CAR_Public/191211.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, December 11, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 247

                            Headlines

ADTRAN INC: Faces Burbridge Stockholder Class Action
ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Wyche Class Suit Concluded, No Appeal Filed
AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Appeal in Karth Class Suit Underway
ALAMANCE COUNTY, NC: Allison Sues Over Unaffordable Money Bail
ALLERGAN INC: Sloan Sues Over Sale of Defective BIOCELL Implants

ALLERGAN PLC: Appeal in Testosterone Replacement Suit Still Pending
ALLERGAN PLC: Denial of Class Cