic loss and (6) loss causation.

The Complaint Fails to Properly Allege a Misleading Statement

The Amended Complaint fails at the first prong: alleging a material
misrepresentation or omission. Plaintiff's claim essentially boils
down to allegations that the deficiencies allegedly identified by
the Federal Reserve made the 20-F statements materially misleading.
But the 20-F statements do not concern controls generally. Rather
they specifically pertain to the effectiveness of Deutsche Bank's
internal control over financial reporting based on the COSO
framework.

Yet, the Amended Complaint never explains why these alleged
deficiencies support the idea that the bank's management failed to
find the internal controls over financial reporting effective under
the COSO framework. In fact, it never explains what these alleged
deficiencies have to do with financial reporting at all.  

Even if a financial institution has deficiencies in some of its
controls, its controls regarding financial reporting may still be
entirely effective. The Complaint alleges that financial reporting'
under the COSO Framework is not limited to public filings such as
SEC reports, but also includes `financial reports prepared in
accordance with a special purpose framework, such as those
established by taxing authorities or regulatory agencies.

However, it once again never explains which, if any, reports the
alleged deficiencies actually could have affected. Plaintiff's
Opposition also fails to identify a single relevant report. Indeed,
the alleged deficiencies, such as the inability to calculate
exposure at the end of any given day, seem to pertain more directly
to internal risk management than financial reporting.
Consequently, Plaintiff's securities fraud claim must be dismissed.
Even if the PSLRA's pleading requirements did not apply, the
allegations are essentially so conclusory that the Complaint would
still be insufficient.

The Claims Against the Individual Defendants Are Also Dismissed

This Court has the power to dismiss a complaint against the
non-moving Individual Defendants, so long as it is exercised
cautiously and on notice.

In this case, it appears that the individual defendants have not
been served. Moreover, Plaintiffs were aware of the grounds for
dismissal and had an opportunity to contest them. Since the grounds
for dismissal discussed above apply equally to the non-moving
Defendants," the securities fraud claims against them are also
dismissed. Finally, because the Section 20(a) claims control person
claims against the individual defendants are predicated on an
underlying securities fraud claim, they are dismissed as well.

Therefore, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Since
Plaintiff has not made any amendment requests, these dismissals are
with prejudice, rules the Court.  The Clerk of Court is
respectfully directed to close this case.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 30, 2019 Opinion
and Order is available at  https://tinyurl.com/y5f4q9cu from
Leagle.com.

Dale Green, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Stern -
jstern@rosenlegal.com - The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. & Phillip C. Kim
– pkim@rosenlegal.com  - The Rosen Law Firm.

Yongqiu Zhao, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Alexander Hood, II
– ahood@pomlaw.com- Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy Alan Lieberman -
jalieberman@pomlaw.com - Pomerantz LLP.

Wenjeng Li, Movant, represented by Adam M. Apton -  aapton@zlk.com
- Levi & Korsinsky LLP.

Yu Dai, Movant, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz
LLP.

Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft, Defendant, represented by Charles
Alan Gilman -  
cgilman@cahill.com - Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, David George
Januszewski -
djanuszewski@cahill.com - Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Sheila
Chithran Ramesh -
sramesh@cahill.com - Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP & Tara Halsch
Curtin -
tcurtin@cahill.com - Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP.

DJ SOUTHOLD: Court Narrows Claims in Torres Wage & Hour Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York issued a Memorandum and Order granting in part and denying in
part Defendant' Motion to Dismiss the case captioned ALEXANDER
SIGUENZA TORRES, SNEHA, VAGHELA, and KRISHNABA ZALA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DJ
SOUTHOLD, INC. d/b/a Dunkin' Donuts, DJ SOUTHAMPTON, INC. d/b/a
Dunkin' Donuts, DJ HAMPTON BAYS INC., DJ RIVERHEAD INC., DJ
BRIDGEHAMPTON, INC., SANJAY JAIN, NEERJA JAIN, and SHASHANK JARETH,
jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-5123 (SJF) (AYS),
(E.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs commenced this action pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL) seeking to
recover for, inter alia, wage and hours violations committed by
Defendants. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

The Khalid Action

This is the second case before this Court regarding alleged hour
and wage violations at Dunkin' Donuts stores owned and operated by
the individual defendants. Plaintiffs in the Khalid action also
brought claims under both the FLSA and NYLL.

Defendants seek dismissal of this action pursuant to the first
filed rule allowing dismissal of a duplicative action, arguing that
this case be dismissed in favor of Khalid. They further contend
that proceeding in this case would require them to relitigate class
issues pertaining to the NYLL claims.

In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that the first filed rule does not
apply to this situation because, inter alia, there are newly named
defendants and therefore the parties are not the same as in Khalid.
They further observe that since this Court oversees both cases, it
possesses ample case management tools to promote judicial
efficiency and avoid duplication of efforts.

The Court accepts Plaintiffs' representations that this action is
intended to redress wage and hours violations allegedly suffered by
store managers at the relevant Dunkin' Donuts locations. As such,
the amended complaint is clearly not duplicative of the Khalid case
in which the store managers were expressly excluded. In addition,
Defendants' concerns about relitigation of issues are unfounded in
light of the Plaintiffs' assertion that they will not be seeking
class certification of the NYLL claims. This assertion is borne out
by the amended complaint itself which does not include allegations
consistent with class action relief.

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the amended complaint is denied
as to the FLSA collective claims pertaining to store managers and
granted insofar as the amended complaint attempts to raise issues
on behalf of non-management employees, rules the court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 30, 2019
Memorandum and Order  is available at https://tinyurl.com/yycog925
from Leagle.com.

Alexander Siguenza Torres, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alison Lobban
Mangiatordi – mangiatordi@peltongraham.com - Pelton Graham LLC,
Taylor B. Graham , Pelton & Associates, PC & Brent E. Pelton ,
Pelton & Associates, PC,111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY
10006

Sneha Vaghela & Krishnaba Zala, Plaintiffs, represented by Alison
Lobban Mangiatordi , Pelton Graham LLC & Brent E. Pelton , Pelton &
Associates, PC.

DJ Southhold, Inc., doing business as Dunkin' Dounts, Sanjay Jain,
Neerja Jain, Shashank Jareth, jointly and severally, DJ
Southampton, Inc., DJ Hampton Bays Inc., DJ Riverhead Inc. & DJ
Bridgehampton, Inc., Defendants, represented by Brian Jeffrey
Shenker , SilvermanAcampora LLP, 100 Jericho Quadrangle, Ste 300,
Jericho, NY 11753-2702.

Neerja Jain, Sanjay Jain, DJ Southhold, Inc. & Shashank Jareth,
jointly and severally, Counter Claimants, represented by Brian
Jeffrey Shenker , SilvermanAcampora LLP.

Alexander Siguenza Torres, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Counter Defendant, represented by Alison Lobban
Mangiatordi , Pelton Graham LLC, Taylor B. Graham , Pelton &
Associates, PC & Brent E. Pelton , Pelton & Associates, PC.

DXC TECHNOLOGY: 3 Purported Class Suits in California Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
DXC Technology Company said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019, that it intends to file a motion to dismiss all
claims asserted in three purported class action lawsuits filed in
California.

On August 20, 2019, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa
Clara, against the Company and officers and directors of the
Company, among other defendants.

On September 16, 2019, a substantially similar purported class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California against the Company and
officers and directors of the Company, among other defendants.

On November 8, 2019, a third purported class action lawsuit was
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
San Mateo, against the Company and officers and directors of the
Company, among other defendants.

The three California lawsuits assert claims under Sections 11, 12
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and are premised
on allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and alleged
non-disclosure of material facts, regarding the Company's prospects
and expected performance.  The putative class of plaintiffs in
these cases includes all persons who acquired shares of the
Company's common stock pursuant to the offering documents filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the
April 2017 transaction that formed DXC.

DXC Technology Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
information technology services and solutions primarily in North
America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. It operates through three
segments: Global Business Services (GBS), Global Infrastructure
Services (GIS), and United States Public Sector (USPS). The company
was formerly known as Computer Sciences Corporation and changed its
name to DXC Technology Company in April 2017 as a result of its
merger with the Enterprise Services business of Hewlett Packard
Enterprise Company. DXC Technology Company was founded in 1959 and
is headquartered in Tysons, Virginia.


DXC TECHNOLOGY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Nix Class Suit in Virginia
------------------------------------------------------------------
DXC Technology Company said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019, that a court decision on the Company's motion
to dismiss the action styled, In re DXC Technology Company
Securities Litigation in Virginia, is still pending.

On December 27, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia against the Company and two of its current officers.  The
lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is premised on
allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and alleged
non-disclosure of material facts, regarding the Company's business,
operations, prospects and performance during the proposed class
period of February 8, 2018 to November 6, 2018.

The Company has moved to dismiss the claims in their entirety.  On
July 26, 2019, the court heard oral argument on the Company's
motion to dismiss, and a decision is now pending.

DXC Technology Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
information technology services and solutions primarily in North
America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. It operates through three
segments: Global Business Services (GBS), Global Infrastructure
Services (GIS), and United States Public Sector (USPS). The company
was formerly known as Computer Sciences Corporation and changed its
name to DXC Technology Company in April 2017 as a result of its
merger with the Enterprise Services business of Hewlett Packard
Enterprise Company. DXC Technology Company was founded in 1959 and
is headquartered in Tysons, Virginia.


DXC TECHNOLOGY: Settlement Talks Continue over Age Bias Complaints
------------------------------------------------------------------
DXC Technology Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2019, that settlement negotiations are still
ongoing in relation to the age discrimination suit styled Forsyth,
et al. v. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise, with 145
plaintiffs opting in.

On August 18, 2016, this purported class and collective action was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, against HP and HPE alleging violations of the Federal
Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act, California public policy and the
California Business and Professions Code.  Former business units of
HPE now owned by the Company may be proportionately liable for any
recovery by plaintiffs in this matter.

Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class action under the ADEA
comprised of all U.S. residents employed by defendants who had
their employment terminated pursuant to a work force reduction
("WFR") plan and who were 40 years of age or older at the time of
termination.  The class seeks to cover those impacted by WFRs on or
after December 2014.  Plaintiffs also seek to represent a Rule 23
class under California law comprised of all persons 40 years of age
or older employed by defendants in the state of California and
terminated pursuant to a WFR plan on or after August 18, 2012.

In January 2017, defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss and a
motion to compel arbitration of claims by certain named and opt-in
plaintiffs who had signed release agreements as part of their WFR
packages.

In September 2017, the Court denied the partial motion to dismiss
without prejudice, but granted defendants' motions to compel
arbitration for those named and opt-in plaintiffs.  The Court has
stayed the entire action pending arbitration for these individuals,
and administratively closed the case.

A mediation was held in October 2018 with the 16 named and opt-in
plaintiffs who were involved in the case at that time.  A
settlement was reached, which included seven plaintiffs who were
employed by former business units of HPE that are now owned by the
Company.

In June 2019, a second mediation was held with 145 additional
opt-in plaintiffs who were compelled to arbitration pursuant to
their release agreements.  No agreement was reached, but settlement
negotiations are ongoing.

DXC Technology said, "Former business units of the Company now
owned by Perspecta may be proportionately liable for any recovery
by plaintiffs in this matter."

DXC Technology Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
information technology services and solutions primarily in North
America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. It operates through three
segments: Global Business Services (GBS), Global Infrastructure
Services (GIS), and United States Public Sector (USPS). The company
was formerly known as Computer Sciences Corporation and changed its
name to DXC Technology Company in April 2017 as a result of its
merger with the Enterprise Services business of Hewlett Packard
Enterprise Company. DXC Technology Company was founded in 1959 and
is headquartered in Tysons, Virginia.


EL MESON LATIN: Ruiz Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
GIHOSVANI RUIZ, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff
v. EL MESON LATIN CUISINE, INC. and GILBERTO DIAZ, Defendants, Case
No. 2:19-cv-00805 (M.D. Fla., Nov. 8, 2019), seeks to recover money
damages for retaliation and unpaid half-time overtime wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and all other current and former employees similarly
situated worked in excess of 40 hours during one or more weeks on
or after February 2019, without being compensated overtime wages,
according to the complaint.

The Defendant is a Latin restaurant/bar located at 4085 Hancock
Bridge Pkwy., in North Fort Myers, Florida, where the Plaintiff
worked.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


ELIXINOL LLC: McCarthy Sues Over Illegally Sold CBD Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Michele McCarthy, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ELIXINOL, LLC a Colorado Limited Liability
Company, Case No. 5:19-cv-07948 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 4, 2019), is
brought on behalf of consumers who purchased the Defendant's CBD
products for personal use and not for resale.

The CBD products include "CBD Capsules," "CBD Tinctures,"
"Liposomes," "Respira Tinctures," "X-Pen," and "CBD Dog Treats,"
all of which are promoted as products containing cannabidiol (CBD).
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's Products are illegal to
sell.

With knowledge of growing consumer demand for CBD Products, the
Defendant has intentionally marketed and sold illegal CBD products,
the Plaintiff alleges. The Defendant's multiple and prominent
systematic mislabeling of the Products form a pattern of unlawful
and unfair business practices that harms the public.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff and each of the Class members have
suffered an injury in fact caused by the false, fraudulent, unfair,
deceptive, and misleading practices, and seek compensatory damages
and injunctive relief.

The Plaintiff brings this suit to halt the unlawful sales and
marketing of the CBD Products by the Defendant and for damages she
sustained as a result. If the Plaintiff knew the Products were not
legally sold in the United States, the Plaintiff would have not
purchased them, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased Elixinol Pure CBD Tincture (300mg CBD) for
$59.99 from the retail Web site.

The Defendant formulates, manufactures, advertises, and sells the
CBD Products throughout the United States, including in the State
of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
          KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 238-1700
          Email: jshub@kohnswift.com
                 klaukaitis@kohnswift.com


EVERI HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Rehman Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Everi Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Oneeb
Rehman, et al. v. Everi Payments Inc. and Everi Holdings Inc.

The case was filed on October 16, 2018, and is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Ft. Lauderdale
Division.

The original defendant was dismissed and the Company was
substituted as defendant on April 22, 2019.

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
alleges that Everi Payments Inc. and the Company have violated
certain provisions of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
(FACTA). Plaintiff seeks an award of statutory damages, attorney's
fees, and costs.

Everi Holdings Inc., incorporated on February 4, 2004, is a holding
company. The Company operates through subsidiaries, including Everi
Games Holding Inc. and Everi Payments Inc.  The Company operates
through two segments: Games and FinTech. The Company provides video
and mechanical reel gaming content and technology solutions,
integrated gaming payments solutions, and compliance and efficiency
software. The company is based in Las Vegas, Nevada.


EVERI HOLDINGS: Penn National Gaming Dismissed from Jessop Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Everi Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that Penn National
Gaming, Inc. has been dismissed by the Court with prejudice, from
the class action suit entitled, Mat Jessop, et al. v. Penn National
Gaming, Inc.

Mat Jessop, et al. v. Penn National Gaming, Inc., is a putative
class action matter filed on October 15, 2018, pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando
Division.

Everi Payments was added as a defendant on December 21, 2018. Penn
National Gaming, Inc. was dismissed by the Court with prejudice on
October 28, 2019, leaving only claims against Everi Payments.

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
alleges that Everi Payments has been unjustly enriched through the
charging of service fees for transactions conducted at Penn
National facilities.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against both parties, and an
award of statutory damages, attorney's fees, and costs.

Everi Holdings Inc., incorporated on February 4, 2004, is a holding
company. The Company operates through subsidiaries, including Everi
Games Holding Inc. and Everi Payments Inc. The Company operates
through two segments: Games and FinTech. The Company provides video
and mechanical reel gaming content and technology solutions,
integrated gaming payments solutions, and compliance and efficiency
software. The company is based in Las Vegas, Nevada.


EVOLENT HEALTH: Still Defends Plymouth County Retirement Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Evolent Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Plymouth County
Retirement System v. Evolent Health, Inc., Frank Williams, and
Nicholas McGrane.

On August 8, 2019, a shareholder of the Company filed a putative
class action complaint against the Company, Frank Williams and
Nicholas McGrane.

The case, captioned Plymouth County Retirement System v. Evolent
Health, Inc., Frank Williams, and Nicholas McGrane, was filed in
the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia,
Alexandria Division. The complaint seeks unspecified remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Based on the company's preliminary review, the Company believes the
case is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against
these claims.

The Company expects that the court will soon appoint a lead
plaintiff and set a schedule for the filing of the consolidated
complaint and the Company's response to that complaint.

Evolent said, "The outcome of any litigation is uncertain, and at
this early stage, the Company is currently unable to assess the
probability of loss or estimate a range of potential loss, if any,
associated with this lawsuit."

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

Evolent Health, Inc., through its subsidiary, Evolent Health LLC,
provides health care delivery and payment solutions in the United
States. The company operates through two segments, Services and
True Health. Evolent Health, Inc. was founded in 2011 and is
headquartered in Arlington, Virginia.


FEDEX GROUND: Martinous Seeks Damages for Unpaid Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
CARL MARTINOUS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC.,
DEFENDANT, Case No. 4:19-cv-00791-KGB (E.D. Ark., Nov. 8, 2019),
seeks recovery of monetary damages for all unpaid overtime hours
worked by the Plaintiff and the class members.

The Plaintiff and all others similarly situated were not paid
overtime compensation for the hours in excess of 40 hours in a
single week that they were/are made to work, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Human Resource Business
Partner from February 15, 2013, until August 2, 2018.

The Defendant is a for-profit, foreign corporation, providing its
customers with packaging, shipping and logistics services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sean Sanford, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: 501 221 0088
          Facsimile: 888 787 2040
          E-mail: sean@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


FIDELITY NATIONAL: 401(k) Plan-Related Suit v. Reliance Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2019, that Reliance Trust Company, the company's subsidiary,
continues to defend a class action suit related to a 401(k) Plan.

Reliance Trust Company, the Company's subsidiary, is named as a
defendant in a class action arising out of its provision of
services as the discretionary trustee for a 401(k) Plan for one of
its customers.

Plaintiffs in the action seek damages and attorneys' fees, as well
as equitable relief, on behalf of Plan participants for alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 against Reliance and the Plan's sponsor and
record-keeper.

Reliance is vigorously defending the action and believes it has
meritorious defenses. Pre-trial discovery has now been completed.

Reliance contends that no breaches of fiduciary duty or prohibited
transactions occurred and that the Plan suffered no damages.
Plaintiffs allege damages of approximately $115 million against all
defendants.

Fidelity National said, "While we are unable at this time to
estimate more precisely the potential loss or range of loss because
of unresolved questions of fact and law, we believe that the
ultimate resolution of the matter will not have a material impact
on our financial condition. We do not believe a liability for this
action is probable and, therefore, have not recorded a liability
for this action."

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

Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. operates as a
financial services technology company in the United States and
internationally. It operates through Integrated Financial Solutions
and Global Financial Solutions segments. The company was founded in
1968 and is headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida.


FLAGSTAR BANK: Court Certifies Mortgage Loan Owner Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as WILLIAM KIVETT, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB, a federal savings bank, and DOES 1-100,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-05131-WHA (N.D.
Cal.),the Hon. Judge William Alsup entered an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons who on or after April 18, 2014 had mortgage
      loans serviced by Flagstar Bank FSB on 1-4 unit residential
      properties in California and paid Flagstar money in advance
      to hold in escrow for the payment of taxes and assessments
      on the property, for insurance, or for other purposes
      relating to the property, but did not receive interest on
      the amounts held by Flagstar in their escrow accounts
      (excluding, however, any such persons whose mortgage loans
      originated on or before July 21, 2010)". The class
      definition shall apply for all purposes, including
      settlement.

   2. appointing Kivett as class representative;

   3. appointing Plaintiff's counsel from Hagens Berman William
      Sobol Shapiro LLP and the Law Office of Peter Fredman PC
      as class counsel;

   4. provisionally granting Plaintiff's motion for new plaintiffs

      to intervene and for leave to amend to add new class
      representatives;

   5. giving Defendant until Jan. 2, 2020 to why the Bravos should

      not be authorized to co-represent the class;

   6. directing Plaintiff's counsel to promptly make the Bravos
      available for depositions on or before Dec. 6, 2019, and to
      produce their records by that date;

   7. granting Kivett's motion to intervene and for leave to amend

      the complaint;

   8. directing both sides to submit a proposed form of notice to
      the class with a plan of distribution by first-class mail by

      Jan. 2, 2020;

   9. granting in part motion for an extension on the deadline to
      bring dispositive motions; and

   10. scheduling deadline on dispositive motions on Dec. 5, 2019
      while all other deadlines remain in place.[CC]

FORTERRA INC: Settlement Agreement Reached in IPO-Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Forterra, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that a settlement
agreement has been entered in the consolidated class action suit
related to the company's initial public offering (IPO).

Beginning on August 14, 2017, four plaintiffs filed putative class
action complaints in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York against various defendants.

On July 27, 2018, an order was entered consolidating the lawsuits
into a single action, and transferring the venue of the case from
the Eastern District of New York to the Northern District of Texas.


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

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

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

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

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

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

A mediation of the Securities Action occurred in August 2019. On
November 4, 2019, the parties to the Securities Action entered into
a settlement agreement that is intended to fully and finally
resolve all claims in the Securities Action.

The parties intend to seek court approval for the settlement, but
approval cannot be guaranteed.

Forterra said, "The terms of the settlement are expected to be paid
by the Company's insurance."

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


FRANKLIN MADISON: Withheld Insurance Pricing Info, Quezada Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA QUEZADA and JOHN M. RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FRANKLIN MADISON
GROUP, LLC (formerly known as Affinion Benefits Group, LLC),
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-02153-LAB-BGS (S.D. Cal., Nov. 8,
2019), alleges that the Defendant unlawfully withheld material
information to the Plaintiffs and other California consumers.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant withheld information
regarding the pricing of Affinion-sponsored insurance by failing to
disclose to the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated California
consumers that the group rates they were charged included a
significant, undisclosed mark-up unrelated to the insurers' costs
of providing this insurance that went into Affinion's pockets.

The case is a proposed class action on behalf of Plaintiffs and
other California consumers who (i) held accounts with financial
institutions that sponsored group Accidental Death & Dismemberment
Insurance ("AD&D Insurance") offered by Affinion, (ii) purchased
group AD&D Insurance from Affinion that was underwritten by various
insurance companies that affiliated with Affinion, and (iii) made
at least one payment for the purchased group AD&D Insurance from
their bank or credit union account.

Group insurance is typically sold at discounted rates because the
group typically uses the collective buying power of its large
membership to secure the broadest coverage available at the lowest
premium. But this norm of expected insurance economics is not
present when it comes to the sale of Affinion's group AD&D product,
the Plaintiffs say. Instead, Affinion utilized a marketing scheme
to deceive consumers to believe these AD&D policies were
competitively priced when, in truth, the policies are priced higher
than comparative policies otherwise available in the marketplace,
they allege.

In fact, Affinion's AD&D policies are even more costly than group
insurance underwritten by the same insurance companies that partner
with Affinion but which Affinion does not sponsor, the Plaintiffs
aver. As a result, Affinion has amassed staggering, ill-gotten
profits over the years. In the guise of offering purportedly
worthwhile, but discounted group insurance protection, the
Defendant induced the Plaintiffs and others to purchase Affinion
sponsored AD&D Insurance by withholding material pricing (and
other) information, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Benjamin Galdston, Esq.
          Peter R. Kahana, Esq.
          Amanda Trask, Esq.
          Y. Michael Twersky, Esq.
          John G. Albanese, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 340
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (619) 489-0300
          E-mail: bgaldston@bm.net
                  pkahana@wbm.net
                  atrask@bm.net
                  mitwersky@bm.net
                  jalbanese@bm.net

               - and -

          Annick Persinger, Esq.
          Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 254-6808
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com
                  agold@tzlegal.com


FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Fernandez-Cryer Accord Gets Final Court Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has
granted final approval to the settlement agreement in the
consolidated Fernandez-Cryer lawsuit, according to Franklin
Resources, Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019.
The Court also dismissed the litigation.

Franklin Resources said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that in 2016 and 2017, two
former employees filed related class action lawsuits in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
(Cryer v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al. and Fernandez v.
Franklin Resources, Inc., et al.), which were later consolidated,
relating to the Franklin Templeton 401(k) Retirement Plan
("Plan").

The consolidated action named as defendants Franklin, the Plan's
fiduciary committees and certain committee members, and the
Franklin Board of Directors and certain individual directors.

The plaintiffs principally claimed that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act by, among other things, selecting certain mutual funds
sponsored and managed by the Company as investment options for the
Plan, when allegedly lower cost and better performing third-party
investment options were available, and further challenged the
Plan's record keeping fees as excessive.

On December 3, 2018, Franklin elected to enter into an
agreement-in-principle to resolve the litigation for a cash payment
of US$13.9 million, which the Company accrued, and, among other
Plan changes, an increase in the Company's existing matching
contribution rate from 75% to 85% for eligible participant
contributions for a period of three years.

On October 4, 2019, the court issued final approval of the
agreement and dismissed the litigation.

Franklin Resources, Inc. is a publicly owned asset management
holding company. Through its subsidiaries, the firm provides its
services to individuals, institutions, pension plans, trusts, and
partnerships. Franklin Resources, Inc. was founded in 1947 and is
based in San Mateo, California with an additional office in
Hyderabad, India.


FTS INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss Glock Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
FTS International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the defendants'
request to dismiss the securities class action suit initiated by
Carol Glock is pending.

On February 22, 2019, Carol Glock filed a purported securities
class action in the 160th Civil District Court of Dallas County,
Texas (Cause No. DC-19-02668) against the Company, certain of its
officers, directors and stockholders, and certain of the
underwriters of the company's initial public offering (IPO).

The petition is brought on behalf of an alleged class of persons or
entities who purchased our common stock in or traceable to the
company's IPO, and purports to allege claims arising under Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

The petition generally alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws relating to the disclosure in the registration
statement and prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the company's IPO.

The petition seeks, among other relief, class certification,
damages in an amount in excess of $1.0 million, and reasonable
costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.

The Company has insurance coverage on this matter and has hired
counsel to vigorously defend the case.

Defendants have filed Special Exceptions to the petition and have
requested dismissal if the defects cannot be cured.

FTS International said, "While the outcome of this case is
uncertain, we do not expect the ultimate resolution of this case to
have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial
statements."

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

FTS International, Inc. provides hydraulic fracturing services in
North America. Its services enhance hydrocarbon flow from oil and
natural gas wells drilled by exploration and production companies
(E&P), in shale and other unconventional resource formations. FTS
International, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in
Fort Worth, Texas.


GLOBE LIFE: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Jan. 2020
---------------------------------------------------------------
Globe Life Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019, that a hearing for final approval of a
settlement of two putative class actions is set for January 9,
2020. The settlement also encompasses all claims asserted in two
other related class actions as well.

On September 12, 2018, putative class action litigation was filed
against American Income in California's Contra Costa County
Superior Court (Joh v. American Income Life Insurance Company, Case
No. C18-01863)(Joh Action).  An amended complaint was filed on
October 18, 2018.  American Income removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California (Case
No. 3:18-cv-06364-TSH).  A second amended complaint was filed on
May 20, 2019.  The plaintiffs, former insurance sales agents of
American Income, are suing on behalf of all current and former
trainees and sales agents who sold insurance for American Income in
the State of California for the four years prior to the filing of
the complaint.  The second amended complaint alleges that such
individuals are employees and asserts claims under the California
Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code, and
California Private Attorney General Act.  The complaint seeks
compensatory damages, penalties and attorney fees on claims for
failure to pay wages/commissions, failure to appropriately pay
agents at termination, failure to provide itemized wage statements,
failure to reimburse expenses, misclassification and unfair
business practices.

On October 18, 2018, putative class action litigation was filed
against Torchmark Corporation and American Income in California's
Los Angeles County Superior Court (Golz v. American Income Life
Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 18STCV01354) (Golz Action).
American Income removed the case to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California (Case No.
2:18-cv-09879 R (SSx)).  An amended complaint was filed on February
5, 2019.

On February 6, 2019, Torchmark Corporation was dismissed without
prejudice and the case proceeded with respect to American Income.

On April 2, 2019, the District Court granted American Income's
motion to dismiss four of the five causes of action asserted.  The
amended complaint's remaining claim alleges that plaintiff, as an
American Income insurance agent trainee in California, was an
employee who should have been compensated accordingly.  The
plaintiff seeks to represent a class of individuals in California
who trained to contract as American Income agents and who
subsequently worked as contracted agents.  The class period is
alleged to begin four years prior to the complaint's filing.  The
complaint seeks restitution under the California Business and
Professions Code for alleged unfair business practices such as
failure to pay minimum wage and overtime, failure to provide meal
and rest breaks, and failure to reimburse business expenses.

On December 14, 2018, putative class action litigation was filed
against American Income in United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (Hamilton v. American Income Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 4:18-cv-7535-KAW) (Hamilton Action).
An amended complaint was filed on January 23, 2019.  The
plaintiffs, former insurance sales agents of American Income, are
suing on behalf of all current and former sales agents who sold
insurance for American Income in the State of California for the
last four years prior to the filing of the complaint.  The lawsuit
alleges that putative class members are employees and asserts
claims under the California Labor Code, California Business and
Professions Code, and California Private Attorney General Act.  The
complaint seeks compensatory damages, penalties and attorney fees
on claims for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime, failure to
provide meal and rest breaks, failure to appropriately pay agents
at termination, failure to provide itemized wage statements,
failure to reimburse expenses, misclassification and unfair
business practices.

On January 16, 2019, putative class action litigation was filed
against American Income in Orange County, California Superior Court
(Putros v. American Income Life Insurance Company, Case No.
30-2019-01044772-CU-OE-CXC) (Putros Action).  An amended complaint
was filed on January 22, 2019.  The plaintiff, a former insurance
sales agent of American Income, is suing on behalf of all current
and former sales agents who sold insurance for American Income in
the State of California for the year prior to the filing of the
complaint.  The lawsuit alleges that putative class members are
employees and asserts claims under the California Private Attorney
General Act.  The complaint seeks penalties for failure to pay
minimum wage, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to
appropriately pay agents at termination, failure to provide
itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse expenses, and
misclassification.

With respect to the four related cases, on August 1, 2019,
Plaintiffs in the Joh/Hamilton Actions jointly moved for
preliminary approval of a settlement of all class and
representative claims—which broadly covers "all individuals who
trained to become and/or worked as sales agents in California for
Defendant during the last four years prior to the filing of the
original Complaint in Joh and whose training and/or work began
before the date of preliminary approval of this Settlement"—and
explained that "The proposed settlement reached here will resolve
all claims in Joh and Hamilton, and, in doing so, encompasses all
claims asserted in the Putros and Golz actions as well."

On August 16, 2019, the Northern District of California granted the
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and
scheduled a hearing for final approval of the settlement for
January 9, 2020.

Globe Life Inc. (formerly Torchmark Corporation), incorporated on
November 29, 1979, is an insurance holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, provides a range of life and health
insurance products and annuities to a base of customers. The
Company's segments include life insurance, health insurance,
annuities and investment. The life insurance segment includes
traditional and interest-sensitive whole life insurance as well as
term life insurance. Effective August 8, 2019, Torchmark
Corporation changed its corporate name to Globe Life Inc. The
company is based in McKinney, Texas.


GREENLANE HOLDINGS: 5 Class Suits over IPO Matters Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Greenlane Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2019, that it is facing a purported class
action suit styled, Tyrell v. Greenlane Holdings, Inc. et al., and
four other related lawsuits.

On August 2, 2019, in an action entitled Tyrell v. Greenlane
Holdings, Inc. et al., a purported stockholder of the Company filed
a purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of the
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida,
against the Company, officers and directors of the Company, and the
underwriters related to the Company's initial public offering.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's
registration statement related to its initial public offering
contained untrue statements of material fact and, or omitted to
state material facts necessary to make the statements in the
registration statement not misleading, in violation of Sections 11,
12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

Since August 2, four additional purported class action lawsuits
have been filed making substantially similar allegations; two of
these additional lawsuits were filed in the same court as the
Tyrell action and two were filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The lawsuits in federal court are entitled Hammond v. Greenlane
Holdings, Inc. et al. and Mayer v. Greenlane Holdings Inc. et al.

Greenlane Holdings said, "At this time, a class has not been
certified in either state or federal court in any of the actions
referenced above and the Company cannot estimate the amount of
damages (if any) being sought by the plaintiffs.  The Company can
provide no assurances as to the outcome of these lawsuits or as to
the costs associated with them.  However, the Company believes the
claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself."


HC2 HOLDINGS: Awaits Final Court OK of Settlement in Suit vs. CGI
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HC2 Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the parties in the
class action suit against Continental General Insurance Company
(CGI), a company subsidiary, are awaiting the court's final
approval of a settlement agreement.

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

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

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

Finally, the complaint alleges breach of contract claims related to
vesting of commissions. On August 21, 2017, the Court dismissed the
plaintiffs' tortious interference with contract claim.

CGI believes that the remaining allegations and claims set forth in
the complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend
against them.

The case was set for voluntary mediation, which occurred on January
26, 2018. The Court stayed discovery pending the outcome of the
mediation.

On February 12, 2018, the parties notified the Court that mediation
did not resolve the case and that the parties' discussions
regarding a possible settlement of the action were still ongoing.

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

On February 4, 2019, the plaintiffs executed a class settlement
agreement with CGI, Loyal American Life Insurance Company, American
Retirement Life Insurance Company, GAFRI, and American Financial
Group, Inc. (collectively, the "Defendants").

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

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

Meanwhile, the case pending before the District of Nebraska was
stayed on February 6, 2019, pending final approval of the class
action settlement in the Ohio action. The final settlement hearing
was held on September 17, 2019.

On October 7, 2019, the Court entered a final approval order
certifying the class and approving the class settlement. Absent an
appeal, the Court's decision granting final approval in the Ohio
action will become final on November 6, 2019, thirty days after the
date of the Court's order.

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

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

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

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

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


HC2 HOLDINGS: Schuff Stockholders Litigation Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
HC2 Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend against a consolidated class action suit
entitled, Schuff International, Inc. Stockholders Litigation.

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

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

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

The Complaint alleges, among other things, that in connection with
the tender offer, the individual members of the DBMG Board of
Directors and HC2, the now-controlling stockholder of DBMG,
breached their fiduciary duties to members of the plaintiff class.


The Complaint also purports to challenge a potential short-form
merger based upon plaintiff's expectation that the Company would
cash out the remaining public stockholders of DBMG following the
completion of the tender offer.  

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

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

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

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

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


HENRY SCHEIN: Agreement Between Objector & Plaintiffs Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Schein, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 28, 2019, that the court has
approved the agreement between the objector and the plaintiffs in
the class action suit entitled, In re Dental Supplies Antitrust
Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:16-CV-00696-BMC-GRB.

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

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

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

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

In the consolidated class action complaint, putative class
representatives allege a nationwide agreement among Henry Schein,
Benco, Patterson and non-party Burkhart Dental Supply Company, Inc.
("Burkhart") not to compete on price.

The consolidated class action complaint asserts a single count
under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and seeks equitable relief,
compensatory and treble damages, jointly and severally, and
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert
fees.

On September 28, 2018, the parties executed a settlement agreement
that proposes, subject to court approval, a full and final
settlement of the lawsuit on a classwide basis.

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

As a result, in the company's third quarter of fiscal 2018, the
company recorded a charge of $38.5 million, which was paid into a
settlement fund in January 2019.

On June 25, 2019, the district court granted final approval to the
settlement, and entered final judgment dismissing the case.

On July 16, 2019, Dr. William Roe, an unnamed class member that had
objected to the settlement, filed a notice of appeal appealing the
district court's Final Judgment and Order Granting Motion for Final
Approval of Class Settlement.

On October 8, 2019, the class plaintiffs and the objector filed
notice indicating that they had reached a settlement concerning the
objection, which, once approved by the court, would resolve the
objection.

On October 24, 2019 the court approved the agreement between the
objector and the plaintiffs.

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


HENRY SCHEIN: Appeal in Marion Diagnostic Center Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Schein, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 28, 2019, that the parties in the
case, Marion Diagnostic Center, LLC, et al. v. Becton, Dickinson,
and Co., et al., argued an appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit and are currently awaiting a ruling.

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

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

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

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

On June 15, 2018, an amended complaint was filed asserting the same
allegations against the same parties and adding McKesson
Medical-Surgical, Inc. as a defendant.

On November 30, 2018, the District Court granted defendants' motion
to dismiss and entered a final judgment, dismissing plaintiffs'
complaint with prejudice.

On December 27, 2018, plaintiffs appealed the District Court's
decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The parties
argued the appeal on September 27, 2019 and are currently awaiting
the Seventh Circuit's ruling.

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


HENRY SCHEIN: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Schein, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 28, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, In re Henry
Schein, Inc. Securities Litigation.

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

The complaint sought to certify a class consisting of all persons
and entities who, subject to certain exclusions, purchased Henry
Schein securities from March 7, 2013 through February 12, 2018 (the
"Class Period").

The complaint alleged, among other things, that the defendants had
made materially false and misleading statements about Henry
Schein's business, operations and prospects during the Class
Period, including matters relating to the issues in the antitrust
class action and the FTC action described above, thereby causing
the plaintiff and members of the purported class to pay
artificially inflated prices for Henry Schein securities.

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

Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint on
September 14, 2018. The consolidated class action complaint asserts
similar claims against the same defendants (plus Timothy Sullivan)
on behalf of the same putative class of purchasers during the Class
Period. It alleges that Henry Schein's stock price was inflated
during that period because Henry Schein had misleadingly portrayed
its dental-distribution business "as successfully producing
excellent profits while operating in a highly competitive
environment" even though, "in reality, (Henry Schein) had engaged
for years in collusive and anticompetitive practices in order to
maintain Schein's margins, profits, and market share."

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

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

On September 27, 2019, the court issued a decision partially
granting and partially denying defendants' motion to dismiss the
securities action. The court dismissed all claims against Messrs.
Bergman and Paladino as well as the Section 10(b) claim against
Henry Schein to the extent that that claim relied on the Company's
financial results and margins to allege a material misstatement or
omission, and on the Company's August 8, 2017 disclosure to allege
loss causation.

The court otherwise denied the motion as to Henry Schein and Mr.
Sullivan.

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

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

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


HERON THERAPEUTICS: Lead Plaintiffs, Counsel Named in Wong Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California has
appointed lead plaintiffs and their selected counsel with respect
to the purported federal securities class action complaint filed
against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer by Jimmy Wong, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated (the "Plaintiff"), according to Heron
Therapeutics, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 12, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2019.

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

The class action was filed on June 3, 2019 in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California (the "Complaint").

In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges certain violations of
federal securities laws in connection with the decline in market
value of the Company's securities following the Company's
announcement of its receipt of a CRL from the FDA regarding the NDA
for HTX-011.  The Plaintiff seeks class action certification,
damages in an unspecified amount, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, fees and costs and such other relief as the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California may deem
just and proper.

Heron Therapeutics said, "The Company intends to defend itself
vigorously in the case.  Due to the early stage of this proceeding,
we are not able to predict or reasonably estimate the outcome or
possible losses relating to this matter."

Heron Therapeutics, Inc., incorporated on February 5, 1987, is a
biotechnology company. The Company is engaged in developing
pharmaceutical products for patients suffering from cancer or pain.
The company is based in San Diego, California.


HERTZ GLOBAL: Bid to Appeal in Ramirez Class Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the plaintiffs in
the class action suit entitled, Pedro Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global
Holdings, Inc., et al., filed a motion to appeal the order of
denial on plaintiffs' motion for relief from judgment and motion to
allow the filling of a proposed fifth amended complaint.

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

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

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

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

On February 5, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking the
federal district court to exercise its discretion and allow the
plaintiffs to reinstate their claims to include additional
allegations from the administrative order agreed to by the SEC and
the Company in December 2018, which was supplemented by reference
to the Company's subsequently filed litigation against former
executives.

On September 30, 2019, the federal district court of New Jersey
denied the plaintiffs' motion for relief from the April 27, 2017
judgment and motion to allow the filing of a proposed fifth amended
complaint.

On October 30, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion to appeal the
order issued on September 30, 2019 by the federal district court of
New Jersey.

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


HILLS BANCORPORATION: Still Defends Overdraft Fees Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hills Bancorporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit related to overdraft fees
on debit card transactions.

On April 10, 2019, Hills Bank was sued in a class action lawsuit.
The lawsuit seeks class action status for customers who had paid
overdraft fees on debit card transactions that were authorized into
a positive account, but settled into a negative account.  

Plaintiff contends that these overdraft fees breached the terms of
Hills Bank's account documents.  

Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages for breach of
contract.  

The Bank disputes the merits of Plaintiff's claims and filed a
motion to dismiss the case, which the Court denied.  

Hills Bancorporation saids, "At this stage of the proceedings, it
is not possible for management of the Bank to determine the
probability of an adverse outcome or reasonably estimate the amount
of any potential loss."

Hills Bancorporation is a holding company principally engaged,
through its subsidiary bank, in the business of banking. The
company is based in Hills, Iowa.


ILLINOIS: Court Certifies Class of African American Children
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEMETRIA POWELL, as guardian ad litem and on behalf of
her son D.P. et al., the Plaintiffs, vs. The State of Illinois, et
al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06675 (N.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiff moves the Court for an order certifying a class of:

      "all African American children under the age of 18 who
      live in the City of Chicago and are: 1) disabled under the
      terms of the Americans with Disabilities Act on account of
      their exposure to gun violence; or 2) at risk of becoming
      disabled by their exposure to gun violence."

Illinois is a midwestern state bordering Indiana in the east and
the Mississippi River in the west. Nicknamed "the Prairie State,"
it's marked by farmland, forests, rolling hills and wetlands.
Chicago, one of the largest cities in the U.S, is in the northeast
on the shores of Lake Michigan.[CC]

Plaintiff's Attorneys are:

          Thomas H. Geoghegan, Esq.
          Michael P. Persoon, Esq.
          Will Bloom, Esq.
          DESPRES, SCHWARTZ & GEOGHEGAN, LTD.
          77 West Washington Street, Suite 711
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 372-2511

               - and -

          Thomas E. Johnson, Esq.
          JOHNSON, JONES, SNELLING, GILBERT & DAVIS
          36 S. Wabash Ave., Suite 1310
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 578-8100

INOGEN INC: Bid to Dismiss California Securities Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Inogen, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the motion to dismiss the
complaint in the case, In re Inogen, Inc. Sec. Litig., No.
2:19-cv-01643-FMO-AGR, is ongoing.

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

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

On May 20, 2019, the court issued an order consolidating the two
lawsuits under the name In re Inogen, Inc. Sec. Litig., No.
2:19-cv-01643-FMO-AGR, appointing Dr. John Vasil and Paragon Fund
Management as lead plaintiffs, and appointing Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as lead plaintiffs'
counsel.

On July 10, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between November 8, 2017 and May 7, 2019.

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

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

On August 30, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. A hearing on the defendants' motion is scheduled for
November 21, 2019.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these
allegations.

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


INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks to Dismiss Amended DeSmet Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit in New York entitled, Hou
Liu and Amy Fu v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

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

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

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

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

The alleged improper disclosures relate to statements regarding
Ocaliva dosing, use and pharmacovigilance-related matters, as well
as the Company's operations, financial performance and prospects.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the
putative class, an award of costs and expenses, including
attorney's fees, and rescissory damages.

On September 14, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

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

On December 1, 2017, a purported shareholder demand was made on the
Company based on substantially the same allegations as those set
forth in the securities case.

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

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

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


INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Jansen Class Action Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------
International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 4, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit
initiated by Marc Jansen.

On August 12, 2019, Marc Jansen filed a putative securities class
action against the company (IFF), its Chairman and CEO, and its
CFO, in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

The lawsuit, which was filed after IFF disclosed that preliminary
results of investigations indicated that Frutarom businesses
operating principally in Russia and Ukraine had made improper
payments to representatives of customers, alleges that defendants
made materially false and misleading statements or omissions
concerning IFF's acquisition of Frutarom, the integration of the
two companies, and IFF's financial reporting and results.

The lawsuit brings claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 against all defendants, and
under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against
the individual defendants, and was filed on behalf of a putative
class of persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
IFF securities between May 7, 2018 and August 5, 2019.

The complaint seeks an award of unspecified compensatory damages,
costs, and expenses. On October 11, 2019, four lead plaintiff
motions were filed. On October 24 and 25, 2019, two movants
withdrew their motions for appointment as lead plaintiff.  

On October 25, 2019, the other two movants filed oppositions to the
competing lead plaintiff motions.

International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. creates, manufactures, and
supplies flavors and fragrances for the food, beverage, personal
care, and household products industries. The Company's flavors and
fragrances are individual ingredients and compounds of a large
number of ingredients that are blended, mixed, and reacted together
to produce proprietary formulas. The company is based in New York,
New York.


INTERNATIONAL MONEY: In Talks over Settlement of Sawyer Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
International Money Express, Inc. has entered into a term sheet
providing the general terms for the settlement of the Stuart
Sawyer's putative class action related to alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019.

On May 30, 2019, Stuart Sawyer filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida asserting a claim under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, et seq., based on
allegations that since May 30, 2015, the Company had sent text
messages to class members' wireless telephones without their
consent.

At mediation held on October 7, 2019, the Company and the plaintiff
entered into a term sheet providing the general terms for the
settlement of the action, which is subject to memorialization in a
definitive agreement, and subsequent Court approval.

The terms of the settlement provide for resolution of Mr. Sawyer's
TCPA claims and the claims of a class of similarly situated
individuals, as defined in the complaint, who received text
messages from the Company during the period May 30, 2015 through
October 7, 2019, and for the creation of a US$3.25 million
settlement fund that will be used to pay all class member claims,
class counsel's fees and the costs of administering the
settlement.

The Company said, "The settlement amount of approximately US$3.3
million and related legal expenses of US$0.1 million are included
in accrued and other liabilities in the condensed consolidated
balance sheet as of September 30, 2019 and other selling, general
and administrative expenses in the condensed consolidated
statements of operations and comprehensive income (loss) for both
the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2019."

International Money Express, Inc., through its subsidiary, operates
as a money remittance services company in the United States, Latin
America, Mexico, Central and South America, and the Caribbean. The
company offers remittance services, including a suite of ancillary
financial processing solutions and payment services. It provides
services through sending and paying agents and company-operated
stores, as well as through online and Internet-enabled mobile
devices. The company was formerly known as FinTech Acquisition
Corp. II. International Money Express, Inc. is headquartered in
Miami, Florida.


INTERSECT ENT: Lead Plaintiff Appointed in Yaron Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Intersect ENT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that a lead plaintiff
has been named in the class action suit entitled, Yaron v.
Intersect ENT, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-02647

In May 2019, a purported stockholder of the Company, Avi Yaron,
filed a putative class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled
Yaron v. Intersect ENT, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-02647,
against the Company and certain individual officers and directors
alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that the Company and the individual officers
made false and/or misleading statements about the Company's
business and seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

On July 15, 2019, the purported stockholder filed a motion to be
appointed lead plaintiff. The court granted the motion appointing
lead plaintiff on September 24, 2019 and the court has set the
schedule for the initial motions and pleadings in this case.

The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against it.

Intersect said, "As of September 30, 2019, the Company has not
recorded a contingent liability associated with this lawsuit, as
the Company has not determined that a loss is probable. In
addition, any possible loss or range of loss, cannot be reasonably
estimated at this time."

Intersect ENT, Inc., incorporated on October 6, 2003, is a
commercial-stage drug-device company. The Company develops drugs
for patients with ear, nose and throat (ENT) conditions. The
company is based in Menlo Park, California.


J&W GRADING: Brown, et al. Seek to Certify Class of Laborers
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Michael Brown, Jr., Nathan
Cole, Aaron Floyd, Brandon Horton, Eric Moore, Gregory Seal, John
Wilterding, Manny Rivera, Richard Padilla, Dan Vischansky, Neal
Nida, Brent Reed, Kevin Shofner, Shaun Stockton, Michael Wade
Yearby, Kyran Adams, Cody Piper, John Gable, Donna Turbville,
individually, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. J&W Grading, Inc., Migo IQ, Inc.,
Radar_Apps, Inc., ECO IQ LLC, Cloud IQ, LLC, Synergy LLC, Mojo
Transport, LLC, Ronnie Guthrie, Jonathon Kotthoff, Carol Leese,
Jason Neilitz; Ivelisse Estrada Rivero; and DOES 1-100, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01263-WGY (D.P.R.), the Plaintiffs
move the Court to certify a Puerto Rico State Law Class consisting
of:

   "all current and former general laborers who are or have been
   employed by Defendants in Puerto Rico engaged in clean-up
   efforts after Hurricane Maria and who worked more than eight
   hours during any period of twenty-four consecutive hours
   during the period of September 2017 through filing this
   Complaint who were not paid for all hours worked and did not
   receive overtime compensation."

The Representative Class Plaintiffs contend they and other Class
Members are entitled to all unpaid wages and unpaid overtime, plus
interest, liquidated damages, costs, and fees, and penalties as
allowed for Defendants' violations of the Puerto Rico Wage Payment
Statute, 29 L.P.R.A. sections 250 et seq. and 271 et seq.

They further contend they are entitled to unpaid per diem payments.
The subclass of Equipment Plaintiffs contend they are entitled to
recovery for the use of their equipment as well as all loss and
damage to such equipment.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Putative Class Members are:

          Enrique J. Mendoza-Mendez, Esq.
          MENDOZA LAW OFFICES
          San Juan, PR 00908
          Telephone: (787) 722-5522
          E-mail: mendozalo@yahoo.com

               - and -

          L. Michelle Gessner, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHELLE GESSNER, PLLC
          435 East Morehead Street
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 234-7442
          E-mail: michelle@mgessnerlaw.com

JELD-WEN HOLDING: Must Face Interior Molded Antitrust Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the motion to
dismiss filed in the class action suit entitled, In Re: Interior
Molded Doors Antitrust Litigation, has been denied.

On October 19, 2018, Grubb Lumber Company, on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated, filed a putative class action lawsuit
against us and one of our competitors in the doors market, Masonite
Corporation ("Masonite"), in the Eastern District of Virginia. The
company subsequently received additional complaints from and on
behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of interior molded doors.


The suits have been consolidated into two separate actions, a
Direct Purchaser Action and an Indirect Purchaser Action.

The suits allege that Masonite and the company violated Section 1
of the Sherman Act, and in the Indirect Purchaser Action, related
state law antitrust and consumer protection laws, by engaging in a
scheme to artificially raise, fix, maintain or stabilize the prices
of interior molded doors in the United States.

The complaints seek unquantified ordinary and treble damages,
declaratory relief, interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

The Company believes the claims lack merit and intends to
vigorously defend against the actions.

On September 18, 2019, the court denied the defendants' motions to
dismiss the lawsuits in their entirety and granted the defendants'
motions to dismiss various state law claims and to limit all claims
to a four-year statute of limitations.

As a result, the plaintiffs' damages period is limited to the
four-year period between 2014 and 2018.

JELD-WEN Holding said, "At this early stage of the proceedings, we
are unable to conclude that a loss is probable or to estimate the
potential magnitude of any loss in the matters, although a loss
could have a material adverse effect on our operating results,
consolidated financial position or cash flows."

JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. manufactures and sells doors and windows
primarily in North America, Europe, and Australasia. The company
was founded in 1960 and is headquartered in Charlotte, North
Carolina.


KINGSTONE COMPANIES: Still Faces Woolgar Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kingstone Companies, Inc. continues to defend itself in a putative
class action captioned Woolgar v. Kingstone Companies et al., 19 cv
05500 (S.D.N.Y.), according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019.

On June 12, 2019, Phillip Woolgar filed a suit naming the Company
and certain present or former officers and directors as defendants
in a putative class action captioned Woolgar v. Kingstone Companies
et al., 19 cv 05500 (S.D.N.Y.), asserting claims under Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons or entities that
purchased Kingstone securities between March 14, 2018, and April
29, 2019, and alleges violations of the federal securities law in
connection with the Company's April 29, 2019 announcement regarding
losses related to winter catastrophe events.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company failed to disclose that it did
not adequately follow industry best practices related to claims
handling and thus did not record sufficient claim reserves, and
that as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations and prospects misled investors.

Plaintiff seeks, among other things, an undetermined amount of
money damages.

Kingstone Companies said, "The Company believes the lawsuit to be
without merit.  The Company has not established an accrual for this
matter as a loss is not considered to be probable and reasonably
estimable.  It is the opinion of management that facts known at the
present time do not indicate that such litigation will have a
material adverse impact on the Company's results of operations,
financial position, or cash flows."

Kingstone Companies, Inc., through its subsidiary, Kingstone
Insurance Company, underwrites property and casualty insurance
products to small businesses and individuals in New York. The
company was formerly known as DCAP Group, Inc. and changed its name
to Kingstone Companies, Inc. in July 2009. Kingstone Companies,
Inc. was founded in 1886 and is headquartered in Kingston, New
York.


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Bid to Dismiss Veal Class Action Granted
----------------------------------------------------------
LendingClub Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the Court in Veal
v. LendingClub Corporation et.al., No. 5:18-cv-02599, has issued a
written order granting defendants' motions to dismiss with leave to
amend.

In May 2018, following the announcement of the Federal Trade
Commission's FTC's litigation against the Company, putative
shareholder class action litigation was filed in the U.S. District
Court of the Northern District of California (Veal v. LendingClub
Corporation et.al., No. 5:18-cv-02599) against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors alleging
violations of federal securities laws in connection with the
Company's description of fees and compliance with federal privacy
law in securities filings. The Court appointed lead plaintiffs and
lead counsel for the litigation in November 2018.

On January 7, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended class action complaint which asserts the same causes of
action as the original complaint and adds additional allegations.

On March 8, 2019, the Company and the individual defendants in the
case filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended class action
complaint. A hearing on these motions was held on September 26,
2019.

On November 4, 2019, the Court issued a written order granting
defendants' motions to dismiss with leave to amend. Any amended
complaint must be filed by December 19, 2019.

This lawsuit is in the early stages. The Company denies and will
vigorously defend against the allegations. No assurances can be
given as to the timing, outcome or consequences of this matter.

LendingClub Corporation operates an online lending marketplace
platform that connects borrowers and investors in the United
States. The company's marketplace facilitates various types of loan
products for consumers and small businesses, including unsecured
personal loans, unsecured education and patient installment loans,
auto refinance loans, and small business loans. It also enables
investors to invest in a range of loans based on term and credit.
The company was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in San
Francisco, California.


LIVENT CORP: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
Livent Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend class action suit entitled, In re Livent
Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 2019-0501229.

Beginning on May 13, 2019, purported stockholders of the Company
filed putative class action complaints in the Pennsylvania Court of
Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, and in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in connection with the
Company's October 2018 initial public offering (IPO).

On August 20, 2019, the actions then pending in federal court were
consolidated under the caption, Nikolov v. Livent Corp., et al.,
No. 19-cv-02218.

In an order entered on September 23, 2019, the actions then pending
in state court were consolidated under the caption, In re Livent
Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 2019-0501229.

The operative complaints in both actions assert claims against the
Company and certain of its current and former executives and
directors.

The complaints also name as defendants the underwriters in the IPO
and FMC Corporation, whom the Company is generally obligated to
indemnify. The complaints allege generally that the offering
documents for the IPO failed to adequately disclose certain
information related to Livent's business and prospects, in
purported violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act.

The complaints seek unspecified damages and other relief on behalf
of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Livent common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO offering
documents.

On October 11, 2019, defendants filed preliminary objections in the
state court seeking to dismiss that action in its entirety.
Defendants have until November 18, 2019, to move to dismiss the
federal action.

Livent said, "At this point, a range of reasonably possible losses,
if any, cannot be estimated by the Company."

Livent Corporation is a lithium company. The Company is focused on
producing performance lithium compounds. Its primary products
include battery-grade lithium hydroxide, butyllithium and high
purity lithium metal. Its produces lithium compounds for use in
applications that have specific performance requirements, including
battery-grade lithium hydroxide for use in high performance
lithium-ion batteries. The company is based in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Jan. 17 Final Hearing to Approve Kramer Accord
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that a
hearing to consider final approval of the settlement in the class
action suit initiated by Robert J. Kramer has been set for January
17, 2020.  

In November 2017, Robert J. Kramer, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated filed a purported class action lawsuit in
the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento on behalf of
all current and former store managers, all others with similar job
functions and/or titles and all current and former employees
classified as non-exempt or incorrectly classified as exempt and
who worked for the Company in the State of California
(collectively, the "CSM Employees") alleging violation of the
California Labor Code including, among other items, failure to pay
wages and overtime and engaging in unfair business practices.

In September 2019, the Company entered into an agreement to settle
the Kramer matter, consistent with the terms of the Memorandum of
Understanding previously disclosed by the Company. Under the terms
of the settlement agreement, the Company will pay $4.75 million to
settle the claims asserted in the Kramer matter (or which could
have been asserted in the Kramer matter) on behalf of all current
and/or former Store Managers and Store Managers in Training
employed by the Company in California at any time between November
17, 2013 and September 19, 2019.  

The settlement agreement was preliminarily approved by the court on
September 19, 2019 and a hearing for final approval has been set
for January 17, 2020.  

The settlement agreement is subject to certain contingencies,
including court approval.

Lumber Liquidators said, "There can be no assurance that a
settlement will be finalized and approved by the court or as to the
ultimate outcome of the litigation. If the settlement agreement is
not approved by the court, the Company will defend the matter
vigorously and believes there are meritorious defenses and legal
standards that must be met for, among other things, class
certification and success on the merits. If the settlement
agreement is not approved by the court, the Kramer matter could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition
and results of operations. The Company accrued within SG&A a $4.75
million liability with the offset in the caption "Accrual for Legal
Matters and Settlements Current" in the second quarter of 2019.

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface
flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories.
The company also offers its products through its Website, catalogs,
and call center. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in
1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Mason Suit Wins Conditional Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that a
conditional certification of a Nationwide Collective Class was
granted in a class action suit initiated by Ashleigh Mason.

In August  2017, Ashleigh Mason, Dan Morse, Ryan Carroll and Osagie
Ehigie filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of
all current and former store managers, store managers in training,
installation sales managers and similarly situated current and
former employees alleging that the Company violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law by classifying the Mason
Putative Class Employees as exempt.

The alleged violations include failure to pay for overtime work.

The plaintiffs sought certification of the Mason Putative Class
Employees for (i) a collective action covering the period beginning
three years prior to the filing of the complaint (plus a tolling
period) through the disposition of this action for the Mason
Putative Class Employees nationwide in connection with FLSA and
(ii) a class action covering the period beginning six years prior
to the filing of the complaint (plus a tolling period) through the
disposition of this action for members of the Mason Putative Class
Employees who currently are or were employed in New York in
connection with NYLL.

The plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages but, in
addition to attorneys' fees and costs, the plaintiffs seek class
certification, unspecified amounts for unpaid wages and overtime
wages, liquidated and/or punitive damages, declaratory relief,
restitution, statutory penalties, injunctive relief and other
damages.

The Company disputes the claims and is defending the Mason matter
vigorously.  

In March and April 2019, the Company offered arbitration agreements
to the store managers nationwide, which were agreed to by some
Mason Putative Class Employees.    

Conditional certification of a Nationwide Collective Class was
granted in May 2019. The Company continues to defend that matter
vigorously through discovery to oppose final certification.  

Lumber Liquidators said, "Given the general uncertainty of
litigation, the legal standards that must be met for final
certification, and success on the merits, the Company cannot
reasonably estimate the amount of loss, or range of possible loss,
if any, that may result from this action.  Accordingly, no accruals
have been made with respect to the Mason matter. Any such losses
could potentially have a material adverse effect, individually or
collectively, on the Company’s results of operations, financial
condition, and liquidity."

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface
flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories.
The company also offers its products through its Website, catalogs,
and call center. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in
1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Settlement in Gold Suit Awaits Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the
settlement in the class action suit initiated by Dana Gold still
awaits court approval and the Company has not recognized any
insurance recovery related to the Gold Litigation.

In 2014, Dana Gold  filed a purported class action lawsuit alleging
that certain bamboo flooring that the Company sells (the "Strand
Bamboo Product") is defective (the "Gold Litigation"). The
plaintiffs sought financial damages and, in addition to attorneys'
fees and costs, the plaintiffs wanted a declaration that the
Company's actions violated the law.

On September 30, 2019, the parties finalized a settlement agreement
that is consistent with the terms of the Memorandum of
Understanding previously disclosed by the Company, which would
resolve the Gold Litigation on a nationwide basis.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company will
contribute $14 million in cash and provide $14 million in
store-credit vouchers, with a potential additional $2 million in
store-credit vouchers based on obtaining a claim's percentage of
more than 7%, for an aggregate settlement of up to $30 million. The
settlement agreement is subject to certain contingencies, including
court approvals.

The settlement agreement does not constitute or include an
admission by the Company of any fault or liability and the Company
does not admit any fault, wrongdoing or liability. There can be no
assurance that a settlement will be finalized and approved by the
court or as to the ultimate outcome of the litigation.

If the settlement agreement is not approved by the court, the
Company will defend the matter vigorously and believes there are
meritorious defenses and legal standards that must be met for,
among other things, success on the merits.

The Company accrued within SG&A a $28 million liability with the
offset in the caption "Accrual for Legal Matters and Settlements
Current" in its December 31, 2018 financial statements.

The Company has notified its insurance carriers and continues to
pursue coverage, but the insurers to date have denied coverage. As
the insurance claim is still pending, the Company has not
recognized any insurance recovery related to the Gold Litigation.

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface
flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories.
The company also offers its products through its Website, catalogs,
and call center. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in
1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia.

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Steele Class Action in Canada Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the
company continues to defend a class action lawsuit in Canada
initiated by Sarah Steele.

On or about April 1, 2015, Sarah Steele filed a purported class
action lawsuit in the Ontario, Canada Superior Court of Justice
against the Company.

In the complaint, Steele’s allegations include strict liability,
breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose,
breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraud by
concealment, civil negligence, negligent misrepresentation and
breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Steele
did not quantify any alleged damages in her complaint, but seeks
compensatory damages, punitive, exemplary and aggravated damages,
statutory remedies, attorneys' fees and costs.

Lumber Liquidators said, "While the Company believes that a loss
associated with the Steele litigation is possible, the Company is
unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of possible
loss."

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

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface
flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories.
The company also offers its products through its Website, catalogs,
and call center. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in
1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia.


MAKITA USA: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Guglielmo Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH GUGLIELMO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAKITA U.S.A., INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-10394 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2019), arises from the Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site 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 Web
site--http://www.makitatools.com/--and,therefore, denial of its
goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of his rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the Plaintiff
contends. He adds that because the Defendant's Web site is not
equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it
violates the ADA.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires screen-reading software to read Web site content using his
computer. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its Web site will become and remain accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

Makita U.S.A., Inc. engineers and manufactures power tools. The
Company designs drills, drivers, wrenches, saws, sanders, vacuums,
blowers, grinders, polishers, planers, routers, and other related
power tools products and accessories. Makita offers its products
and solutions to the professional trade industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Russel Weinrib, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: rweinrib@steinsakslegal.com


MALLINCKRODT PLC: 2,315 Suits Filed Over Opioid Sales at Nov. 5
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that as of November 5,
2019, the Company is aware of approximately 2,315 cases related to
Opioid sales.

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

As of November 5, 2019, the cases the Company is aware of include,
but are not limited to, approximately 2,315 cases filed by
counties, cities, Native American tribes and/or other
government-related persons or entities; approximately 207 cases
filed by hospitals, health systems, unions, health and welfare
funds or other third-party payers; approximately 104 cases filed by
individuals and 14 cases filed by the Attorneys General for New
Mexico, Kentucky, Rhode Island, Georgia, Florida, Alaska, New York,
Hawaii, Nevada, South Dakota, New Hampshire, Illinois, and Idaho,
with Idaho being the only state Attorney General to file in federal
as opposed to state court.

As of November 5, 2019, the Mallinckrodt defendants in these cases
consist of Mallinckrodt plc and the following subsidiaries of
Mallinckrodt plc: Mallinckrodt Enterprises LLC, Mallinckrodt LLC,
SpecGx LLC, Mallinckrodt Brand Pharmaceuticals Inc., Mallinckrodt
Inc., MNK 2011 Inc., and Mallinckrodt Enterprises Holdings, Inc.

On September 12, 2019, the Attorney General for Ohio filed a motion
in the Common Pleas Court of Ross County, Ohio to amend its
complaint to add certain entities of the Company, but the court has
not yet ruled on that motion. Certain of the lawsuits have been
filed as putative class actions.

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

The MDL court has issued a series of case management orders
permitting motion practice addressing threshold legal issues in
certain cases, allowing discovery, setting pre-trial deadlines and
setting a trial date on October 21, 2019 for two cases originally
filed in the Northern District of Ohio by Summit County and
Cuyahoga County against opioid manufacturers, distributors, and
pharmacies ("Track 1 Cases").

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

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

On September 30, 2019, the Company announced that Mallinckrodt plc,
along with its wholly owned subsidiaries Mallinckrodt LLC and
SpecGx LLC, had executed a definitive settlement agreement and
release with Cuyahoga and Summit Counties in Ohio. The settlement
fully resolves the Track 1 cases against all named Mallinckrodt
entities that were scheduled to go to trial in October 2019 in the
MDL. Under the agreement, the Company paid $24.0 million in cash on
October 1, 2019.  

In addition, the Company will provide $6.0 million in generic
products, including addiction treatment products, and will also
provide a $0.5 million payment in two years in recognition of the
counties' time and expenses.

Further in the event of a comprehensive resolution of
government-related opioid claims, the Company has agreed that the
two plaintiff counties will receive the value they would have
received under such a resolution, less the payments described
above. All named Mallinckrodt entities were dismissed with
prejudice from the lawsuit. The value of the settlement should not
be extrapolated to any other opioid-related cases or claims.

On October 21, 2019, the MDL court issued a Stipulated Dismissal
Order dismissing the claims against the remaining manufacturers and
distributors pursuant to a settlement agreement, and severing the
claims against the remaining pharmacy defendant to be heard in a
subsequent trial.

A hearing is scheduled for November 6, 2019 to discuss the next
steps in the MDL, including potential remand of certain cases and
which defendants will be included in subsequent trials.

Other lawsuits remain pending in various state courts. In some
jurisdictions, such as California, Connecticut, Illinois,
Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas and
West Virginia, certain of the 224 state lawsuits have been
coordinated for pre-trial proceedings before a single court within
their respective state court systems. State cases are generally at
the pleading and/or discovery stage.

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

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

The Company will continue to vigorously defend itself against all
of these lawsuits as detailed above and similar lawsuits that may
be brought by others.

The Company has been in discussions with certain plaintiffs in
other pending opioid lawsuits and is likely to have further
discussions and/or enter into additional discussions with other
parties in connection with opioid lawsuits.

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


MALLINCKRODT PLC: City of Rockford Class Suit Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, City of Rockford
v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al.

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

The case is captioned City of Rockford v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc.,
et al. The complaint was subsequently amended to, among other
things, include an additional named plaintiff and additional
defendants.

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

Plaintiff alleges violations of federal antitrust and RICO laws, as
well as various state law claims in connection with the
distribution and sale of Acthar Gel.

On January 22, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint, which was granted in part on January 25,
2019, dismissing one of two named plaintiffs and all claims with
the exception of Plaintiff's federal and state antitrust claims.

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

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

The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend itself in this
matter.

Mallinckrodt said, "At this stage, the Company is not able to
reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any
loss associated with this lawsuit."

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

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


MALLINCKRODT PLC: Continues to Defend Strougo Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Barbara
Strougo v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al.

On July 26, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company, its CEO Mark Trudeau, its CFO Bryan M. Reasons, its
former Interim CFO George A. Kegler and its former CFO Matthew K.
Harbaugh, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, captioned Barbara Strougo v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Mallinckrodt's securities between
February 28, 2018 and July 16, 2019.

The lawsuit generally alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder related to
the Company's clinical study designed to assess the efficacy and
safety of its Acthar Gel in patients with amyotrophic lateral
sclerosis.  

The lawsuit seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount.

Mallinckrodt said, "The Company intends to vigorously defend itself
in this matter."

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

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


MALLINCKRODT PLC: Solomon Suit Awaits Resolution of Shenk Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the case, Solomon
v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al., remains stayed pending resolution of
the Patricia A. Shenk v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al.

On July 20, 2017, a purported purchaser of Mallinckrodt stock
through Mallinckrodt's Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPPs), filed
a derivative lawsuit in the Federal District Court in the Eastern
District of Missouri, captioned Solomon v. Mallinckrodt plc, et
al., against the Company, its CEO Mark C. Trudeau, its former CFO
Matthew K. Harbaugh, its Controller Kathleen A. Schaefer, and
current and former directors of the Company.

On September 6, 2017, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its complaint
in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
and refiled virtually the same complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Mallinckrodt stock between November
25, 2014, and January 18, 2017, through the ESPPs.

In the alternative, the plaintiff alleges a class action for those
same purchasers/acquirers of stock in the ESPPs during the same
period.

The complaint asserts claims under Section 11 of the Securities
Act, and for breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentation,
non-disclosure, mismanagement of the ESPPs' assets and breach of
contract arising from substantially similar allegations as those
contained in the putative class action securities litigation
described in the Shenk lawsuit below. Stipulated co-lead plaintiffs
were approved by the court on March 1, 2018.

Co-lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 4, 2018
having a class period of July 14, 2014 to November 6, 2017. On July
6, 2018, this matter was stayed by agreement of the parties pending
resolution of the Patricia A. Shenk v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al.
lawsuit.

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

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


MALLINCKRODT PLC: Still Defends Consolidated Class Suit in D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated class action suit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.  

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

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

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

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

On January 26, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit,
captioned Jyotindra Patel v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al. was filed
against the same defendants named in the Shenk lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia. The Patel complaint
purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders during the same
period of time as that set forth in the Shenk lawsuit and asserts
claims similar to those set forth in the Shenk lawsuit.

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

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

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

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

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

Since that time, two of the plaintiff groups have withdrawn their
motions. Lead plaintiff was designated by the court on March 9,
2018. Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on May 18,
2018, alleging a class period from July 14, 2014 to November 6,
2017, the Company, its CEO, its former CFO, and Executive Vice
President, Hugh O'Neill, as defendants, and containing similar
claims, but further alleging misstatements regarding payer
reimbursement restrictions for Acthar Gel.

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

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

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


MAMMOTH ENERGY: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that it is facing a consolidated
securities class action suit in Oklahoma.

In June 2019 and August 2019, the Company was served with three
class action lawsuits filed in the Western District of Oklahoma,
which were later consolidated into a single class action, alleging
that several of the Company's filings with the SEC contained
material misrepresentations and omissions in violation of federal
securities laws.

Mammoth Energy said, "The Company believes these claims are without
merit and will vigorously defend the actions.  However, the Company
continues to evaluate the background facts and at this time is not
able to predict the outcome of these lawsuits or whether they will
have a material impact on the Company's financial position, results
of operations or cash flows."

Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. operates as an integrated oilfield
service company. The Company operates in four segments: Pressure
Pumping Services, Infrastructure Services, Natural Sand Proppant
Services, and Contract Land and Directional Drilling Services. It
was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.


MAMMOTH ENERGY: Still Faces Putative Class Action in Puerto Rico
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. still faces a putative class action
lawsuit related to an electrical failure in Puerto Rico, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2019.

On June 27, 2018, the Company's registered agent notified the
Company that it had been served with a putative class action
lawsuit titled Wendco of Puerto Rico Inc.; Multisystem Restaurant
Inc.; Restaurant Operators Inc.; Apple Caribe, Inc.; on their own
behalf and in representation of all businesses that conduct
business in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico vs. Mammoth Energy
Services Inc.; Cobra Acquisitions, LLC; D. Grimm Puerto Rico, LLC;
Aseguradoras A, B & C; John Doe; Richard Doe, in the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico Superior Court of San Juan.

The plaintiffs allege negligent acts by the defendants caused an
electrical failure in Puerto Rico resulting in damages of at least
US$300 million.

Mammoth Energy said, "The Company believes this claim is without
merit and will vigorously defend the action.  However, the Company
continues to evaluate the background facts and at this time is not
able to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or whether it will have
a material impact on the Company's financial position, results of
operations or cash flows."

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

Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. operates as an integrated oilfield
service company. The Company operates in four segments: Pressure
Pumping Services, Infrastructure Services, Natural Sand Proppant
Services, and Contract Land and Directional Drilling Services. It
was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.


MAMMOTH ENERGY: Zeisset Class Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that proceedings in Matthew
Zeisset, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated vs. Higher Power Electrical, LLC, Cobra Acquisitions LLC,
and Cobra Energy, LLC (formerly Christopher Williams, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. Higher Power
Electrical, LLC, Cobra Acquisitions LLC, and Cobra Energy, LLC),
has been stayed pending completion of the arbitration proceedings
involving Mr. Zeisset and all opt-in plaintiffs.

On April 16, 2019, a putative class and collective action lawsuit
alleging that the Company failed to pay a class of workers overtime
in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act and Puerto Rico law
was filed titled Christopher Williams, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated vs. Higher Power Electrical, LLC,
Cobra Acquisitions LLC and Cobra Energy LLC in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Puerto Rico.

On June 24, 2019, the complaint was amended to replace Mr. Williams
with Matthew Zeisset, another former Higher Power employee, as the
named plaintiff.

On July 8, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss Mr. Zeisset's
claims and compel them to arbitration on an individual basis.

On August 21, 2019, upon request of the parties, the court stayed
proceedings in the lawsuit pending completion of the arbitration
proceedings involving Mr. Zeisset and all opt-in plaintiffs.  The
plaintiff and additional claimants subsequently initiated
individual arbitration proceedings which are pending the selection
of arbitrators.

In a similar matter, in April 2019, the Company received a demand
for arbitration from seven individual claimants alleging the
Company failed to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Puerto Rico law.  Other claimants have
subsequently initiated individual arbitration proceedings as well.

Mammoth Energy said, "The Company is evaluating the background
facts of these matters and at this time is not able to predict the
outcome of these proceedings or whether they will have a material
impact on the Company's financial position, results of operations
or cash flows."

Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. operates as an integrated oilfield
service company. The Company operates in four segments: Pressure
Pumping Services, Infrastructure Services, Natural Sand Proppant
Services, and Contract Land and Directional Drilling Services. It
was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.


MARRIOTT INT'L: Continues to Defend Suits over Data Theft
---------------------------------------------------------
Marriott International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend lawsuits related to data security incident.

On November 30, 2018, the company announced a data security
incident involving unauthorized access to the Starwood reservations
database.

Working with leading security experts, the company determines that
there was unauthorized access to the Starwood network since 2014
and that an unauthorized party had copied information from the
Starwood reservations database and taken steps towards removing it.
While the company's forensic review of the incident is now
complete, certain data analytics work continues. The Starwood
reservations database is no longer used for business operations.

Following the company's announcement of the Data Security Incident,
approximately 100 lawsuits were filed by consumers and others
against the company in U.S. federal, U.S. state and Canadian courts
related to the incident.

All of the U.S. cases have been consolidated and transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, pursuant to
orders of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(MDL).

The plaintiffs in the U.S. and Canadian cases, who generally
purport to represent various classes of consumers or other
individuals, generally claim to have been harmed by alleged actions
and/or omissions by the Company in connection with the Data
Security Incident and assert a variety of common law and statutory
claims seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs and
attorneys' fees, and other related relief.

Among the U.S. cases consolidated in the MDL proceeding is a
putative class action lawsuit that was filed against the company
and certain of its current officers and directors on December 1,
2018, alleging violations of the federal securities laws in
connection with statements regarding the company's cybersecurity
systems and controls, and seeking certification of a class of
affected persons, unspecified monetary damages, costs and
attorneys' fees, and other related relief.

The MDL proceeding also includes two shareholder derivative
complaints that were filed on February 26, 2019 and March 15, 2019,
respectively, against the Company, certain of its officers and
certain of the members of the company's Board of Directors,
alleging, among other claims, breach of fiduciary duty, corporate
waste, unjust enrichment, mismanagement and violations of the
federal securities laws, and seeking unspecified monetary damages
and restitution, changes to the Company's corporate governance and
internal procedures, costs and attorneys' fees, and other related
relief.

The company disputes the allegations in the lawsuits described
above and intend to defend vigorously against such claims. The
company have filed motions to dismiss several of the cases covered
by the MDL proceeding, but the cases generally remain at an early
stage.

Marriott International said, "There has been some consolidation of
the Canadian cases, with seven cases now pending across five
provinces, and we expect there could be further consolidation in
the future.
In addition, in April 2019, we received a letter purportedly on
behalf of a shareholder of the Company (also one of the named
plaintiffs in the putative securities class action described above)
demanding that our Board of Directors take action against the
Company's current and certain former officers and directors to
recover damages for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and
related claims arising from the Data Security Incident. The Board
of Directors has constituted a demand review committee to
investigate the claims made in the demand letter, and the committee
has retained independent counsel to assist with the investigation.
The committee's investigation is ongoing."

Marriott International, Inc., incorporated on September 19, 1997,
is a lodging company. As of December 31, 2017, the Company
operated, franchised, or licensed 6,520 properties across the
world, with 1,257,666 rooms. Marriott International operates in
three business segments: North American Full-Service, North
American Limited-Service and International. The company is based in
Bethesda, Maryland.


MASIMO CORP: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in PHI Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Physicians Healthsource,
Inc., the Plaintiff, vs. Masimo Corporation, et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 8:14-cv-00001-JVS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge James V. Selna entered an order:

   1. granting a motion to strike the Robert Biggerstaff
      Declaration;

   2. granting Masimos's motion to exclude Mr. Biggerstaff's
      opinion;

   3. denying a motion for class certification of:

      "all persons or entities who were successfully sent one
      or more faxes on or after four years prior to the filing
      of this action that mention the availability or quality
      of Defendants' property, goods, or services, including
      but not limited to faxes stating: (1) "Go from OW! To WOW!,
      Noninvasive & Quick HEMOGLOBIN," sent on or about October
      12, 2011; and (2) "Go from OW! To WOW!, A New Solution for
      Noninvasive Spot Checking Hemoglobin," sent on or about
      April 10, 2012"; and

   4. grating in part and denying in part Masimo's motion for
      summary judgment.

The Court defers ruling on Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary
Judgment.[CC]

MCDERMOTT INT'L: Consolidated Texas Class Action Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
McDermott International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated class action suit pending before
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

On November 15, 2018, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas seeking class
action status on behalf of purchasers of McDermott common stock and
alleging damages on their behalf arising from allegedly false and
misleading statements made during the class period from January 24,
2018 to October 30, 2018.

The case is captioned: Edwards v. McDermott International, Inc., et
al., No. 4:18-cv-04330.

The defendants in the case are McDermott; David Dickson, the
company's president and chief executive officer; and Stuart Spence,
the company's chief financial officer.

The plaintiff has alleged that the defendants made material
misrepresentations and omissions about the integration of the CB&I
business, certain CB&I projects and their fair values, and our
business, prospects and operations. The plaintiff asserts claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
thereunder.

On January 14, 2019, a related action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas seeking
class action status on behalf of all shareholders of McDermott
common stock as of April 4, 2018 who had the right to vote on the
Combination, captioned: The Public Employees Retirement System of
Mississippi v. McDermott International, Inc., et al., No.
4:19-cv-00135.

The plaintiff has alleged the defendants (which include the
company's chief executive officer and chief financial officer) made
material misrepresentations and omissions in the proxy statement
the company used in connection with the Combination. The plaintiff
asserted claims under Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.


The company filed a motion to consolidate the two actions, and the
court granted that motion on February 22, 2019.

The court appointed lead plaintiffs in both actions on June 5,
2019. The plaintiffs subsequently filed amended pleadings, and the
company plans to file motions to dismiss all of the claims.

McDermott said, "We are not able at this time to determine the
likelihood of loss, if any, arising from these matters and,
accordingly, no amounts have been accrued as of September 30, 2019.
We believe the claims are without merit and we intend to defend
against them vigorously".

McDermott International, Inc. provides engineering, procurement,
construction and installation, and technology solutions to the
energy industry worldwide. It operates through five segments:
North, Central and South America; Europe, Africa, Russia and
Caspian; the Middle East and North Africa; Asia Pacific; and
Technology. McDermott International, Inc. was founded in 1923 and
is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


MDL 2492: Gaddis Suit v. NCAA Over Health Issues Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled VERSIE GADDIS, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, and THE BIG TEN CONFERENCE INC., Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-02792 (Filed July 8, 2019), was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago)
on Nov. 7, 2019.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-07334 to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent P. Circelli, Esq.
          CIRCELLI WALTER & YOUNG PLLC
          500 East 4th St., Suite 250
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (682) 703-2019
          E-mail: vinny@cwylaw.com

NCAA is represented by:

          Mark Steven Mester, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          330 N. Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (312) 876-7700
          E-mail: mark.mester@lw.com


MDL 2492: Hill Suit v. NCAA Over Health Issues Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ADRIAN HILL, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, and MOUNTAIN WEST CONFERENCE, Defendants,
Case No.  1:19-cv-02807 (Filed July 9, 2019), was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago)
on Nov. 8, 2019.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-07335 to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent P. Circelli, Esq.
          CIRCELLI WALTER & YOUNG PLLC
          500 East 4th St., Suite 250
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (682) 703-2019
          E-mail: vinny@cwylaw.com

NCAA is represented by:

          Mark Steven Mester, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          330 N. Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (312) 876-7700
          E-mail: mark.mester@lw.com


MDL 2492: Johnson Suit v. NCAA Over Health Issues Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled AARON TIMOTHY JOHNSON, individually and on behalf
of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL
COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, and SOUTHWESTERN ATHLETIC
CONFERENCE, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02810 (Filed July 9,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Nov. 8, 2019.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-07336 to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent P. Circelli, Esq.
          CIRCELLI WALTER & YOUNG PLLC
          500 East 4th St., Suite 250
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (682) 703-2019
          E-mail: vinny@cwylaw.com

NCAA is represented by:

          Mark Steven Mester, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          330 N. Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (312) 876-7700
          E-mail: mark.mester@lw.com


MDL 2492: Oubre Suit v. NCAA Over Health Issues Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LOUIS OUBRE III, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02812 (Filed July
9, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Nov. 8, 2019.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-07341 to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent P. Circelli, Esq.
          CIRCELLI WALTER & YOUNG PLLC
          500 East 4th St., Suite 250
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (682) 703-2019
          E-mail: vinny@cwylaw.com

NCAA is represented by:

          Mark Steven Mester, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          330 N. Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (312) 876-7700
          E-mail: mark.mester@lw.com


MDL 2492: Redd Suit v. NCAA Over Health Issues Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Robert Early Redd, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL
COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, and SOUTHWESTERN ATHLETIC
CONFERENCE, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02814 (Filed July 9,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Nov. 8, 2019.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-07346 to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent P. Circelli, Esq.
          CIRCELLI WALTER & YOUNG PLLC
          500 East 4th St., Suite 250
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (682) 703-2019
          E-mail: vinny@cwylaw.com

NCAA is represented by:

          Mark Steven Mester, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          330 N. Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (312) 876-7700
          E-mail: mark.mester@lw.com


MDL 2492: Rembert Suit v. NCAA Over Health Issues Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Reginald Rembert, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, and MOUNTAIN WEST CONFERENCE, Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-02815 (Filed July 9, 2019), was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago)
on Nov. 8, 2019.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-07344 to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent P. Circelli, Esq.
          CIRCELLI WALTER & YOUNG PLLC
          500 East 4th St., Suite 250
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (682) 703-2019
          E-mail: vinny@cwylaw.com

NCAA is represented by:

          Mark Steven Mester, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          330 N. Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (312) 876-7700
          E-mail: mark.mester@lw.com


MDL 2492: Rhodes Suit v. NCAA Over Health Issues Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RICARDO RHODES, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02816 (Filed July
9, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Nov. 8, 2019.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-07348 to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent P. Circelli, Esq.
          CIRCELLI WALTER & YOUNG PLLC
          500 East 4th St., Suite 250
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (682) 703-2019
          E-mail: vinny@cwylaw.com

NCAA is represented by:

          Mark Steven Mester, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          330 N. Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (312) 876-7700
          E-mail: mark.mester@lw.com


MDL 2492: Rice Suit v. NCAA Over Health Issues Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Paul Harold Rice, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, PAC-12 CONFERENCE, AND LONE STAR CONFERENCE,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02817 (Filed July 9, 2019), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Indiana to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois (Chicago) on Nov. 8, 2019.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-07350 to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent P. Circelli, Esq.
          CIRCELLI WALTER & YOUNG PLLC
          500 East 4th St., Suite 250
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (682) 703-2019
          E-mail: vinny@cwylaw.com

NCAA is represented by:

          Mark Steven Mester, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          330 N. Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (312) 876-7700
          E-mail: mark.mester@lw.com


MDL 2492: Saytumah Suit v. NCAA Over Health Issues Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Morris Saytumah, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, and SOUTHWESTERN ATHLETIC CONFERENCE,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02818 (Filed July 9, 2019), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Indiana to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois (Chicago) on Nov. 8, 2019.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-07352 to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent P. Circelli, Esq.
          CIRCELLI WALTER & YOUNG PLLC
          500 East 4th St., Suite 250
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (682) 703-2019
          E-mail: vinny@cwylaw.com

NCAA is represented by:

          Mark Steven Mester, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          330 N. Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (312) 876-7700
          E-mail: mark.mester@lw.com


MDL 2492: Sevald Suit v. NCAA Over Health Issues Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled STEVEN S. SEVALD, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, THE BIG TEN CONFERENCE, INC., AND
MID-AMERICAN ATHLETIC CONFERENCE, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02819 (Filed July 9, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on
Nov. 8, 2019.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-07354 to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent P. Circelli, Esq.
          CIRCELLI WALTER & YOUNG PLLC
          500 East 4th St., Suite 250
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (682) 703-2019
          E-mail: vinny@cwylaw.com

NCAA is represented by:

          Mark Steven Mester, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          330 N. Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (312) 876-7700
          E-mail: mark.mester@lw.com


MDL 2492: Wakely Suit v. NCAA Over Health Issues Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOHN WAKELY, JR., individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03419 (Filed Aug.
12, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Nov. 8, 2019.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-07337 to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554-9099
          E-mail: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


MDL 2492: Walker Suit v. NCAA Over Health Issues Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MICHAEL WALKER, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02820 (Filed July
9, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Nov. 8, 2019.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-07357 to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

          Vincent P. Circelli, Esq.
          CIRCELLI WALTER & YOUNG PLLC
          500 East 4th St., Suite 250
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (682) 703-2019
          E-mail: vinny@cwylaw.com

NCAA is represented by:

          Mark Steven Mester, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          330 N. Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (312) 876-7700
          E-mail: mark.mester@lw.com


MERCK & CO: Dismissal of Zetia Litigation Recommended
------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the magistrate
judge issued a report and recommendation recommending that the
district judge grant the motions to dismiss in their entirety.

As previously disclosed, Merck, MSD, Schering Corporation and MSP
Singapore Company LLC (collectively, the Merck Defendants) are
defendants in putative class action and opt-out lawsuits filed in
2018 on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of Zetia alleging
violations of federal and state antitrust laws, as well as other
state statutory and common law causes of action.

The cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in a federal
multidistrict litigation before Judge Rebecca Beach Smith in the
Eastern District of Virginia.

In December 2018, the court denied the Merck Defendants' motions to
dismiss or stay the direct purchaser putative class actions pending
bilateral arbitration.

On August 9, 2019, the district court adopted in full the report
and recommendation of the magistrate judge, thereby granting in
part and denying in part Merck Defendants' motions to dismiss on
non-arbitration issues.

In addition, on June 27, 2019, the representatives of the putative
direct purchaser class filed an amended complaint, and on August 1,
2019, retailer opt-out plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

The Merck Defendants moved to dismiss the new allegations in both
complaints.

On October 15, 2019, the magistrate judge issued a report and
recommendation recommending that the district judge grant the
motions in their entirety.

Trial is currently scheduled to begin on October 14, 2020.

Merck & Co., Inc. provides healthcare solutions worldwide. It
operates through four segments: Pharmaceutical, Animal Health,
Healthcare Services, and Alliances. Merck & Co., Inc. was founded
in 1891 and is headquartered in Kenilworth, New Jersey.


MERCK & CO: Limited Discovery in Rotavirus Vaccines Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that limited discovery
is ongoing in the Rotavirus Vaccines Antitrust Litigation.

MSD is a defendant in putative class action lawsuits filed in 2018
on behalf of direct purchasers of RotaTeq, alleging violations of
federal antitrust laws.

The cases were consolidated in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

On January 23, 2019, the court denied MSD's motions to compel
arbitration and to dismiss the consolidated complaint.

On February 19, 2019, MSD appealed the court's order on arbitration
to the Third Circuit.

On October 28, 2019, the Third Circuit vacated the district court's
order and remanded for limited discovery on the issue of
arbitrability, after which MSD may file a renewed motion to compel
arbitration.

Merck & Co., Inc. provides healthcare solutions worldwide. It
operates through four segments: Pharmaceutical, Animal Health,
Healthcare Services, and Alliances. Merck & Co., Inc. was founded
in 1891 and is headquartered in Kenilworth, New Jersey.


MEREDITH CORP: Securities Suits in New York and Iowa Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Meredith Corporation continues to face two securities class action
suits, one in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York and the other is in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019.

On September 6, 2019, a shareholder filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its
Chief Financial Officer, seeking to represent a class of
shareholders who acquired securities of the Company between May 10,
2018 and September 4, 2019.

On September 12, 2019, a shareholder filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Iowa against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, its Chief
Financial Officer, and its Chairman of the Board seeking to
represent a class of shareholders who acquired securities of the
Company between January 31, 2018 and September 5, 2019.

Both complaints allege that the defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material
adverse facts, about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.  Both complaints assert claims under the federal
securities laws and seek unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.

The defendants have not yet responded to either complaint but
intend to vigorously oppose them.  The Company expresses no opinion
as to the ultimate outcome of these matters.

Meredith Corporation is a diversified media company primarily
focuses on publishing and broadcasting. The Company's publishing
segment includes magazine and book publishing, marketing,
interactive media, licensing, and other related operations.
Meredith operates network-affiliated television stations and
develops syndicated television programs. The company is based in
Des Moines, Iowa.


METLIFE INC: Appeal in Martin Class Action Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the appeal from the
ruling in the case, Martin v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,
(Superior Court of the State of California, County of Contra Costa,
filed December 17, 2015), is still pending.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and all California persons who have been charged
compound interest by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MLIC) in
life insurance policy and/or premium loan balances within the last
four years.

Plaintiffs allege that MLIC has engaged in a pattern and practice
of charging compound interest on life insurance policy and premium
loans without the borrower authorizing such compounding, and that
this constitutes an unlawful business practice under California
law.

Plaintiffs assert causes of action for declaratory relief,
violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law and Usury Law,
and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive
relief, restitution of interest, and damages in an unspecified
amount.

On April 12, 2016, the court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs appealed this ruling to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.

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

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York.


METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend Parchmann Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Parchmann v.
MetLife, Inc., et. al. (E.D.N.Y., filed February 5, 2018)

Plaintiff filed this putative class action seeking to represent a
class of persons who purchased MetLife, Inc. common stock from
February 27, 2013 through January 29, 2018.

Plaintiff alleges that MetLife, Inc., its Chief Executive Officer
and Chairman of the Board, and its Chief Financial Officer violated
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by issuing materially false and/or misleading financial
statements.

Plaintiff alleges that MetLife's practices and procedures for
estimating reserves for certain group annuity benefits were
inadequate, and that MetLife had inadequate internal control over
financial reporting.

Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.


Defendants intend to defend this action vigorously.

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

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York.


METLIFE INC: Julian & McKinney Class Action Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company (MLIC) continues to defend a class action lawsuit
entitled, Julian & McKinney v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class and collective action on
behalf of themselves and all current and former long-term
disability ("LTD") claims specialists between February 2011 and the
present for alleged wage and hour violations under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Connecticut Minimum
Wage Act.

The suit alleges that MLIC improperly reclassified the plaintiffs
and similarly situated LTD claims specialists from non-exempt to
exempt from overtime pay in November 2013.

As a result, they and members of the putative class were no longer
eligible for overtime pay even though they allege they continued to
work more than 40 hours per week.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, as
well as other relief.

On March 22, 2018, the Court conditionally certified the case as a
collective action, requiring that notice be mailed to LTD claims
specialists who worked for the Company from February 8, 2014 to the
present.

The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.

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

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York.


METLIFE INC: Newman Seeks Preliminary Approval of Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the plaintiff in
the case, Newman v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MLIC)
(N.D. Ill., filed March 23, 2016), filed a motion with the United
States District Court Northern District of Illinois seeking
preliminary approval of a class settlement and for certification of
a nationwide settlement class.

Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging causes of
action for breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, on
behalf of herself and all persons over age 65 who selected a
Reduced Pay at Age 65 payment feature on their long-term care
insurance policies and whose premium rates were increased after age
65.

Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory and punitive
damages, as well as recessionary and injunctive relief.

On April 12, 2017, the court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss the
action. Plaintiff appealed this ruling and the United States Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded the case
to the district court for further proceedings.

On November 1, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion with the United
States District Court Northern District of Illinois seeking
preliminary approval of a class settlement and for certification of
a nationwide settlement class.

The Company accrued the full amount of the settlement payment in
prior periods.

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York.


METLIFE INC: Settlement in Owens Suit Preliminarily Approved
------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the court has
preliminarily approved the proposed settlement in Owens v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (N.D. Ga., filed April 17,
2014).

Plaintiff filed this class action lawsuit on behalf of persons for
whom Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MLIC) established a Total
Control Account ("TCA") to pay death benefits under an Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") plan.

The action alleges that MLIC's use of the TCA as the settlement
option for life insurance benefits under some group life insurance
policies violates MLIC's fiduciary duties under ERISA.

As damages, plaintiff seeks disgorgement of profits that MLIC
realized on accounts owned by members of the class.

In addition, plaintiff, on behalf of a subgroup of the class, seeks
interest under Georgia's delayed settlement interest statute,
alleging that the use of the TCA as the settlement option did not
constitute payment.

On September 27, 2016, the court denied MLIC's summary judgment
motion in full and granted plaintiff's partial summary judgment
motion. On September 29, 2017, the court certified a nationwide
class. The court also certified a Georgia subclass.

On July 29, 2019, the court preliminarily approved a proposed
settlement in which MLIC has agreed to pay $80 million to resolve
the claims of all class members. The settlement does not include or
constitute an admission, concession, or finding of any fault,
liability, or wrongdoing by MLIC.

The Company accrued the full amount of the settlement payment in
prior periods.

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

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York.


METLIFE INC: Westland Police & Fire Retirement Suit Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, City of Westland
Police and Fire Retirement System v. MetLife, Inc., et. al.
(S.D.N.Y., filed January 12, 2012).

Plaintiff filed this class action on behalf of a class of persons
who either purchased MetLife, Inc. common shares between February
9, 2011, and October 6, 2011, or purchased or acquired MetLife,
Inc. common stock in the Company's August 3, 2010 offering or the
Company's March 4, 2011 offering.

Plaintiff alleges that MetLife, Inc. and several current and former
directors and executive officers of MetLife, Inc. violated the
Securities Act of 1933, as well as the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to
issue, materially false and misleading statements concerning
MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of dollars in
insurance benefits that should have purportedly been paid to
beneficiaries or escheated to the states.

Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.


The defendants intend to defend this action vigorously.

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

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York.


METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Mag. Judge Recommends DeCapua Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DAVID DeCAPUA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. METROPOLITAN PROPERTY AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 18-00590-WES, (D.R.I.), Magistrate
Judge LINCOLN D. ALMOND of the United States District Court for the
District of Rhode Island recommends that Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss be GRANTED.

Plaintiff, on behalf of a putative class, alleges that Defendant
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), by using an
automated telephone dialing system ATDS to send thousands of
automated telemarketing text messages without first obtaining the
prior express written consent of recipients.

Defendant moved to dismiss the Class Action Complaint pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6), and, alternatively, to stay proceedings pending
forthcoming guidance on the definition of an ATDS from the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC).

Standard of Review

Under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must construe the complaint in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff,   taking all well-pleaded
allegations as true and giving the plaintiff the benefit of all
reasonable inferences, If under any theory the allegations are
sufficient to state a cause of action in accordance with the law,
the motion to dismiss must be denied.  

This case centers on Defendant's use of the EZ Texting system.
Plaintiff alleges that EZ Texting is an ATDS and was used by
Defendant to send thousands of spam texts in violation of the TCPA.
He contends that Defendant's system stores numbers generated
randomly or sequentially using basic features of Microsoft Excel, a
common software program used, among other things, to store data and
interact with external platforms like EZ Texting.

Defendant disputes that EZ Texting meets the ATDS definitions as a
matter of law and argues that EZ Texting's ability to interact with
Microsoft Excel does not give it the capacity to store or produce
telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number
generator. It argues that the fact Microsoft Excel can generate
random or sequential numbers to be uploaded to EZ Texting does not
make EZ Texting an ATDS.

After thoroughly reviewing the parties' arguments and the relevant
case law, I elect to follow the reasoning of two District Court
decisions that have applied the ATDS definition to the EZ Texting
system at issue here.4 See; and  Although both were decided on
summary judgment records, Plaintiff filed a highly-detailed
Complaint in this action that permits this Court to reach the same
conclusions applying Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff's detailed factual
allegations about the operation of the EZ Texting system
effectively mirror, in all material respects, the undisputed facts
relied upon by the Duran and Ramos Courts.

First, both Courts wrestled with the scope and applicability of the
D.C. Circuit's decision in ACA Int'l v. FCC, 885 F.3d 687 (D.C.
Cir. ). In ACA, the D.C. Circuit invalidated, as unreasoned
decision making, a 2015 FCC Order ruling that an ATDS need only
have the future or potential capacity to dial random or sequential
numbers, rather than a present ability to do so.

Both the Ramos, Ramos v. Hopele of Fort Lauderdale, 334 F.Supp.3d
1262 (S.D. Fla. and Duran, Duran v. La Boom Disco, 369 F.Supp.3d
476 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) Courts concluded that the ACA decision was
binding precedent and did not invalidate the pre-2015 FCC guidance
on the definition of an ATDS. Their respective conclusions are
well-reasoned and adopted herein.  

In Ramos, the Court concluded that an ATDS, as interpreted by the
FCC's pre-2015 Orders, is any equipment that has the specified
capacity to generate numbers and dial them without human
intervention regardless of whether the numbers called are randomly
or sequentially generated or come from calling lists and thus, the
primary consideration is whether human intervention is required at
the point in time at which the number is dialed.

As previously stated, the issue here is whether Plaintiff has
plausibly alleged that the EZ Texting system is an ATDS, an
automated telephone dialing system.

In other words, a system with the capacity to generate numbers to
be called randomly or sequentially without human intervention. The
EZ Texting system as described in Plaintiff's Complaint fails to
meet this definition, says the Magistrate Judge. It requires human
intervention to upload and store a list of phone numbers from
another source such as Microsoft Excel. It also requires human
intervention to select the groups of stored phone numbers to be
called and then to type the message that will be sent and select
the time of delivery.

Accordingly, Magistrate Judge ALMOND recommends the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 30, 2019 Report
and Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/yx98tg25
from Leagle.com. Any objection to the Report and Recommendation
must be specific and must be filed with the Clerk of the Court.
Failure to file specific objections in a timely manner constitutes
waiver of the right to review by the District Court and the right
to appeal the District Court's decision.

David DeCapua, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Peter N. Wasylyk -
Peter@wasylyklaw.com - Law Offices of Peter N. Wasylyk, Daniel M.
Hutchinson - dhutchinson@lchb.com - Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein LLP, pro hac vice, Evan J. Ballan - eballan@lchb.com -
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew R.
Wilson , Meyer Wilson Co., LPA, 1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100,
Columbus, OH 43215, pro hac vice & Michael J. Boyle, Jr. , Meyer
Wilson Co., LPA, 1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100, Columbus, OH 43215,
pro hac vice.

Metropolitan Property And Casualty Insurance Company, Defendant,
represented by Archis A. Parasharami -aparasharami@mayerbrown.com -
Mayer Brown LLP, pro hac vice, Dana M. Horton -dhorton@rc.com -
Robinson & Cole LLP & Debra Bogo-Ernst - dernst@mayerbrown.com -
Mayer Brown LLP, pro hac vice.

MONEY ONE: Sued by Curry Over Deficient Repossession Notices
------------------------------------------------------------
Candice Curry, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MONEY ONE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION and SILVERMAN
THEOLOGOU, LLP, Case No. 1:19-cv-03467-CCB (D. Md., Dec. 4, 2019),
is brought against the Defendants for violating Maryland law after
sending deficient repossession notices to the Plaintiff and Class
Members following the repossession of their vehicles and then
seeking a deficiency from them and for violating Federal and
Maryland law in connection with its debt collection activities in
seeking deficiencies.

When Money One repossesses Class Members' motor vehicles, it uses a
collection agency, Innovative Strategic Solutions, LLC d/b/a CU
Collections, to send notices which omit Class Members' statutory
rights and/or are misleading. CU Collections, on behalf of Money
One, sent Ms. Curry and similarly situated Maryland consumers a
form Post-Repossession Notice which misrepresents the consumer's
right to redeem collateral at any time before the sale of the
collateral. When the Repossession Class did not pay the dollar
amount demanded on the Post-Repossession Form Notice, Money One
sold their motor vehicles. As a result, after the sale of their
vehicles, CU Collections, on behalf of Money One, also sent Ms.
Curry and similarly situated Maryland consumers a form Deficiency
Demand Notice.

If the consumer borrower does not pay the alleged deficiency,
Silverman Theologou, on behalf of Money One, files a collection
lawsuit against the consumer or pursues other collection activities
as it did against Ms. Curry. As a result of Money One's acts and
omissions, Maryland law does not permit it to collect any alleged
deficiency because Money One failed to give proper notices and
information relating to the repossession and sale process. Money
One and Silverman Theologou's failure to comply with Maryland law
is done knowingly and/or with reckless disregard, says the
complaint.

Candice Curry is an adult currently residing in Baltimore City,
Maryland.

Money One Federal Credit Union is a federal credit union doing
business in Maryland, which regularly lends money to consumers and
collects consumer debt.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jane Santoni, Esq.
          Chelsea Ortega, Esq.
          SANTONI, VOCCI & ORTEGA, LLC
          401 Washington Avenue, Suite 200
          Towson, MD 21204
          Phone: (443) 921-8161
          Fax: (410) 525-5704
          Email: cortega@svolaw.com


MOSAIC COMPANY: Examination in Uberaba EHS Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mosaic Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the examination in
the Uberaba EHS class action remains pending.

In 2013, the State of Minas Gerais public prosecutor filed a class
action claiming that the company's predecessor company in Brazil
did not comply with labor safety rules and working hour laws.

This claim was based on an inspection conducted by the Labor and
Employment Ministry in 2010, following which the company were fined
for not complying with several labor regulations.

The company filed its defense, claiming that it complied with these
labor regulations and that the assessment carried out by the
inspectors in 2010 was abusive.

Following the initial hearing, the court ordered an examination to
determine whether there has been any non-compliance with labor
regulations. The examination is currently pending. The amount
involved in the proceeding is $33.4 million.

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

The Mosaic Company, through its subsidiaries, produces and markets
concentrated phosphate and potash crop nutrients worldwide. The
company operates through three segments: Phosphates, Potash, and
International Distribution. The Mosaic Company was founded in 2004
and is headquartered in Plymouth, Minnesota.


MYLAN NV: Class Suit over Valsartan Recalls Ongoing in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit related to Valsartan.

Mylan N.V., and certain of its subsidiaries, along with numerous
other manufacturers, retailers and others, have been named (or
plaintiffs are seeking to name certain Mylan entities) as
defendants in lawsuits in the United States, Canada and other
countries stemming from recalls of valsartan-containing
medications.

The United States litigation, which is taking place in an MDL in
the District of New Jersey, includes class action and individual
allegations seeking the refund of the purchase price and other
economic damages allegedly sustained by consumers who purchased
valsartan-containing products as well as claims for personal
injuries allegedly caused by ingestion of the medication.

Moreover, Mylan has received requests to indemnify purchasers of
Mylan's active pharmaceutical ingredient and/or finished dose forms
of the product.

Mylan said, "We believe that the claims in these lawsuits are
without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously."

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

Mylan N.V., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, and distributes generic, branded-generic,
brand-name, and over-the-counter (OTC) pharmaceutical products in
North America, Europe, and internationally. The company was founded
in 1961 and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.


MYLAN NV: Israeli Securities Suit Still Stayed
----------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the IEC Fund Action in the
Tel Aviv District Court (Economic Division) remains stayed until a
judgment is issued in the securities litigation pending in the
United States.

On October 13, 2016, a purported shareholder of Mylan N.V. filed a
lawsuit, together with a motion to certify the lawsuit as a class
action on behalf of certain Mylan N.V. shareholders on the Tel Aviv
Stock Exchange, against Mylan N.V. and four of its directors and
officers in the Tel Aviv District Court (Economic Division) (the
"Friedman Action").

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made false or misleading
statements and omissions of purportedly material fact in Mylan
N.V.'s reports to the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange regarding Mylan
N.V.'s classification of its EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector for purposes
of the MDRP, in violation of both U.S. and Israeli securities laws,
the Israeli Companies Law and the Israeli Torts Ordinance.

The plaintiff seeks damages, among other remedies.

On April 30, 2017, another purported shareholder of Mylan N.V.
filed a separate lawsuit, together with a motion to certify the
lawsuit as a class action on behalf of certain Mylan N.V.
shareholders on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange, in the Tel Aviv
District Court (Economic Division), alleging substantially similar
claims and seeking substantially similar relief against the
defendants and other directors and officers of Mylan N.V., but
alleging also that this group of defendants made false or
misleading statements and omissions of purportedly material fact in
connection with allegedly anticompetitive conduct with respect to
EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector and certain generic drugs, and alleging
violations of both U.S. federal securities laws and Israeli law
(the "IEC Fund Action").

On April 10, 2018, the Tel Aviv District Court granted the motion
filed by plaintiffs in both the Friedman Action and the IEC Fund
Action, voluntarily dismissing the Friedman Action and staying the
IEC Fund Action until a judgment is issued in the purported class
action securities litigation pending in the U.S.

Mylan said, "We believe that the claims in these lawsuits are
without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously."

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

Mylan N.V., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, and distributes generic, branded-generic,
brand-name, and over-the-counter (OTC) pharmaceutical products in
North America, Europe, and internationally. The company was founded
in 1961 and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.


MYLAN NV: Trial Date in EpiPen(R) Suit Set for April 2021
---------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that a trial date has been
scheduled for April 2021 in the class action suit related to the
pricing of EpiPen(R) Auto-Injectors.

Mylan Specialty and other Mylan-affiliated entities have been named
as defendants in putative class actions relating to the pricing
and/or marketing of the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector.

The plaintiffs in these cases assert violations of various federal
and state antitrust and consumer protection laws, the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, as well as common law
claims.

Plaintiffs' claims include purported challenges to the prices
charged for the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector and/or the marketing of the
product in packages containing two auto-injectors, as well as
allegedly anti-competitive conduct.

A Mylan officer and other non-Mylan affiliated companies were also
named as defendants in some of the class actions.

These lawsuits were filed in the various federal and state courts
and have either been dismissed or transferred into a multidistrict
litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
and have been consolidated.

Mylan filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint,
which was granted in part and denied in part.

On December 7, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. This motion remains pending.

A trial date has been scheduled for April 2021.

Mylan said, "We believe that the remaining claims in these lawsuits
are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously."

Mylan N.V., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, and distributes generic, branded-generic,
brand-name, and over-the-counter (OTC) pharmaceutical products in
North America, Europe, and internationally. The company was founded
in 1961 and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.


NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS: Still Faces Consolidated Class Suit in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nabriva Therapeutics plc continues to face the consolidated class
action lawsuit of Larry Enriquez and Anthony Manna in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019.

On May 8, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and its Chief Executive Officer in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned
Larry Enriquez v. Nabriva Therapeutics PLC, and Ted Schroeder, No.
19-cv-04183.  The complaint purported to be brought on behalf of
shareholders who purchased the Company's securities between
November 1, 2018 and April 30, 2019.  The complaint generally
alleged that the Company and its Chief Executive Officer violated
Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false
and/or misleading statements and omitting to disclose material
facts concerning the Company's submission of an NDA to the FDA for
marketing approval of CONTEPO for the treatment of cUTI in the
United States and the likelihood of such approval.  The complaint
sought unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, and other costs.

On May 22, 2019, a second putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
captioned Anthony Manna v. Nabriva Therapeutics PLC, and Ted
Schroeder, No. 19-cv-04713.  The complaint purported to be brought
on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's securities
between November 1, 2018 and April 30, 2019.  The allegations made
in the Manna complaint were similar to those made in the Enriquez
complaint, and the Manna complaint sought similar relief.

On May 24, 2019, these two lawsuits were consolidated by the court.
The court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved plaintiff's
selection of lead counsel on July 22, 2019.

On September 23, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding
the Company's Chief Financial Officer and Chief Medical Officer as
defendants; the amended complaint purports to be brought on behalf
of shareholders who purchased the Company's securities between
January 4, 2019 through April 30, 2019, and otherwise includes
allegations similar to those made in the original complaints and
seeks similar relief.

The Company's pre-motion letter to dismiss the amended complaint
was due to plaintiff on October 21, 2019, and plaintiff responded
to the Company via a letter on November 4, 2019.

The Company intended to file a pre-motion letter to dismiss with
the court by the November 18, 2019 deadline, setting forth why a
motion to dismiss is warranted.

The Company denies any and all allegations of wrongdoing and
intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit.

Nabriva Therapeutics plc, a biopharmaceutical company, engages in
the research and development of anti-infective agents to treat
infections in humans. The company was formerly known as Nabriva
Therapeutics Forschungs GmbH and changed its name to Nabriva
Therapeutics plc in 2007. Nabriva Therapeutics plc was incorporated
in 2005 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


NEWELL BRANDS: Continues to Defend Oklahoma Firefighters Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Newell Brands Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Oklahoma
Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Newell Brands Inc.,
et al.

The Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors have been named as defendants in a putative securities
class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Hudson County, on behalf of all persons who acquired Company common
stock pursuant or traceable to the S-4 registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the April 2016 acquisition of
Jarden Corporation.

The action was filed on September 6, 2018, and is captioned
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Newell
Brands Inc., et al., Civil Action No. HUD-L-003492-18.

The operative complaint alleges certain violations of the
securities laws, including, among other things, that the defendants
made certain materially false and misleading statements and
omissions in the Registration Statement regarding the Company's
financial results, trends, and metrics.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and
costs, among other relief, but has not specified the amount of
damages being sought.

The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously.

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

Newell Brands Inc. designs, manufactures, sources, and distributes
consumer and commercial products worldwide. Newell Brands Inc. was
formerly known as Newell Rubbermaid Inc. and changed its name to
Newell Brands Inc. in April 2016. The company was founded in 1903
and is based in Hoboken, New Jersey.


NEWELL BRANDS: Cosolidated Class Suit in New Jersey Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Newell Brands Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated class action suit in New Jersey
caption as, In re Newell Brands, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil
Action No. 18-cv-10878 (JMV)(JBC).

The Company and certain of its officers have been named as
defendants in two putative securities class action lawsuits, each
filed in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's common stock between February 6, 2017 and
January 24, 2018.

The first lawsuit was filed on June 21, 2018 and is captioned Bucks
County Employees Retirement Fund, Individually and on behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Newell Brands Inc., Michael B. Polk,
Ralph J. Nicoletti, and James L. Cunningham, III, Civil Action No.
2:18-cv-10878 (United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey).

The second lawsuit was filed on June 27, 2018 and is captioned
Matthew Barnett, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Newell Brands Inc., Michael B. Polk, Ralph J.
Nicoletti, and James L. Cunningham, III, Civil Action No.
2:18-cv-11132 (United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey).

On September 27, 2018, the court consolidated these two cases under
Civil Action No. 18-cv-10878 (JMV)(JBC) bearing the caption In re
Newell Brands, Inc. Securities Litigation.

The court also named Hampshire County Council Pension Fund as the
lead plaintiff in the consolidated case.

The operative complaint alleges certain violations of the
securities laws, including, among other things, that the defendants
made certain materially false and misleading statements and
omissions regarding the Company's business, operations, and
prospects between February 6, 2017 and January 24, 2018.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and
costs, among other relief, but have not specified the amount of
damages being sought.

The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously.

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

Newell Brands Inc. designs, manufactures, sources, and distributes
consumer and commercial products worldwide. Newell Brands Inc. was
formerly known as Newell Rubbermaid Inc. and changed its name to
Newell Brands Inc. in April 2016. The company was founded in 1903
and is based in Hoboken, New Jersey.


NEWMONT GOLDCORP: Class Action in Canada Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Newmont Goldcorp Corp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action lawsuit in Ontario Superior
Court of Justice.

On October 28, 2016 and February 14, 2017, separate proposed class
actions were commenced in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
pursuant to the Class Proceedings Act (Ontario) against the Company
and certain of its current and former officers.

Both statement of claims alleged common law negligent
misrepresentation in Goldcorp, Inc.'s public disclosure concerning
the Peñasquito mine and also pleaded an intention to seek leave
from the Court to proceed with an allegation of statutory
misrepresentation pursuant to the secondary market civil liability
provisions under the Securities Act (Ontario).

By a consent order, the latter lawsuit will proceed, and the former
action has been stayed.

The active lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of persons who
acquired Goldcorp Inc.'s securities in the secondary market during
an alleged class period from October 30, 2014 to August 23, 2016.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter, but cannot
reasonably predict the outcome.

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

Newmont Goldcorp Corp, formerly Newmont Mining Corporation,
incorporated on December 06, 2001, is a mining company, which is
focused on the production of and exploration of gold, copper,
silver, zinc and lead. The Company is primarily a gold producer
with operations and/or assets in the United States, Australia,
Peru, Ghana and Suriname. The Company's segments include North
America, South America, Asia Pacific and Africa. The company is
based in Greenwood Village, Colorado.


NII HOLDINGS: Amended Complaint Filed in Nayman Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
NII Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the plaintiff in
the class action suit entitled, Matis Nayman v. Kevin L. Beebe,
James V. Continenza, Howard S. Hoffmann, Ricardo Knoepfelmacher,
Christopher T. Rogers, Robert A. Schriesheim, Steven M. Shindler,
and NII Holdings, Inc., C.A. No. 2019-0525-JTL, filed an amended
complaint.

On July 8, 2019, a purported stockholder class action was filed
against the Company and the Company's directors in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware by Matis Nayman.

The lawsuit is captioned Matis Nayman v. Kevin L. Beebe, James V.
Continenza, Howard S. Hoffmann, Ricardo Knoepfelmacher, Christopher
T. Rogers, Robert A. Schriesheim, Steven M. Shindler, and NII
Holdings, Inc., C.A. No. 2019-0525-JTL.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company and its
directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to take steps
to maximize the Company's value to its public stockholders and
failing to disclose certain information in the proxy statement
issued in connection with the Company's purchase agreement with AMX
and AI Brazil Holdings and the Company's planned liquidation and
dissolution.

The relief the plaintiff seeks includes enjoining the sale of
Nextel Brazil and the dissolution of NII Holdings, and the recovery
of unspecified damages.

On September 16, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss,
and on October 16, 2019, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.


The Company and the named individuals intend to vigorously defend
themselves in this matter.

NII Holdings, Inc., incorporated on October 18, 2000, is a holding
company. The Company operates through its subsidiary, Nextel
Telecomunicacoes Ltda. (Nextel Brazil). The Company provides
wireless communication services under the Nextel brand in Brazil
with its principal operations located in urban and suburban centers
with population densities and related transportation corridors of
that country, including Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo. The Company
operates in the Nextel Brazil segment. The company is based in
Reston, Virginia.


P.F. CHANG'S: Belt et al. Seek Conditional Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEVEN BELT, LAURA COUNCIL, GRACE CASTRO, and JAMES
HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
and the Putative Classes Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs, vs. P.F.
CHANG'S CHINA BISTRO, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-03831-AB (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to grant
their motion for conditional class certification and approve a
court-authorized Notice under the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act.

P. F. Chang's China Bistro is an American-based, Asian-themed,
casual dining restaurant chain founded in 1993 by Paul Fleming and
Philip Chiang.[CC]

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

          Reena I. Desai, Esq.
          Jay E. Eidsness, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center, 80 S. 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone (612) 256-3244
          E-mail: rdesai@nka.com

               - and -

          Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
          Charles Center South
          36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 244-7005
          Facsimile: (410) 244-8454
          E-mail: bdavis@nichollaw.com

               - and -

          Patricia A. Barasch, Esq.
          SCHALL & BARASCH
          110 Marter Ave #302
          Moorestown, NJ 08057
          Telephone: (856) 914-9200
          E-mail: pbarasch@schallandbarasch.com

PHH MORTGAGE: Mathews Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Dewayne Mathews and Debra
Turner, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. PHH Mortgage Corporation, a New
Jersey corporation and successor by merger to Ocwen Loan Servicing,
LLC, a limited liability corporation organized under the laws of
the state of Florida, Case No. 2019-CA-011793, was removed from the
15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Key West) on
Nov. 1, 2019.

The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:19-cv-10191-XXXX to the proceeding. The suit alleges violation of
Consumer Credit related laws.

PHH Mortgage Corporation provides mortgage financing
solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Dale A. Evans, Jr., Esq.
          LOCKE LORD LLP
          777 South Flagler Drive
          East Tower, Suite 215
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 833-7700
          Facsimile: (561) 655-8719
          E-mail: dale.evans@lockelord.com

POTBELLY CORP: Assistant Managers' Class Suit Resolved
------------------------------------------------------
Potbelly Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the parties in the
class action initiated by the company's assistant managers,
participated in a mediation and resolved the claims, subject to
court approval.

In October 2017, plaintiffs filed a purported collective and class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company alleging violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL).

The plaintiffs allege that the Company violated the FLSA and NYLL
by not paying overtime compensation to our assistant managers and
violated NYLL by not paying spread-of-hours pay.

The Complaint was brought as a nationwide "collective action" under
the FLSA and as a "class action" under NYLL.

Since the filing of the Complaint, the plaintiffs filed a proposed
amended complaint removing the NYLL class claim, but adding a
proposed Illinois state law class action.

In May 2019, the parties participated in a mediation and resolved
the claims, subject to court approval.

All charges related to the claims are reflected in the statement of
operations.

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

Potbelly Corporation, through its subsidiaries, owns, operates, and
franchises Potbelly Sandwich Works sandwich shops in the United
States. The company was formerly known as Potbelly Sandwich Works,
Inc. and changed its name to Potbelly Corporation in 2002. Potbelly
Corporation was founded in 1977 and is headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois.


PRESIDIO INC: Pension Fund's Bid to Halt Merger Vote Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
Presidio, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the court has
denied the request for injunction against a merger deal and a
stockholder vote in the class action suit entitled, Firefighters'
Pension System of City of Kansas City, Missouri Trust v. Presidio,
Inc. et al, C.A. No. 2019-0839-JTL.

On August 14, 2019, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger, as amended on September 25, 2019, with BCEC – Port
Holdings (Delaware), LP, a Delaware limited partnership ("Parent"),
and Port Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned
subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which Merger Sub
will merge with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the
Company continuing as the surviving company of the Merger, and an
indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Parent.

Parent and Merger Sub are affiliates of funds advised by BC
Partners Advisors L.P. Completion of the Merger is subject to
customary closing conditions. If the Merger is consummated, the
Company's common stock will be delisted from the NASDAQ Global
Select Market and deregistered under the Exchange Act.

On September 26, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
against the Company and the individual members of the Board of
Directors alleging that the defendants violated federal securities
laws by making allegedly false and misleading statements and
failing to disclose certain information in the preliminary proxy
statement, which was filed on September 10, 2019.

On September 30, 2019, and October 4, 2019, two purported class
actions were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York making similar allegations. On
October 7, 2019, the Company filed the definitive proxy statement.


On October 10, 2019, and October 17, 2019, two purported class
actions were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California and the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, respectively, against
the Company and the individual members of the Board of Directors
alleging violations of the federal securities laws based on
allegedly false and misleading statements and failing to disclose
certain information in the definitive proxy statement.

These actions sought, among other relief, to enjoin the Merger (or,
in the alternative, an award of rescissory damages in the event the
Merger is completed), and an award of costs and attorneys' fees.

On October 21, 2019, another putative class action complaint was
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the
Company, its directors, Parent and Merger Sub under the caption
Firefighters' Pension System of City of Kansas City, Missouri Trust
v. Presidio, Inc. et al, C.A. No. 2019-0839-JTL.

The Complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors
in connection with the negotiation of the Merger and the
disclosures made in the definitive proxy statement and aiding and
abetting of those alleged breaches by Parent and Merger Sub.

The action sought, among other relief, an injunction against the
Merger and the stockholder vote, which the Court of Chancery denied
on November 5.

Presidio, Inc. provides information technology services. The
Company offers enterprise-class solutions, including advanced
networking, data analytics and center modernization, hybrid and
multi-cloud, cyber risk management, and enterprise mobility, as
well as professional services, including strategy, consulting,
design, and implementation. The company is based in New York, New
York.


PROTECTIVE LIFE: Unit Still Faces Advance Trust & Life's Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Protective Life Corporation's subsidiary remains a defendant in a
class action suit entitled, Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services,
LTA, as Securities Intermediary of Life Partners Position Holder
Trust v. Protective Life Insurance Company, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019.

Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA, as Securities
Intermediary of Life Partners Position Holder Trust v. Protective
Life Insurance Company, Case No. 2:18-CV-01290, is a putative class
action that was filed on August 13, 2018 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.  Plaintiff
alleges that PLICO required policyholders to pay unlawful and
excessive cost of insurance charges.  Plaintiff seeks to represent
all owners of universal life and variable universal life policies
issued or administered by PLICO or its predecessors that provide
that cost of insurance rates are to be determined based on
expectations of future mortality experience.  The plaintiff seeks
class certification, compensatory damages, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, costs, and other unspecified relief.

Protective Life said, "The Company is vigorously defending this
matter and cannot predict the outcome of or reasonably estimate the
possible loss or range of loss that might result from this
litigation."

Protective Life Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides
financial services primarily in the United States. The company
engages in the production, distribution, and administration of
insurance and investment products. The company was founded in 1907
and is headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. Protective Life
Corporation is a subsidiary of Dai-ichi Life Holdings, Inc.


PROTHENA CORP: $15.75MM Settlement Wins Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------
Prothena Corporation plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the court has
granted final approval to the settlement in the class action suit
entitled, In re Prothena Corporation plc Securities Litigation.

On July 16, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit entitled Granite
Point Capital v. Prothena Corporation plc, et al., Civil Action No.
18-cv-06425, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and certain of its current
and former officers. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages,
costs and expenses in an unspecified amount on behalf of a putative
class of persons who purchased the Company's ordinary shares
between October 15, 2015 and April 20, 2018, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by allegedly making false and misleading statements
and omitting certain material facts in certain public statements
and in the Company's filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission during the putative class period, regarding the clinical
trial results and prospects for approval of the Company's NEOD001
drug development program.

On October 31, 2018, the Court issued an order naming Granite Point
Capital and Simon James, an individual, as the lead plaintiffs in
the purported class action, which is now entitled In re Prothena
Corporation plc Securities Litigation.

On June 10, 2019, the Company and the individual defendants entered
into a binding memorandum of understanding with the lead plaintiffs
to settle that lawsuit based on an aggregate settlement amount of
$15.75 million, to be paid by the Company's directors and officers
insurance carriers.

On August 26, 2019, the parties entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement and the lead plaintiffs filed an Unopposed
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Action
Settlement.

On September 12, 2019, the Court granted preliminary approval of
Class Action Settlement, Approving Form and Manner of Notice, And
Setting Date for Hearing on Final Approval of Settlement and
specified December 2, 2019 at 11:30 a.m. for the Settlement
Hearing.  The Court entered a Final Order and Judgment on December
4.  The Court also entered orders awarding attorneys' fees and
expenses and approving a plan of allocation.

Prothena said, "If the settlement is approved by the Court, it will
resolve, as to all settlement class members, all of the claims that
were or could have been brought in the lawsuit. The Company
continues to believe that the claims in the lawsuit are without
merit and, to the extent the settlement is not finalized, intends
to vigorously defend against them."

Prothena Corporation plc, a clinical-stage neuroscience company,
focuses on discovery and development of novel therapies for
life-threatening diseases in the United States. Prothena
Corporation plc was founded in 2012 and is based in Dublin,
Ireland.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Approval of Behfarin Case Settlement Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the plaintiff in
the case, Behfarin v. Pruco Life, filed in October 2019:

     (1) the First Amended Complaint adding Prudential Insurance
Company of America and Pruco Life Insurance Company of New Jersey
as defendants; and

     (2) a motion seeking preliminary certification of a settlement
class, appointment of a class representative and class counsel, and
preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement.

Prudential Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
insurance, investment management, and other financial products and
services. It operates through PGIM, U.S. Workplace Solutions, U.S.
Individual Solutions, and International Insurance divisions.
Prudential Financial, Inc. was founded in 1875 and is headquartered
in Newark, New Jersey.

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Huffman Class Action Now Closed
-----------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the case, Huffman
v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America, is now closed.

The court in Huffman entered a Final Judgment and Order of
Dismissal in April 2019.

Prudential Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
insurance, investment management, and other financial products and
services. It operates through PGIM, U.S. Workplace Solutions, U.S.
Individual Solutions, and International Insurance divisions.
Prudential Financial, Inc. was founded in 1875 and is headquartered
in Newark, New Jersey.


PSIGHTS ON SERVICE: Montoya Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled Jessica Montoya an individual, for herself and
all members of the putative class v. PSIGHTS ON SERVICE, INC.,
d/b/a/ SECRET SHOPPER, a Minnesota Corporation; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. CIVDS1932445, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on Dec. 4, 2019.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-02334 to the
proceeding.

The First Amended Complaint contains the following seven purported
causes of action: (a) failure to pay minimum wage in violation of
Labor Code; (b) failure to permit all meal periods and pay meal
break penalties in violation of Labor Code; (c) failure to permit
all rest periods and pay rest period penalties in violation of
Labor Code; (d) failure to pay wages at termination in violation of
Labor Code; (e) failure to provide complete and accurate wage
statements in violation of California Labor Code; (f) failure to
reimburse for business expenses in violation of Labor Code; and (g)
unfair business practices in violation of California's Unfair
Competition Act.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jennifer Svanfeldt, Esq.
          Carlos I. Martinez-Garcia, Esq.
          GBG LLP
          601 Montgomery Street, Suite 1150
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 603-5000
          Facsimile: (415) 840-7210
          Email: jensvanfeldt@gbgllp.com
                 carlosmartinez@gbgllp.com


REALREAL INC: Defending Against Shareholder Suit in Marin County
----------------------------------------------------------------
The RealReal, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company is
defending against a consolidated class action suit in Marin County
Superior Court in California.

On September 11, 2019, a purported shareholder class action
complaint was filed against the Company, its officers and directors
and the underwriters of its initial public offering (IPO) in the
Superior Court of the State of California in the County of San
Mateo.

A second purported class action was filed in Marin County Superior
Court on September 16, 2019 and a third purported action was filed
in Marin County Superior Court on October 7, 2019. The complaints
each allege claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended on
behalf of a purported class of those who acquired the Company's
stock pursuant to or traceable to the registration statement for
the Company's IPO.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by issuing false or misleading
statements regarding certain of the Company's key financial and
operating metrics at the time of the IPO.  

The complaints seek, among other things, damages and interest,
rescission, and attorneys' fees and costs.  

Plaintiff in the San Mateo action voluntarily dismissed that case
in order to re-file in Marin County Superior Court and the cases
are in the process of being coordinated before the Marin County
Superior Court.

RealReal said, "While the Company intends to vigorously defend
against this consolidated litigation, the cases are at a very early
stage and there can be no assurance that the Company will be
successful in its defense. For this same reason, the Company cannot
currently estimate the loss or the range of possible losses it may
experience in connection with this litigation."

The RealReal, Inc. owns and operates a members-only consignment
marketplace for luxury goods. The Company specializes in curating
and authenticating a full range of previously owned luxury products
such as clothing, shoes, accessories, and jewelry that are sold on
consignment. The RealReal markets its products and services
throughout the United States. The company is based in San
Francisco, California.


SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Puerto Rico Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the case
styled Jorge Ponsa-Rabell, et al. v. SSLLC, Civ. No. 3:17-cv-02243,
is still pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Puerto Rico, according to Santander Holdings USA, Inc.'s Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019.

Santander Securities LLC (SSLLC), Santander BanCorp, Banco
Santander Puerto Rico (BSPR), the Company and Banco Santander, S.A.
(Santander) are defendants in a putative class action alleging
federal securities and common law claims relating to the
solicitation and purchase of more than US$180.0 million of Puerto
Rico bonds and US$101.0 million of CEFs during the period from
December 2012 to October 2013.

The amended complaint alleges that defendants acted in concert to
defraud purchasers in connection with the underwriting and sale of
Puerto Rico municipal bonds, CEFs and open-end funds.

In May 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

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

Santander Holdings USA, Inc. operates as the holding company for
Santander Bank, National Association that provides various banking
products and services primarily in the Mid-Atlantic and
Northeastern United States. The company was founded in 1984 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Santander Holdings USA,
Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Santander, S.A.


SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses Mexican Bonds Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court has granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action suit styled In re Mexican Government
Bonds Antitrust Litigation, according to Santander Holdings USA,
Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019.

A consolidated purported antitrust class action was pending in the
United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
captioned In re Mexican Government Bonds Antitrust Litigation, No.
1:18-cv-02830-JPO (the "MGB Lawsuit").

The MGB Lawsuit was against the Company, SIS, Santander, Banco
Santander (Mexico), S.A. Institucion de Banca Multiple, Grupo
Financiero Santander and Santander Investment Bolsa, Sociedad de
Valores, S.A. on behalf of a class of persons who entered into
Mexican government bond ("MGB") transactions between January 1,
2006 and April 19, 2017, where such persons were either domiciled
in the United States or, if domiciled outside the United States,
transacted in the United States.

The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Santander
defendants and the other defendants violated U.S. antitrust laws by
conspiring to rig auctions and/or fix prices of MGBs.

On September 30, 2019, the court granted the defendants motions to
dismiss the consolidated complaint.

Santander Holdings USA, Inc. operates as the holding company for
Santander Bank, National Association that provides various banking
products and services primarily in the Mid-Atlantic and
Northeastern United States. The company was founded in 1984 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Santander Holdings USA,
Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Santander, S.A.


SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Deka Securities Suit Discovery Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Holdings USA, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the merits discovery in the
action captioned Deka Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer
USA Holdings Inc. et al., remains stayed until the court rules on
the issue of class certification.

Santander Consumer USA Inc. (SC) is a defendant in a purported
securities class action lawsuit (the "Deka Lawsuit") in the United
States District Court, Northern District of Texas, captioned Deka
Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et
al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K.  The Deka Lawsuit, which was filed in
August 2014, was brought against SC, certain of its current and
former directors and executive officers and certain institutions
that served as underwriters in SC's initial public offering (the
"IPO"), including SIS, on behalf of a class consisting of those who
purchased or otherwise acquired SC securities between January 23,
2014 and June 12, 2014.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the IPO
registration statement and prospectus and certain subsequent public
disclosures violated federal securities laws by containing
misleading statements concerning SC's ability to pay dividends and
the adequacy of SC's compliance systems and oversight.

In December 2015, SC and the individual defendants moved to dismiss
the lawsuit, which was denied.

In December 2016, the plaintiffs moved to certify the proposed
classes.

In July 2017, the court entered an order staying the Deka Lawsuit
pending the resolution of the appeal of a class certification order
in In re Cobalt Int'l Energy, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. H-14-3428, 2017
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91938 (S.D. Tex. June 15, 2017).

In October 2018, the court vacated the order staying the Deka
Lawsuit and ordered that merits discovery in the Deka Lawsuit be
stayed until the court ruled on the issue of class certification.

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

Santander Holdings USA, Inc. operates as the holding company for
Santander Bank, National Association that provides various banking
products and services primarily in the Mid-Atlantic and
Northeastern United States. The company was founded in 1984 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Santander Holdings USA,
Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Santander, S.A.


SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: Mediation in Agar Suit Set for Wednesday
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sensient Technologies Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5,
2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that that
parties in the class action suit Agar v. Sensient Natural
Ingredients LLC, have agreed to submit the case to mediation, which
is currently scheduled for December 11, 2019.

On March 29, 2019, Calvin Agar (Agar), a former employee, filed a
Class Action Complaint in Stanislaus County Superior Court against
Sensient Natural Ingredients LLC (SNI).

On May 22, 2019, Agar filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint
against SNI (the Complaint). Agar alleges that SNI improperly
reported overtime pay on employees' wage statements, in violation
of the California Labor Code. The Complaint alleges two causes of
action, and both concern the wage statements.

The Complaint does not allege that SNI failed to pay any overtime
due to Agar or any of the putative class or group members. The
Complaint merely challenges the manner in which SNI has reported
overtime pay on its wage statements.

SNI maintains that it has accurately paid Agar and the putative
class members for all overtime worked, and that they have not
experienced any harm. SNI further maintains that the format of its
wage statements does not violate the requirements of state law or
any specific guidance from California decisional law, the
California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, or the
California Labor Commissioner's Office. Finally, SNI contends that
certain of the state law claims are subject to mandatory individual
arbitration.

SNI filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Complaint on
July 10, 2019. SNI continues to evaluate the developing legal
authority on this issue. SNI intends to vigorously defend its
interests, absent a reasonable resolution.

The parties have agreed to submit this case to mediation, which is
currently scheduled for December 11, 2019.

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

Sensient Technologies Corporation, incorporated on December 7,
1882, is a manufacturer and marketer of colors, flavors and
fragrances. The Company uses technologies at facilities around the
world to develop specialty food and beverage systems, cosmetic and
pharmaceutical systems, specialty inks and colors, and other
specialty and fine chemicals. The company is based in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin.


SNAP INC: Court Certifies Class in Securities Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re: Snap Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 2:17-cv-03679-SVW-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stephen
V. Wilson entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class under
      Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(3) with regard to both the
      Securities Act and Exchange Act claims alleged in the
      Second Amended Complaint, consisting of:

      "all purchasers of Snap common stock between March 2, 2017
      and August 10, 2017 (the Class Period) whose shares were
      issued under Snap's IPO Registration Statement"; and

   2. appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives, appointing
      Kessler Topaz as Class Counsel, and appointing Rosman &
      Germain as Liaison Counsel.[CC]

SOC LLC: Court Refuses to Reconsider Class Decertification Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued
an Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of the
District Court's order decertifying the class in the case captioned
KARL E. RISINGER, Plaintiff, v. SOC LLC, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 2:12-cv-00063-MMD-PAL, (D. Nev.).

The Court certified a class in this case consisting of armed guards
who worked for SOC in Iraq between 2006 and 2012. The Court later
clarified that certain guards known as Reclassified Guards were
members of the class.
The Court then decertified the class after Defendants introduced
evidence showing that some class members had no damages, and
Plaintiff failed to offer any feasible method for identifying and
removing those individuals from the class. The Court's decision was
predicated on the legal conclusion that damages and liability are
intertwined in the context of Plaintiff's claims.

The Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's
order decertifying the class, as well as a motion to seal exhibits
attached to the Motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to reconsider must set forth some valid reason why the
court should reconsider its prior decision and set forth facts or
law of a strongly convincing nature to persuade the court to
reverse its prior decision. Reconsideration is appropriate if this
Court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2)
committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust
or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.

Predominance

The Court found that individualized questions regarding liability
predominated over common questions based on Defendants' undisputed
evidence that some class members never worked more than the
6-day/12-hour work schedule in conjunction with Plaintiff's failure
to offer a feasible way to isolate and extract those individuals
from the class.

Plaintiff first argues that the Court committed clear error by
weighing the evidence.  According to Plaintiff, the Court weighed
the testimony of class members who did not work more than the
6-day/12-hour work schedule against the testimony of Defendants'
30(b)(6) designees and the declarations of 24 class members who did
work more than the 6-day/12-hour work schedule.

It was not necessary for the Court to weigh any evidence to
conclude that individual questions of liability predominate over
common questions in this case. It is undisputed that some class
members never worked more than the 6-day/12-hour work schedule and
that others did so for a variety of reasons, including personal
choice. Plaintiff's purportedly common proof that class members
worked more than the 6day/12-hour work schedule (a uniform policy
of understaffing) turned out not to be common at all. Defendants
introduced evidence that class members at many sites never worked
more than the 6-day/12-hour work schedule.  

Plaintiff did not dispute the evidence, nor did Plaintiff's
purported common proof rebut it. It was not necessary for the Court
to evaluate credibility or consider the weight of competing
evidence. Rather, it was clear and undisputed that some class
members never worked more than the 6-day/12hour work schedule. And
Plaintiff failed to offer a feasible method for weeding those
individuals out of the class. Plaintiff suggested that the Court
hire a special master to conduct more than 1,000 individualized
inquiries.

The Court found that those individualized inquiries would
predominate over any common questions.  

Manageability

The Court found that the class was unmanageable because Plaintiff
failed to offer any feasible way to determine liability or damages
on a class-wide basis.

Plaintiff argues that the Court clearly erred in finding that
Plaintiff failed to offer a way to determine liability on a class
wide basis. Plaintiff relies on the following purported common
proof: representative testimony from class members, bidding
documents showing that Defendants bid to the man resulting in
insufficient rotational staff, uniform call scripts, standardized
contracts, and destruction of records showing the daily manning
reports (which allegedly would establish who did and did not work
on a particular day.

While the presence of some unharmed individuals in the class does
not preclude certification, it is Plaintiff's failure to offer a
feasible way to identify these individuals that makes the class
unmanageable. The only solution Plaintiff offers is a series of
over 1,000 mini-trials overseen by a special master. This nightmare
scenario is not manageable.  

Subclasses

Plaintiff argues for the first time that the Court should have
created subclasses for the VBC bases. But the Court already noted
that Plaintiff failed to request the certification of a smaller
class or subclasses in his opposition to the motion to decertify. A
district court may decline to consider claims and issues that were
not raised until a motion for reconsideration. The Court declines
to consider Plaintiff's request when the issue of subclasses could
have and should have been raised in connection with Defendants'
motion to decertify, particularly given the extent of the issues
litigated in this case as well as the resources expended by the
parties and the Court in addressing issues relating to
certification and decertification and the need for this case to be
timely resolved on the merits. Under the circumstances here, it
would be unfair to allow Plaintiff a do-over via reconsideration.

Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration. The Court finds it unnecessary to consider
additional briefing related to the Motion. The Court agrees with
Plaintiff that compelling reasons exist to seal the exhibits
designated as confidential under the Protective Order and will
grant the motion to seal.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 30, 2019 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxv92t6o from Leagle.com.

Karl E. Risinger, Plaintiff, represented by Amelia Collins , Early
Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae LLP, 6420 Wilshire Blvd Ste 1700, Los
Angeles, CA 90048, pro hac vice, Andrew hale Steinberg , Early
Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher I.
Ritter , Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae, LLP, 6420 Wilshire
Blvd Ste 1700, Los Angeles, CA 90048, pro hac vice, Devin A. McRae
, Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae LLP, Erik C. Alberts  -
erik.alberts@ea-lawfirm.com - Law Offices of Erik C. Alberts,
Joseph Michael DeMaio , Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae LLP,
Scott Satkin , pro hac vice, Lisa L. Boswell , Early Sullivan
Wright Gizer & McRae LLP, pro hac vice & Scott E. Gizer , Early
Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae LLP, 6420 Wilshire Blvd Ste 1700, Los
Angeles, CA 90048

SOC LLC, doing business as SOC Nevada LLC & SOC-SMG, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Daniel P. Mach -
danielmach@quinnemanuel.com - Quinn Emanuel, Derick Koo Sohn, Jr. ,
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, 1300 I Street, NW, Suite
900, Washington, DC 20005, Keith H. Forst -
keithforst@quinnemanuel.com - Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan,
LLP, pro hac vice, Kristen L. Martini  - kmartini@lrrc.com - Lewis
Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Meghan McCaffrey , Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, , 1300 I Street, NW, Suite 900,
Washington, DC 20005, pro hac vice, Tara Melissa Lee , Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice, Webster Beary ,
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, pro hac vice & E. Leif Reid
, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP.

STATE FARM: Lech Sues Over Excessive Cost of Insurance Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Lech II, as personal representative of the Estate of Ronald
Lech III, and Anna Gonzalez, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
8:19-cv-02983-MSS-TGW (M.D. Fla., Dec. 4, 2019), is brought behalf
of holders of universal life insurance policies issued by State
Farm and its predecessors in interest issued using FORM-94030, and
those who own or owned a Subject Policy and who have been forced to
pay unlawful and excessive cost of insurance charges to State Farm
or its predecessors.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant has caused material harm
to them and the proposed class by improperly draining monies they
have accumulated in the Subject Policies. The Plaintiffs' claims
and those of the proposed class are exclusively supported by the
plain language of the Subject Policies and are not derived from any
alleged conversations had, or documents reviewed, at the time of
sale. Indeed, the Subject Policies are form contracts, and the
Plaintiffs and Multi-State Class did not—and were not—able to
negotiate any of the terms in these contracts.

Despite unambiguous policy language in a fully integrated
agreement, State Farm deducts monthly cost of insurance (COI)
charges from the Subject Policies in excess of amounts specifically
permitted by the terms of those policies, the Plaintiffs allege.
Every unauthorized dollar taken from policy owners is one less
dollar that can be used to: invest through the Subject Policies;
pay future premiums; increase the death benefit; use as collateral
for policy loans; or withdraw as cash. Because COI charges are
intended to compensate the insurer for mortality risk, insurers,
including State Farm and its predecessors in interest, are
contractually obligated to compute these charges based on their
expectations of future mortality, not its desire to garner a
greater profit on the Subject Policies. Thus, when mortality rates
are projected to decline because life expectancy is increasing,
insurers are required to reduce their COI charges.

State Farm, however, has been abusing this trust and breaching its
contractual commitment by (a) basing its COI charges on
non-permissible considerations, such as lapse rates, and (b) not
reducing its COI charges in light of the well-established decreased
mortality rates, the Plaintiffs assert. These breaches allowed
State Farm to convert COI charges from a cost-recovery mechanism
into a profit vehicle. By retaining the difference between its
projected mortality expenses and the COI charges incurred by
Plaintiffs and the Multi-State Class, State Farm has earned
tens--if not hundreds--of millions of dollars in extra profit, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiffs entered into a Subject Policy with State Farm.

State Farm is a life insurance company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael E. Lockamy, Esq.
          Michael E. Halkitis, Jr., Esq.
          BEDELL, DITTMAR, DeVAULT, PILLANS & COXE
          The Bedell Building
          101 East Adams Street
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Phone: (904) 353-0211
          Facsimile: (904) 353-9307
          Email: mel@bedellfirm.com
                 meh@bedellfirm.com

               –and–

          James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
          Nathaniel C. Giddings, Esq.
          Melinda R. Coolidge, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: (202) 540-7200
          Facsimile: (202)540-7201
          Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
                 ngiddings@hausfeld.com
                 mcoolidge@hausfeld.com

               –and–

          Kimberly Fetsick, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          33 Whitehall Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (646) 357-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 202-4322
          Email: kfetsick@hausfeld.com

               –and–

          Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
          KALIEL PLLC
          1875 Connecticut Avenue NW, 10th Floor
          Washington, DC 20009
          Phone: (202) 350-4783
          Facsimile: (202) 871-8180
          Email: sgold@kalielpllc.com

               –and–

          Larry D. Lahman, Esq.
          Roger L. Ediger, Esq.
          MITCHELL DeCLERCK
          202 West Broadway Avenue
          Enid, OK 73701
          Phone: (580) 234-5144
          Facsimile: (580) 234-8890
          Email: larry.lahman@sbcglobal.net
                 rle@mdpllc.com


SURFACE ONCOLOGY: Ang Putative Class Suit in New York Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Oncology, Inc. continues to defend itself in the putative
class action styled, Ang v. Surface Oncology, Inc., according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2019.

On September 13, 2019, a purported stockholder of the Company filed
a putative class action against the Company, certain of the
Company's directors and officers, or the Individual Defendants, and
the underwriters in the Company's initial public offering,
collectively, the Defendants, in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, captioned Ang v. Surface Oncology, Inc., et al., No.
655304/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 13, 2019).

The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of purchasers
of the Company's common stock in and/or traceable to the Company's
April 19, 2018 initial public offering (the first day of trading of
the Company's common stock on the Nasdaq Stock Market) and alleges
violations of Section 11 (against all Defendants) and 15 (against
the Company and the Individual Defendants) of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants made false or misleading
statements in the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-1 for
the Company's initial public offering regarding SRF231 and
hematologic toxicities allegedly caused by SRF231.  The lawsuit
seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and interest
thereon, and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys'
fees.


SWITCH INC: Discovery Ongoing in Cai Putative Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Switch, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September
30, 2019, that the parties are currently engaged in discovery in
the putative class action complaint captioned Cai v. Switch, Inc.
et al. in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Four substantially similar putative class action complaints,
captioned Martz v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed April 20, 2018);
Palkon v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed April 30, 2018); Chun v.
Switch, Inc. et al. (filed May 11, 2018); and Silverberg v. Switch,
Inc. et al. (filed June 6, 2018), were filed in the Eighth Judicial
District of Nevada, and subsequently consolidated into a single
case (the "State Court Securities Action").

Additionally, on June 11, 2018, one putative class action complaint
captioned Cai v. Switch, Inc. et al. was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Federal Court
Securities Action," and collectively with the State Court
Securities Action, the "Securities Actions") and subsequently
transferred to the Eighth Judicial District of Nevada in August
2018 and the federal court appointed Oscar Farach lead plaintiff.

These lawsuits were filed against Switch, Inc., certain current and
former officers and directors and certain underwriters of Switch,
Inc.'s IPO alleging federal securities law violations in connection
with the IPO.  These lawsuits were brought by purported
stockholders of Switch, Inc. seeking to represent a class of
stockholders who purchased Class A common stock in or traceable to
the IPO, and seek unspecified damages and other relief.

In October 2018, the state court granted the defendants' motion to
stay the State Court Securities Action in favor of the Federal
Court Securities Action, which stay was affirmed by the Nevada
Supreme Court in September 2019.

In October 2018, the lead plaintiff of the Federal Court Securities
Action filed an amended complaint.

In November 2018, Switch, Inc. and other defendants filed a motion
to dismiss for failure to state a claim and a motion to strike.

In July 2019, the federal court granted Switch, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss in part, which narrowed the scope of the plaintiff's case.


Switch, Inc. said believes that these lawsuits are without merit
and intends to continue to vigorously defend against them.

Switch, Inc., through its subsidiary, Switch, Ltd., provides
colocation space and related services primarily to technology and
digital media companies in the United States. It develops and
operates data centers in Nevada and Michigan. Switch, Inc. was
founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada.


SYNCHRONOSS TECH: Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the
defendants are seeking dismissal of the second amended complaint in
its entirety, in the class action suit pending before the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey .

On May 1, 2017, May 2, 2017, June 8, 2017 and June 14, 2017, four
putative class actions were filed against the Company and certain
of its current and former officers and directors in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

After these cases were consolidated, the court appointed as lead
plaintiff Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii,
which filed, on November 20, 2017, a consolidated complaint
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between February 3, 2016 and June 13, 2017.

On February 2, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated complaint in its entirety, with prejudice.

Before that motion was decided, on August 24, 2018, lead plaintiff
filed a consolidated amended complaint purportedly on behalf of
purchasers of the company's common stock between October 28, 2014
and June 13, 2017.

On June 28, 2019, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety, without
prejudice, allowing lead plaintiff leave to amend its complaint.

On August 14, 2019, lead plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint. The second amended complaint asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and it alleges, among other things, that the defendants
made false and misleading statements of material information
concerning the company's financial results, business operations,
and prospects.

On October 4, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint in its entirety, with prejudice.

The Company believes that the asserted claims lack merit and
intends to defend against all of the claims vigorously.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, fees, interest, and costs.


Synchronoss said, "Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation,
the Company cannot predict the outcome of the actions at this time
and can give no assurance that the asserted claims will not have a
material adverse effect on its financial position or results of
operations."

Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. provides cloud, digital, messaging,
and Internet of Things (IoT) platforms, products, and solutions in
North America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and
the Asia Pacific. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. was founded in
2000 and is headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey.


TECHNIPFMC PLC: Still Faces Prause Securities Class Suit in Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TechnipFMC plc remains a defendant in a shareholder class action
suit entitled, Prause v. TechnipFMC, et al., No. 4:17-cv-02368,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019.

A purported shareholder class action filed in 2017 and amended in
January 2018 and captioned Prause v. TechnipFMC, et al., No.
4:17-cv-02368 (S.D.  Texas) is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas against the Company and certain
current and former officers and employees of the Company.  The suit
alleged violations of the federal securities laws in connection
with the Company's restatement of our first quarter 2017 financial
results and a material weakness in our internal control over
financial reporting announced on July 24, 2017.

On January 18, 2019, the District Court dismissed claims under
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended
("Securities Act").  A remaining claim for alleged violation of
Section 11 of the Securities Act in connection with the reporting
of certain financial results in the Company's Form S-4 Registration
Statement filed in 2016 is pending and seeks unspecified damages.


TechnipFMC plc said, "The Company is vigorously contesting the
litigation and cannot predict its duration or outcome."

TechnipFMC plc engages in the oil and gas projects, technologies,
and systems and services businesses. It operates through three
segments: Subsea, Onshore/Offshore, and Surface Technologies. The
company was formerly known as Technip SA and changed its name to
TechnipFMC plc in January 2017. TechnipFMC plc was founded in 1958
and is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom.


TELIGENT INC: Amended Complaint Filed in Pension Fund Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Teligent, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019, that the Oklahoma Police Pension Fund and
Retirement System has filed a consolidated amended complaint in the
class action suit initially filed by Mo-Kan Iron Workers Pension
Fund.

Defendants had until November 13, 2019 to answer or move with
respect to the consolidated amended complaint.

On April 15, 2019, Mo-Kan Iron Workers Pension Fund, on behalf of
itself and all other persons or entities, except defendants, who
purchased Teligent common stock between May 2, 2017 and November 7,
2017, commenced a putative class action against the Company and its
CEO, Jason Grenfell-Gardner, alleging violations of the securities
laws.  The complaint alleges that the defendants made materially
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational
and compliance policies.

On July 1, 2019, the Oklahoma Police Pension Fund and Retirement
System was appointed as lead plaintiff in the case ("Lead
Plaintiff").  Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint
on September 13, 2019.

The Company said, "Due to the early stage of the case, we are
unable to form a judgment at this time as to whether an unfavorable
outcome is either probable or remote or to provide an estimate of
the amount or range of potential loss.  We believe the claims are
without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend against them."

Teligent, Inc., a specialty generic pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and sells generic topical, branded
generic, and generic injectable pharmaceutical products in the
United States and Canada. The company was formerly known as IGI
Laboratories, Inc. and changed its name to Teligent, Inc. in
October 2015. Teligent, Inc. was founded in 1977 and is based in
Buena, New Jersey.


TELIGENT INC: Bid to Drop Econazole Antitrust Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Teligent, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the class action suit entitled,
In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, remains
pending, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019.

To date, 13 putative class action antitrust lawsuits have been
filed against the Company along with co-defendants, including Taro
Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. and Perrigo New York Inc., regarding
the pricing of generic econazole nitrate cream ("econazole").

The class plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide or state classes
consisting of persons who directly purchased, indirectly purchased,
paid and/or reimbursed patients for the purchase of generic
econazole from July 1, 2014 until the time the defendants'
allegedly unlawful conduct ceased or will cease.  The class
plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged overcharges for
econazole during the alleged period of conspiracy, and certain of
the class plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief against the
defendants.

All actions have been consolidated by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
for pre-trial proceedings as part of the In re Generic
Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation matter.

On October 16, 2018 the court dismissed the class plaintiffs'
claims against the Company with leave to replead.

On December 21, 2018 the class plaintiffs filed amended complaints,
which the Company moved to dismiss on February 21, 2019.  This
motion remains pending.

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

Teligent, Inc., a specialty generic pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and sells generic topical, branded
generic, and generic injectable pharmaceutical products in the
United States and Canada. The company was formerly known as IGI
Laboratories, Inc. and changed its name to Teligent, Inc. in
October 2015. Teligent, Inc. was founded in 1977 and is based in
Buena, New Jersey.


TIVITY HEALTH: Trial in Okla. Firefighters Suit to Begin in 2021
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tivity Health, Inc. remains a defendant in the Oklahoma
Firefighters Pension and Retirement System Suit, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019.  The
case is set for trial on May 18, 2021.

On November 20, 2017, Eric Weiner, claiming to be a stockholder of
the Company, filed a complaint on behalf of stockholders who
purchased the Company's Common Stock between February 24, 2017 and
November 3, 2017 ("Weiner Lawsuit").

The Weiner Lawsuit was filed as a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, naming as defendants
the Company, the Company's chief executive officer, chief financial
officer and a former executive who served as both chief accounting
officer and interim chief financial officer.  The complaint alleges
that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act in
making false and misleading statements and omissions related to the
United Press Release.  The complaint seeks monetary damages on
behalf of the purported class.  

On April 3, 2018, the Court entered an order appointing the
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System as lead
plaintiff, designated counsel for the lead plaintiff, and
established certain deadlines for the case.  

On June 4, 2018, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.  The
Court denied the Company's Motion to Dismiss on March 18, 2019 and
the Company's Motion to Reconsider on May 22, 2019.  The case is
currently set for trial on May 18, 2021.

Tivity Health, Inc. provides fitness and health improvement
programs in the United States. The company was formerly known as
Healthways, Inc. and changed its name to Tivity Health, Inc. in
January 2017. Tivity Health, Inc. was founded in 1981 and is
headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee.


TOPCO ASSOCIATES: Mislabels Vanilla Almond Milk, Cummings Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonita Cummings, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Topco Associates, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-11104
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 4, 2019), seeks damages under consumer protection
laws from the Defendant's misleading representations on their
vanilla almond milk products' packaging.

The Product's front label and advertising makes direct
representations with respect to its primary recognizable and
characterizing flavor by the word Vanilla. In the context of
vanilla, vanillin has always been an "artificial flavor" regardless
of it is labeled "natural vanillin." Where a vanilla-vanillin
combination ingredient is used, it is required to be designated on
the ingredient list and "followed immediately by the statement
'contains vanillin, an artificial flavor (or flavoring)." These
requirements for the use of vanilla and vanillin were established
to prevent consumers from being misled by products similar to those
contained in the Product--to prevent the "spiking" of a miniscule
amount of real vanilla with artificial, synthetic vanillin.

The representations are misleading because the Product does not
contain the amount, type and/or percentage of vanilla as a
component of its flavoring, which is required by law and consistent
with consumer expectations, the Plaintiff asserts. Had the
Plaintiff and class members known the truth, they would not have
bought the Product or would have paid less for it.

The Product contains other representations, which are misleading
and deceptive, the Plaintiff alleges. As a result of the false and
misleading labeling, the Product is sold at a premium price,
approximately no less than $4.39 per 32 FL OZ, excluding
tax--compared to other similar products represented in a
non-misleading way, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased one or more of the Products for personal
use and consumption.

Topco Associates, LLC, manufactures, distributes, markets, labels
and sells almond milk beverages purporting to be characterized by
and containing flavor only from vanilla under their Full Circle
Market brand.[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


TRAVELCENTERS: Renewed Motion to Dismiss Ohio Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
TravelCenters of America Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the
company's renewed motion to dismiss the class action suit pending
before the Ohio State Court is pending.

On April 5, 2019, two plaintiffs filed a class action complaint
against the company in Ohio state court alleging that certain
credit and debit card receipts printed by the company included more
information than permitted by the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act.

The complaint does not seek any actual damages, but plaintiffs seek
statutory damages for the individual plaintiffs and members of the
class, as well as declaratory relief, punitive damages, attorneys'
fees and costs. In June 2019, the company filed a motion to
dismiss.

On July 5, 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which added
a request for injunctive relief and on August 2, 2019, the company
filed a renewed motion to dismiss, which remains pending.

TravelCenters said, "We intend to vigorously defend against these
claims. However, the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain
and we are not able to assess our exposure at this time."

TravelCenters of America Inc. (TravelCenters), incorporated on
October 10, 2006, operates or franchises travel centers, standalone
truck service facilities and standalone restaurants. The Company
also collects rents, royalties and other fees from its tenants and
franchisees. The Company offers a range of products and services,
including diesel fuel and gasoline, as well as nonfuel products and
services, such as truck repair and maintenance services, full
service restaurants, quick service restaurants (QSRs), and various
customer amenities. The company is based in Westlake, Ohio.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action in Australia Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Uber Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit in Austrailia.

In May 2019, an Australian law firm filed a class action in the
Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia, against the company and
certain of its subsidiaries, on behalf of certain participants in
the taxi and hire-car industry.

In its announcement of the filing, this law firm stated that more
than 6,000 participants had registered to join the action.

The cause of action alleged in the statement of claim is the tort
of conspiracy by unlawful means.

The plaintiff alleges that the Uber entities conspired to injure
the group members in four Australian jurisdictions during the
period 2014 to 2017 by either directly breaching transport
legislation or commissioning offenses against transport legislation
by UberX Drivers.

Uber Technologies said, "We deny these allegations and intend to
vigorously defend against the lawsuit."

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

Uber Technologies, Inc. develops and supports proprietary
technology applications that enable independent providers of
ridesharing, and meal preparation and delivery services to transact
with riders and eaters worldwide. The company operates in two
segments, Core Platform and Other Bets. The company was formerly
known as Ubercab, Inc. and changed its name to Uber Technologies,
Inc. in February 2011. Uber Technologies, Inc. was founded in 2009
and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


UNIFIED LIFE: Court Grants Class Certification Bid in Butler Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Montana,
Billings Division issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion to
Certify a Class Action in the case captioned CHARLES M. BUTLER, III
and CHOLE BUTLER Plaintiffs, v. UNIFIED LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
HEALTH PLANS INTERMEDIARIES HOLDINGS, LLC, doing business as Health
Insurance Innovations, Inc.; ALLIED NATIONAL, INC.; NATIONAL
BROKERS OF AMERICA, INC.; THE NATIONAL CONGRESS OF EMPLOYERS, INC.;
and DOES 1-10 Defendants, Case No. CV 17-50-BLG-SPW, (D. Mont.).

The proposed class action concerns Defendant Unified Life Insurance
Company's systematic practice of paying healthcare bills based on
what providers have previously accepted rather than what providers
charge. The class action complaint alleges Unified's practice has
subjected proposed class members to balance billing. Balance
billing occurs when a healthcare provider charges a certain amount
for a service, Unified pays an amount based on what a healthcare
provider may have previously accepted for the service, the
healthcare provider accepts Unified's payment, but the healthcare
provider does not agree Unified's payment fully satisfies the
charge.

United States Magistrate Judge Timothy Cavan issued a findings and
recommendation on August 8, 2019, which recommends that the Court
deny Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class action. Judge Cavan
recommended denying certifying the class because common class
issues did not predominate over class members' individual issues,
namely the computation of damages. The Plaintiffs argue this was
error, and the Court agrees.

Class certification is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23. A party seeking to maintain a class action must demonstrate
that each of the following prerequisites of Rule 23(a) are
satisfied:

(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the
class (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are
typical of the claims or defenses of the class and (4) the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class.

Here, the common question is whether Unified systematically
breached its insurance policies containing the Reasonable and
Customary Charge. The Court has affirmed that question as a matter
of law. The individual questions are whether Unified's breach
subjected each class member to balance billing, and if so, how
much. Answering the individual questions will require determining
how much the healthcare provider charged, how much healthcare
providers in the geographic area usually charge, how much Unified
paid, and whether the healthcare provider accepted the payment in
full satisfaction of the charge or instead accepted the payment and
sought the remainder from the insured.

The Court holds the common question of law predominates the
individual questions. The Court has already determined Unified
breached its insureds' insurance policies containing the Reasonable
and Customary Charge clause. It makes little sense for the proposed
class members to repeatedly litigate an already decided issue at
significant expense to themselves, Unified, and the court system.


Unified makes several arguments that the individual issues are too
complicated for class action treatment. For instance, Unified
argues the breach doesn't necessarily establish a claim for every
class member because, according to Unified, 95% of the time the
healthcare providers accepted Unified's payment in full
satisfaction, meaning the insured suffered no damage as a result of
the breach. But if that's so, the individual issues are only easier
to answer because there will be fewer class members entitled to
damages and it should be remarkably simple to sort out who was
subjected to balance billing and who was not.  

Unified contends it is entitled under the policy to determine
whether a charge is reasonable under discretionary factors. That
appears to be true, but the policy language makes it unclear
whether Unified's opinion of the reasonableness of the charge has
any effect on Unified's contractual obligation to pay the lesser of
the actual or usual charge. That is a question of contract
interpretation which remains to be decided and may provide a
possible defense for Unified. But, even assuming Unified's
interpretation is correct, it still doesn't overly complicate the
case because, if a reasonableness determination is in fact
something Unified does when it processes a claim, then the
determination should have already been done for every class
member's claim. On the other hand, if Unified never made a
reasonableness determination in the first place, it's highly
suspect to raise it as a defense now, says the Court.

Finally, even assuming Unified's interpretation is correct, and
even assuming Unified were allowed to retroactively contest the
reasonableness of the usual charge in the geographic area, the
complexity of individual damages does not defeat class
certification when the proposed class members were harmed by the
same conduct, notes the Court.  

Thus, the Court rules that Judge Cavan's findings and
recommendation are adopted in full except as to his recommendation
that Rule 23(b)(3)'s criteria are not met.

The Plaintiffs' motion to certify the class is granted.

Counsel for the Plaintiffs and Unified are ordered to prepare a
proposed class certification order.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 30, 2019
Memorandum and Order is available at  https://tinyurl.com/y25ab6cn
from Leagle.com.

Charles M. Butler, III & Chole Butler, Plaintiffs, represented by
John M. Morrison , MORRISON, SHERWOOD, WILSON & DEOLA, PLLP & Scott
L. Peterson , MORRISON, SHERWOOD, WILSON & DEOLA, PLLP, 401 N. Last
Chance Gulch, Helena, MT 59601

Unified Life Insurance Company & Allied National, Inc, Defendants,
represented by Robert L. Sterup - rsterup@brownfirm.com - BROWN LAW
FIRM, P.C.

Health Plans Intermediaries Holdings, LLC., doing business as
Health Insurance Innovations & Health Insurance Innovations, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Monique P. Voigt , CROWLEY FLECK PLLP &
Christopher C. Voigt , CROWLEY FLECK PLLP, Po Box 2529 Billings,
MT, 59103-2529
The National Congress of Employers, Inc, Defendant, represented by
Katherine Huso -khuso@mkhattorneys.com - MATOVICH, KELLER & HUSO,
P.C.

VENATOR MATERIALS: Petititon for Wirt of Mandamus Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Venator Materials PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company and
other defendants have filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the
Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas seeking relief
from the Dallas District Court's denial of defendants' Rule 91a
motions to dismiss, in the class action suit entitled, In re
Venator Materials PLC Securities Litigation.  

On February 8, 2019 the company, certain of its executive officers,
Huntsman and certain banks who acted as underwriters in connection
with the company's initial public offering (IPO) and secondary
offering were named as defendants in a proposed class action civil
suit filed in the District Court for the State of Texas, Dallas
County (the "Dallas District Court"), by an alleged purchaser of
the company's ordinary shares in connection with its IPO on August
3, 2017 and its secondary offering on November 30, 2017.

The plaintiff, Macomb County Employees' Retirement System, alleges
that inaccurate and misleading statements were made regarding the
impact to the company's operations, and prospects for restoration
thereof, resulting from the fire that occurred at the company's
Pori, Finland manufacturing facility, among other allegations.

Additional complaints making substantially the same allegations
were filed in the Dallas District Court by the Firemen's Retirement
System of St. Louis on March 4, 2019 and by Oscar Gonzalez on March
13, 2019, with the third case naming two of the company's directors
as additional defendants.

A fourth case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York by the City of Miami General Employees' &
Sanitation Employees' Retirement Trust on July 31, 2019, making
substantially the same allegations, adding claims under sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act, and naming all of the
company's directors as additional defendants.

A fifth case, filed by Bonnie Yoon Bishop in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, was voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice on October 7, 2019.

A sixth case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas by the Cambria County Employees Retirement System
on September 13, 2019, making substantially the same allegations as
those made by the plaintiff in the case pending in the Southern
District of New York.

The plaintiffs in these cases seek to determine that the
proceedings should be certified as class actions and to obtain
alleged compensatory damages, costs, rescission and equitable
relief.

The cases filed in the Dallas District Court have been consolidated
into a single action, In re Venator Materials PLC Securities
Litigation.

On October 29, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York entered an order transferring the case brought
by the city of Miami General Employees' & Sanitation Employees'
Retirement Trust to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, where the company expects it to be consolidated
with the case brought by the Cambria County Employees' Retirement
Trust.

On May 8, 2019, the company filed a "special appearance" in the
Dallas District Court action contesting the court's jurisdiction
over the Company and a motion to transfer venue to Montgomery
County, Texas and on June 7, 2019 the company and certain
defendants filed motions to dismiss.

On July 9, 2019, a hearing was held on certain of these motions,
which were subsequently denied. On October 3, 2019, a hearing was
held on the company's motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens
Participation Act, which was subsequently denied.

On October 22, 2019, the company and other defendants filed a
Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth
District of Texas seeking relief from the Dallas District Court's
denial of defendants' Rule 91a motions to dismiss.

The company also intends to appeal the denial of its motion to
dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act.

Venator said, "We may be required to indemnify our executive
officers and directors, Huntsman, and the banks who acted as
underwriters in our IPO and secondary offerings, for losses
incurred by them in connection with these matters pursuant to our
agreements with such parties. Because of the early stage of this
litigation, we are unable to reasonably estimate any possible loss
or range of loss and we have not accrued for a loss contingency
with regard to these matters."

Venator Materials PLC manufactures and markets chemical products
worldwide. It operates through two segments, Titanium Dioxide and
Performance Additives. The company was founded in 2017 and is
headquartered in Stockton-On-Tees, the United Kingdom.


VIESTE SPE: Crossfit Bank May File Second Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona issued
an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Second
Amended Complaint in the case captioned Crossfirst Bank, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. Vieste SPE LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No.
CV-18-01637-PHX-DLR, (D. Ariz.).

Plaintiffs bring this putative class action relating to their
purchase of $28,935,000 in industrial development bonds (Bonds)
described in Defendants' Official Statement (OS) dated April 17,
2013.

Legal Standard

Leave to amend should be given freely when justice so requires.
When assessing the propriety of a motion for leave to amend, the
court considers factors such as: (1) bad faith (2) undue delay (3)
prejudice to the opposing party (4) futility of amendment and (5)
whether plaintiff has previously amended his complaint.

Plaintiffs filed their SAC in accordance with the Court's prior
order. The Court finds no evidence that leave is sought in bad
faith or that further amendment would unduly prejudice Defendants.
Defendants instead argue that the proposed amendments are futile
and unduly delayed.

ASA Claims

Plaintiffs' proposed SAC includes the previously dismissed ASA
claims. Plaintiffs do not allege new facts that change the Court's
previous determination that the ASA claims are time-barred, nor
have Plaintiffs properly sought reconsideration of that prior
order.

However, it is the law of this circuit that a plaintiff waives all
claims in the alleged dismissed complaint which are not realleged
in an amended complaint. If a plaintiff fails to include dismissed
claims in an amended complaint, the plaintiff is deemed to have
waived any error in the ruling dismissing the prior complaint.

Accordingly, although Plaintiffs will not be permitted to proceed
with the ASA claims, the Court will not strike the allegations from
the SAC because Plaintiffs must include them to preserve rights on
appeal.

Futility of Common Law Claims

Fraud

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' proposed fraud claim is futile
because it is barred by the three-year statute of limitations.

The Court disagrees.

Plaintiffs fraud claim arises from Defendants' production of the OS
and the alleged misstatements and omissions contained therein.
These allegations also were the basis for Plaintiffs' ASA claims.
In its prior order, the Court determined that Plaintiffs were on
notice of possible misstatements and omissions in the OS by no
later than July 24, 2015. By then, Plaintiffs would have known
enough to investigate the alleged fraud. Plaintiffs filed this
action within three years of that time, and the allegations in
their proposed SAC relate back to that initial filing.  

Amendment therefore would not be futile.

Aiding and Abetting Fraud

Plaintiffs seek to add an aiding and abetting fraud claim against
the Underwriters and the Law Firm Defendants. The Underwriters and
Law Firm Defendants argue that the claim is futile because the
predicate fraud claim is futile and because Plaintiffs failed to
allege the required scienter.

The Court disagrees.

First, because the Court has found Plaintiffs' proposed fraud claim
is not futile, their proposed aiding and abetting claim does not
fail for want of a predicate tort.

Second, drawing all inferences in favor of granting the motion,
Plaintiffs have alleged enough facts indicating that the
Underwriters and Law Firms knew of the fraudulent conduct.
Plaintiffs' proposed aiding and abetting fraud claim therefore is
not futile.

Negligent Misrepresentation

Plaintiffs seek to add a claim for negligent misrepresentation
against all Defendants based on their respective participation in
the creation of the OS. All Defendants argue that these claims are
futile because they are barred by the two-year statute of
limitations.  

The Court finds that the negligent misrepresentation claims are not
futile both because application of the discovery rule requires
factual determinations, and because of the liberal policy favoring
amendment.

The Court will grant Plaintiffs permission to revise the SAC to
state the need for an expert opinion before they file the final
SAC.

Undue Delay

Finally, the Sims Defendants argue that the Court should deny
Plaintiffs' motion because the common law claims could have been
raised earlier. But undue delay by itself is insufficient to
justify denying a motion to amend and the Court does not find that
Defendants will be prejudiced by the proposed SAC. The parties have
not yet conducted discovery and, because the additional claims
emerge largely from the same factual background as the original ASA
claims, Defendants need not take an entirely new course of defense
in addressing them, rules the Court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 30, 2019 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxrzsx2q from Leagle.com.

Crossfirst Bank, a Kansas banking corporation & Crossfirst
Investments Incorporated, a Kansas corporation, Plaintiffs,
represented by Bryce Ethan Langford  - bryce.langford@stinson.com -
Stinson Leonard Street LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher M. Hack -
chris@krislovlaw.com - Krislov & Associates Limited, pro hac vice,
Clinton Arthur Krislov - clint@krislovlaw.com - Krislov &
Associates Limited, pro hac vice, Jeffrey J. Goulder -
jeffrey.goulder@stinson.com - Stinson Leonard Street LLP & Stefan
Mark Palys -stefan.palys@stinson.com - Stinson LLP.

Nancy Hanna, wife, Frank B Hanna Sr & Nancy B Hanna Revocable
Trust, trustee of Frank Hanna, Sr., Wesley Hanna Trust, trustee of
Frank Hanna, Sr. trustee of Henry H Hanna, III trustee of Wesley
Hanna, Leigh Hanna Trust, trustee of Frank Hanna, Sr. trustee of
Henry H Hanna, III trustee of Leigh Hanna, Frank Hanna Jr Trust,
trustee of Frank Hanna, Sr. trustee of Henry H Hanna, III trustee
of Frank Hanna, Jr. & Frank Hanna, Sr., husband, Plaintiffs,
represented by Christopher M. Hack , Krislov & Associates Limited,
pro hac vice, Clinton Arthur Krislov , Krislov & Associates
Limited, pro hac vice, Jeffrey J. Goulder , Stinson Leonard Street
LLP & Stefan Mark Palys , Stinson LLP.

Vieste SPE LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, Vieste Energy
LLC, an Indiana corporation, Vieste LLC, an Indiana limited
liability corporation, Mark Branaman, husband, Michael A Comparato,
Sr., husband, Joseph A Cook, husband & Donald W Currise, husband,
Defendants, represented by Jessica Ann Wilson - jwilson@kflawaz.com
- Kercsmar & Feltus PLLC & Todd Feltus - tfeltus@kflawaz.com -
Kercsmar & Feltus PLLC.

Joshua D Rogers, husband, Defendant, represented by John M. George,
Jr. – jgeorge@kattentemple.com - Katten & Temple LLP, pro hac
vice & Nancy Anne Temple, Katten & Temple LLP, The Rookery
Building,209 South LaSalle St, Suite 950, Chicago, IL 60604 pro hac
vice.

Herbert J Sims & Company Incorporated, a Connecticut corporation,
Timothy Xan Smith & William B Sims, Defendants, represented by
Hutson B. Smelley - hutson.smelley@mhllp.com - McDowell
Hetherington LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey Charles Matura -
jmatura@barrettmatura.com -, Barrett & Matura PC & Thomas F.A.
Hetherington - tom.hetherington@mhllp.com - McDowell Hetherington
LLP, pro hac vice.

VISTRA ENERGY: Wisconsin Price-Fixing Class Action Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Vistra Energy Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that company remains as
a defendant in two consolidated putative class actions in
Wisconsin.

The company, through its subsidiaries, and other energy companies
are named as defendants in several lawsuits claiming damages
resulting from alleged price manipulation through false reporting
of natural gas prices to various index publications, wash trading
and churn trading from 2000-2002.

The cases allege that the defendants engaged in an antitrust
conspiracy to inflate natural gas prices in three states (Kansas,
Missouri and Wisconsin) during the relevant time period and seek
damages under the respective state antitrust statutes.

The cases had been consolidated (along with other similar cases) in
a multi-district litigation (MDL) proceeding in the U.S. District
Court for Nevada, but in January 2019 the MDL judge issued an order
remanding the consolidated cases back to their respective courts of
origin.

Along with other defendants, the company had previously reached a
settlement in the Kansas and Missouri class action cases, which the
judge approved. The settlement amounts were immaterial.

The company remains as defendants in two consolidated putative
class actions (Wisconsin) and one individual action (Kansas).

Vistra said, "While we cannot predict the outcome of these legal
proceedings, or estimate a range of costs, they could have a
material impact on our results of operations, liquidity or
financial condition."

Vistra Energy Corp. is a Texas-based energy company focused on the
competitive energy and power generation markets.


VMSB LLC: Luis Seeks to Recover Damages for Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROLANDO LUIS, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff
v. VMSB, LLC d/b/a CASA CASUARINA d/b/a GIANNIT'S, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-24637-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 8, 2019), seeks to recover
money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff, and all other current and former employees similarly
situated to the Plaintiff, worked for the Defendant in excess of 40
hours during one or more weeks on or after October 2016 without
being compensated overtime wages, the Plaintiff alleges.

VMSB LLC is in the family clothing stores industry in New York, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


WABCO HOLDINGS: Voluntary Dismissal Filed in Merger-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WABCO Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the plaintiffs in
four lawsuits including two class action suits related to the
company's merger with ZF Friedrichshafen AG, have filed notice of
voluntary dismissal.

On March 28, 2019, WABCO entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the Merger Agreement) with ZF Friedrichshafen AG (ZF), a
stock corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
Federal Republic of Germany, and Verona Merger Sub Corp., a
Delaware corporation and indirect wholly owned subsidiary of ZF,
pursuant to which ZF will acquire 100% of the issued and
outstanding shares of WABCO common stock (the Merger).

The Merger Agreement was adopted by WABCO's shareholders at the
June 27, 2019 special meeting of shareholders. Consummation of the
Merger is subject to customary closing conditions and regulatory
approvals and is expected to close in early 2020.

Following the announcement of the execution of the Merger
Agreement, two putative class action complaints and two individual
complaints were filed against the Company and the Board of
Directors.

On April 23, 2019, the first putative class action complaint was
filed against the Company and the Board of Directors in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware under the
caption Collier v. WABCO Holdings Inc., et al., No. 1:19-cv-00729
(D. Del.).

On April 24, 2019, the second putative class action complaint was
filed against the Company and the Board of Directors in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware under the
caption Kent v. WABCO Holdings Inc., et al., No. 1:19-cv-00735 (D.
Del.).

On April 29, 2019, a third complaint was filed against the Company
and the Board of Directors in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware under the caption Stein v. WABCO Holdings
Inc., et al., No. 1:19-cv-00782 (D. Del.).

On May 2, 2019, a fourth complaint was filed against the Company
and the Board of Directors in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware under the caption Kengchoon v. WABCO
Holdings Inc., et al., No. 1:19-cv-00816 (D. Del.).

The defendants believed that these four lawsuits were without merit
and the defendants specifically denied all allegations that any
supplemental disclosure was required. However, to moot certain
disclosure claims in these lawsuits, to avoid nuisance, potential
expense and delay and to provide additional information to WABCO's
shareholders, on June 17, 2019, WABCO voluntarily supplemented its
definitive proxy statement by publicly filing additional
disclosures.

In August 2019, each of the plaintiffs in these four lawsuits filed
a notice of voluntary dismissal that reserved the right to seek an
award of attorneys' fees.

WABCO Holdings said, "While these plaintiffs have dismissed these
actions, it is possible that additional lawsuits related to the
Merger may be filed in the future in the same or other courts that
name the same or additional defendants, in which case we could be
similarly materially and adversely affected by such additional
litigation. We cannot assure you as to the outcome of any future
lawsuits, including the costs associated with defending such claims
or any other liabilities that may be incurred in connection with
litigation or settlement of such claims."

WABCO Holdings Inc., together with its subsidiaries, supplies
electronic, mechanical, electro-mechanical, and aerodynamic
products worldwide. The company engineers, develops, manufactures,
and sells braking, stability, suspension, steering, transmission
automation, and air management systems primarily for commercial
vehicles. WABCO Holdings Inc. was founded in 1869 and is
headquartered in Brussels, Belgium.


WAL-MART STORES: Faces Pargett Suit Over Mislabeled LED Bulbs
-------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCIS PARGETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:19-cv-02157 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 8, 2019), alleges that the Defendant
misrepresented the energy efficiency of Great Value-brand LED light
bulbs by promoting them as ENERGY STAR-qualified and labeling them
with the ENERGY STAR logo.

In fact, the Plaintiff alleges, the mislabeled LED bulbs do not
meet the ENERGY STAR(TM) efficiency standards, and consume
significantly more energy than their labels state. ENERGY STAR
(TM)-qualified light bulbs are required by the U.S. Department of
Energy to exceed minimum standards for energy efficiency.

The mislabeled LED bulbs include model numbers GVRLAO727D,
GVRLAO727D4, GVRLAO750D, GVRLAO750D4, GVRLR1440D2, GVRLA6027ND,
GVRLA60P, GVRLA60PAEP, GVRLA60PAEPO, GVRLA60PAM, GVRLA60PC,
GVRLA60PDPL, GVRLA60PEPE, GVRLA60PJEA, GVRLA60POGE, GVRLA60PPNM,
GVRLA60PPSO, GVRLA60PTP, GVRLA6050ND, GVRLA6050ND4, GVRLA6050ND2,
GVRLA6050NDTCP, and GVRLA6027ND4.

According to the lawsuit, the Plaintiff and Class members were
injured as a direct and proximate result of Walmart's breach
because:

   -- they would not have purchased the Mislabeled LED Bulbs on
      the same terms if the true facts concerning their energy
      efficiency had been known;

   -- they paid a price premium due to the mislabeling of the
      light bulbs as ENERGY STAR(R)-qualified;

   -- the Mislabeled LED Bulbs did not perform as promised; and

   -- they have paid and will continue to pay higher Utility
      Bills as long as they continue to use the Mislabeled LED
      Bulbs.

Walmart Inc., formerly Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., is engaged in the
operation of retail, wholesale and other units in various formats
around the world. The Company offers an assortment of merchandise
and services at everyday low prices (EDLP). The Company operates
through three segments: Walmart U.S., Walmart International and
Sam's Club.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  ndeckant@bursor.com

               - and -

          Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
          2665 S. Bayshore Dr., Suite 220
          Miami, FL 33133-5402
          Telephone: (305) 330-5312
          Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
          E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com


WATKINS AND SHEPARD: Romero Seeks Wages for Terminated Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEJANDRO ROMERO, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WATKINS AND SHEPARD
TRUCKING, INC., a Montana corporation, SCHNEIDER RETRAINING
NATIONAL CARRIERS, INC., a Nevada corporation, and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-02158 (Cal. Super.,
Nov. 8, 2019), seeks to recover wages and other payments for
terminated employees.

Specifically, the Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid wages, salary,
commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay, accrued vacation pay,
pension and 401(k) contributions and other Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 benefits, for 60 days following the
member, that would have been covered and paid under the then
applicable employee benefit plans had that coverage continued for
that period, all determined in accordance with California Labor
Code.

The Plaintiff brings this action on his own behalf and on behalf of
all other similarly situated former employees of the Defendants,
who worked for them outside of California and who were terminated
without cause in August 2019.

Watkins and Shepard Trucking, Inc. provides logistics and
transportation services. The Company offers freight management,
distribution, consolidation, and warehousing services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric A. Panitz, Esq.
          Gerardo Sosa, Esq.
          PANITZ LAW GROUP APC
          18000 Studebaker Road, Suite 700
          Telephone: 562 924 7800
          E-mail: eric@panitzlaw.com
                  gs@panitzlaw.com


WELBILT INC: Schlimm Class Suit in Florida Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------
Welbilt, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Schlimm v.
Welbilt, Inc., et al.

On December 13, 2018, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida against the company and certain of its former executive
officers.

The lawsuit is captioned Schlimm v. Welbilt, Inc., et al., and
alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by making material misstatements or
omissions in certain of our periodic reports filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission relating to, among other things,
the company's business operations and the effectiveness of our
internal control over financial reporting.

The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages and an award of
attorney's fees, in addition to other relief.

On March 15, 2019, a purported shareholder derivative action was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
against certain of the company's current and former executive
officers and directors, and we were named as a nominal defendant.

The lawsuit is captioned Quinney v. Muehlhaeuser, et al., and
alleges violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and breach of fiduciary duty, among other claims, based
upon similar underlying allegations as those in the Schlimm
lawsuit.

The Quinney lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages and an
award of attorney's fees, in addition to other relief.

On June 5, 2019, the Delaware court stayed the Quinney lawsuit,
pending further developments in the Schlimm lawsuit.

On September 4, 2019, a purported shareholder derivative action was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
against certain of the company's current and former executive
officers and directors, and the company was named as a nominal
defendant.

The lawsuit is captioned The Lee S. Kosby Trust v. Muehlhaeuser, et
al., and alleges violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and breach of fiduciary duty, among other
claims, based upon similar underlying allegations as those in the
Quinney and Schlimm lawsuits.

The Kosby lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages and an
award of attorney's fees, in addition to other relief.

On June 3, 2019, f'real Foods, LLC filed a patent infringement
lawsuit against Welbilt, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware, captioned f'real Foods LLC v. Welbilt, Inc.

The lawsuit alleges that we have willfully infringed U.S. Patent
No. 7,144,150 and U.S. Patent No. 7,520,662 by manufacturing and
selling three blenders: the Multiplex FreshBlender(R), the
Multiplex Blend In Cup(R) Workstation, and the MAM9904
Blend-In-Cup(R) - Manual Fill.

On June 6, 2019, f'real filed a nearly identical patent
infringement lawsuit against Fresh Blends North America, Inc. in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
captioned f'real Foods LLC v. Fresh Blends North America, Inc.

Welbilt intervened in the case in September 2019; and on October
10, 2019, f'real filed its second amended complaint alleging that
Welbilt and Fresh Blends willfully infringe the same patents by
manufacturing and selling The Fresh Blender(R).

In each of the Delaware and Florida actions, f'real requests that
Welbilt and certain affiliates be enjoined from the allegedly
infringing activity, among other requested relief, and seeks
monetary damages including royalties and attorneys' fees. The
company is pursuing several defenses, including noninfringement and
invalidity.

Welbilt said, "We intend to defend against the above lawsuits
vigorously. However, litigation is inherently uncertain, and we are
unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits and are unable to
estimate the range of loss, if any, that could result from an
unfavorable outcome. We also cannot provide any assurance that the
ultimate resolution of each of these lawsuits will not have a
material adverse effect on our reputation, business, prospects,
results of operations or financial condition."

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

Welbilt, Inc., a foodservice equipment company, designs,
manufactures, supply, and services food and beverage equipment for
commercial foodservice market worldwide. The company was formerly
known as Manitowoc Foodservice, Inc. and changed its name to
Welbilt, Inc. in February 2017. Welbilt, Inc. was founded in 1902
and is headquartered in New Port Richey, Florida.


WELLS FARGO: Hernandez et al. Seek to Certify Classes & Subclasses
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALICIA HERNANDEZ et al., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. WELLS FARGO
BANK, N.A., the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-07354-WHA (N.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiffs will move the Court on January 9, 2020, for an
order:

   1. certifying a California class:

      "all persons whose home loan was secured by real property
      located in California who between 2010 and 2018 (i)
      qualified for a home loan modification or repayment plan
      pursuant to the requirements of government-sponsored
      enterprises (such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), the
      Federal Housing Administration (FHA), or the U.S. Department
      of Treasury's Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP);
      and (ii) were not offered a home loan modification or
      repayment plan by Wells Fargo due to excessive attorney's
      fees being included in the loan modification decisioning
      process";

   2. appointing Debora Granja and Sandra Campos as class
      representatives for the California Class to pursue claims
      for breach of contract, violation of the Homeowner Bill of
      Rights, UCL violations, wrongful foreclosure, and resolution
      of the issue of whether Wells Fargo's conduct was
      outrageous, an element of the California tort of intentional

      infliction of emotional distress; and

   3. appointing Michael Schrag of Gibbs Law Group LLP and Richard
      Paul of Paul LLP as co-lead class counsel.

If the Court certifies the California Class, further consideration
of class certification for the nationwide class and non-California
state subclasses should be held in abeyance pending resolution of
the California Class claims.

Alternatively, the Plaintiffs ask the to certify all these classes
and subclasses:

   1. Nationwide Class

      "all persons who between 2010 and 2018 (i) qualified for a
      home loan modification or repayment plan pursuant to the
      requirements of government-sponsored enterprises (such as
      Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), the Federal Housing
      Administration (FHA), the U.S. Department of Treasury's Home

      Affordable Modification Program (HAMP); and (ii) were not
      offered a home loan modification or repayment plan by Wells
      Fargo due to excessive attorney's fees being included in the

      loan modification decisioning process".

      The Nationwide class will pursue a breach of contract claim
      as well as resolution of the issue of whether Wells Fargo's
      conduct was extreme and outrageous with respect to the tort
      of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The
      Nationwide class will be represented by Plaintiffs Alicia
      Hernandez, Debora Granja, Sandra Campos, Emma White, Troy
      Frye, Coszetta Teague, Russell and Brenda Simoneaux, John
      and Yvonne DeMartino, Rose Wilson, Tiffanie Hood, George and

      Cyndi Floyd, and Diana Trevino.

   2. California Subclass

      "all members of the Nationwide Class whose home was secured
      by real property located in California."

      In addition to claims it is pursuing as part of the
      Nationwide Class, the California Subclass will pursue claims

      for violation of the Homeowner Bill of Rights and the UCL.
      The California Subclass will be represented by Debora Granja

      and Sandra Campos.

      California Wrongful Foreclosure Subclass All members of the
      California subclass whose home Wells Fargo sold in
      foreclosure. In addition to claims it is pursuing as part of

      the Nationwide Class and the California Subclass, the
      California Wrongful Foreclosure Subclass will pursue a claim

      for the tort of wrongful foreclosure. The California
      Wrongful Foreclosure Subclass will be represented by Debora
      Granja and Sandra Campos.

   3. Illinois Subclass:

      "all members of the Nationwide Class whose home was secured
      by real property located in Illinois. In addition to claims
      it is pursuing as part of the Nationwide Class, the Illinois

      Subclass will pursue a claim for violation of the Illinois
      Consumer Fraud Act. The Illinois Subclass will be
      represented by Coszetta Teague.

   4. Maryland Subclass:

      "all members of the Nationwide Class whose home was secured
      by real property located in Maryland. In addition to claims
      it is pursuing as part of the Nationwide Class, the Maryland

      Subclass will pursue claims for violation of the Maryland
      Consumer Protection Act and the Maryland Consumer Debt
      Collection Act". The Maryland Subclass will be represented
      by John and Yvonne DeMartino.

   5. New Jersey Subclass:

      "all members of the Nationwide Class whose home was secured
      by real property located in New Jersey"

      In addition to claims it is pursuing as part of the
      Nationwide Class, the New Jersey Subclass will pursue a
      claim for violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.
      The New Jersey Subclass will be represented by Alicia
      Hernandez.

   6. New York Subclass:

      "all members of the Nationwide Class whose home was secured
      by real property located in New York. In addition to claims
      it is pursuing as part of the Nationwide Class, the New York

      Subclass will pursue a claim for violation of Section 349(a)

      of New York's General Business Law. The New York Subclass
      will be represented by Rose Wilson.

   7. Pennsylvania Subclass:

      "all members of the Nationwide Class whose home was secured
      by real property located in Pennsylvania."

      In addition to claims it is pursuing as part of the
      Nationwide Class, the Pennsylvania Subclass will pursue a
      claim for violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
      Practices and Consumer Protection Law. The Pennsylvania
      Subclass will be represented by George and Cyndi Floyd.

   8. Georgia Wrongful Foreclosure Subclass:

      "all members of the Nationwide Class whose home loan was
      secured by real property located in Georgia whose home Wells

      Fargo sold in foreclosure.

      In addition to claims it is pursuing as part of the
      Nationwide Class, the Georgia Wrongful Foreclosure Subclass
      will pursue a claim for the tort of wrongful foreclosure.
      The Georgia Wrongful Foreclosure Subclass will be
      represented by Troy Frye. Plaintiffs Alicia Hernandez (New
      Jersey), Debora Granja (California), Sandra Campos
      (California), Emma White (Florida), Troy Frye (Georgia),
      Coszetta Teague (Illinois), Russell and Brenda Simoneaux
      (Louisiana), John and Yvonne DeMartino (Maryland), Rose
      Wilson (New York), Tiffanie Hood (Ohio), George and Cyndi
      Floyd (Pennsylvania), and Diana Trevino (Texas) request 28
      appointment as class representatives of the Nationwide Class
      and as representatives of their respective state subclasses.
      [CC]

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes are:

          Michael L. Schrag, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          505 14th Street, Ste. 1110
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: 510-350-9700
          Facsimile: 510-350-9701
          E-mail: mls@classlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
          Ashlea G. Schwarz, Esq.
          Laura C. Fellows, Esq.
          PAUL LLP
          601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
          Kansas City, MI 64106
          Telephone: (816) 984-8100
          Facsimile: (816) 984-8101
          E-mail: Rick@PaulLLP.com
                  Ashlea@PaulLLP.com
                  Laura@PaulLLP.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Schrag, Esq.
          Joshua J. Bloomfield, Esq.
          Linda P. Lam, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          505 14th Street, Suite 1110
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 350-9700
          Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
          E-mail: mls@classlawgroup.com
                  jjb@classlawgroup.com
                  lpl@classlawgroup.com

WESTLAKE CHEMICAL: Bid to Dismiss Caustic Soda Class Suits Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Westlake Chemical Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
has moved to dismiss the majority of the class action suits related
to caustic soda.

The Company and other caustic soda producers were named as
defendants in multiple purported class action civil lawsuits filed
since March 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York.

The lawsuits allege the defendants conspired to fix, raise,
maintain and stabilize the price of caustic soda, restrict domestic
(U.S.) supply of caustic soda and allocate caustic soda customers.


The other defendants named in the lawsuits are Olin Corporation,
K.A. Steel Chemicals (a wholly owned subsidiary of Olin),
Occidental Petroleum Corporation, Occidental Chemical Corporation
d/b/a OxyChem, Shin-Etsu Chemical Co., Ltd., Shintech Incorporated,
Formosa Plastics Corporation, and Formosa Plastics Corporation,
U.S.A.

Each of the lawsuits is filed on behalf of the respective named
plaintiff or plaintiffs and a putative class comprised of either
direct purchasers or indirect purchasers of caustic soda in the
U.S. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages and
injunctive relief.

The Company has already moved to dismiss the majority of the
lawsuits filed and plan to file similar motions with respect to the
remaining lawsuits.

Westlake said, "At this time, the Company is not able to estimate
the impact, if any, that these lawsuits could have on the Company's
consolidated financial statements either in the current period or
in future periods."

Westlake Chemical Corporation manufactures and markets basic
chemicals, vinyls, polymers, and fabricated products. The Company
serves a range of consumer and industrial markets, including
flexible and rigid packaging, automotive products, coatings, and
residential and commercial construction.


ZIMMER BIOMET: Shah Class Certification Bid Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the motion
seeking class certification of the case, Shah v. Zimmer Biomet
Holdings, Inc. et al., is still pending.

On December 2, 2016, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Indiana (Shah v. Zimmer Biomet
Holdings, Inc. et al.), naming the company, one of its officers and
two of its now former officers as defendants.  

On June 28, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a corrected amended
complaint, naming as defendants, in addition to those previously
named, current and former members of our Board of Directors, one
additional officer, and the underwriters in connection with
secondary offerings of our common stock by certain selling
stockholders in 2016. On October 6, 2017, the plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed the underwriters without prejudice.  

On October 8, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint, naming as defendants, in addition to those current and
former officers and Board members previously named, certain former
stockholders of the company who sold shares of the company's common
stock in secondary public offerings in 2016.  

The company and its current and former officers and Board members
named as defendants are sometimes hereinafter referred to as the
"Zimmer Biomet Defendant group".  

The former stockholders of the company who sold shares of the
company's common stock in secondary public offerings in 2016 are
sometimes hereinafter referred to as the "Private Equity Fund
Defendant group".  

The second amended complaint relates to a putative class action on
behalf of persons who purchased the company's common stock between
June 7, 2016 and November 7, 2016. The second amended complaint
generally alleges that the defendants violated federal securities
laws by making materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
omissions about the company's compliance with U.S. Food and Drug
Administration regulations and the company's ability to continue to
accelerate its organic revenue growth rate in the second half of
2016.  

The defendants filed their respective motions to dismiss on
December 20, 2017, plaintiffs filed their omnibus response to the
motions to dismiss on March 13, 2018 and the defendants filed their
respective reply briefs on May 18, 2018.  

On September 27, 2018, the court denied the Zimmer Biomet Defendant
group's motion to dismiss in its entirety.  The court granted the
Private Equity Fund Defendant group's motion to dismiss, without
prejudice.  

On October 9, 2018, the Zimmer Biomet Defendant group filed a
motion (i) to amend the court’s order on the motion to certify
two issues for interlocutory appeal, and (ii) to stay proceedings
pending appeal. On February 21, 2019, that motion was denied. On
April 11, 2019, the plaintiffs moved for class certification.  On
June 20, 2019, the Zimmer Biomet Defendant group filed its
response. The plaintiff's motion remained pending as of October 31,
2019.  

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and interest, attorneys'
fees, costs and other relief.  

Zimmer Biomet said, "We believe this lawsuit is without merit, and
we and the individual defendants are defending it vigorously.

Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
designs, manufactures, and markets musculoskeletal healthcare
products and solutions in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East,
Africa, and the Asia Pacific. It operates through four segments:
Spine, less Asia Pacific; Office Based Technologies;
Craniomaxillofacial and Thoracic; and Dental. The company was
formerly known as Zimmer Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to
Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. in June 2015. Zimmer Biomet Holdings,
Inc. was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in Warsaw, Indiana.


ZION OIL: Bid to Dismiss Texas Class Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Zion Oil & Gas, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the motion to
dismiss the class action suit before the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas., is still pending.

Following the commencement of the SEC investigation, on August 9,
2018, a putative class action Complaint was filed against Zion,
Victor G. Carrillo, the Company's Chief Executive Officer at such
time, and Michael B. Croswell Jr., the Company's Chief Financial
Officer in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas.

On November 16, 2018, the Court entered an Order in the class
action appointing lead plaintiffs and approving lead counsel and on
January 22, 2019, an Amended Complaint was filed. On February 1,
2019, a Corrected Amended Class Action Complaint was filed.

The suit alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934  and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
SEC and Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against all
defendants and alleges violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Section 15 of the Securities Act against the individual
defendants. The alleged class period is from February 13, 2018
through November 20, 2018.

On March 13, 2019, a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Corrected
Amended Complaint was filed on behalf of Zion, Victor Carrillo and
Michael B. Croswell, Jr., pleading numerous grounds in support of
their Motion to Dismiss.

On April 29, 2019 Plaintiffs filed a Response to Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss, and on May 29, 2019 Defendants filed a Reply to
Plaintiffs’ Response.

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

Zion Oil & Gas, Inc. operates as an oil and gas exploration company
in Israel. It holds a petroleum exploration license onshore Israel,
the Megiddo-Jezreel License that covers an area of approximately
99,000 acres. The company was founded in 2000 and is headquartered
in Dallas, Texas.


ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Continues to Defend Evans Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Zions Bancorporation, National Association said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit
entitled, Evans v. CB&T.

A civil class action lawsuit, Evans v. CB&T, brought against the
company in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California in May 2017.

This case was filed on behalf of a class of up to 50 investors in
IMG and seeks to hold us liable for losses of class members arising
from their investments in International Manufacturing Group (IMG),
alleging that the company conspired with and knowingly assisted IMG
and its principal in furtherance of an alleged Ponzi scheme.

In December 2017, the District Court dismissed all claims against
the Bank.

In January 2018, the plaintiff filed an appeal with the Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appeal was heard in early April
2019 with the Court of Appeals reversing the trial court's
dismissal.

Zions said, "This case is in the pleadings phase and as a result,
trial will not occur for a substantial period of time."

Zions Bancorporation, National Association provides various banking
and related services primarily in Arizona, California, Colorado,
Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming. The company was formerly known as ZB, National Association
and changed its name to Zions Bancorporation, National Association
in September 2018. Zions Bancorporation, National Association was
founded in 1873 and is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah.


ZYNERBA PHARMA: Continues to Defend Pennsylvania Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zynerba Pharmaceuticalssaid in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  

On October 23, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company and certain of its current officers in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

This action was purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class
of Zynerba investors who purchased the Company's publicly traded
securities between March 11, 2019 and September 17, 2019.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made certain material
misstatements and omissions relating to product candidate Zygel
("ZYN002") in alleged violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  

Specifically, plaintiff claims that Defendants made false
statements or failed to disclose that: (i) Zygel was proving unsafe
and not well-tolerated in the BELIEVE 1 clinical trial; (ii) that
the foregoing created a foreseeable, heightened risk that Zynerba
would fail to secure the necessary regulatory approvals for
commercializing Zygel for the treatment of developmental and
epileptic encephalopathies in children and adolescents, and (iii)
as a result the Company's public statements and public filings were
materially false and misleading to investors.

Zynerba said, "We believe that the claims asserted are without
merit, and we intend to defend these actions vigorously. The
lawsuit is in the early stages and, at this time, no assessment can
be made as to its likely outcome or whether the outcome will be
material to us."

Zynerba Pharmaceuticals provides pharmaceutically-produced
transdermal cannabinoid therapies for rare and near-rare
neuropsychiatric disorders. The company is committed to improving
the lives of patients and their families living with severe,
chronic health conditions including Fragile X syndrome, or FXS,
autism spectrum disorder, or ASD, 22q11.2 deletion syndrome, or
22q, and a heterogeneous group of rare and ultra-rare epilepsies
known as developmental and epileptic encephalopathies, or DEE. The
company is based in Devon, Pennsylvania.



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***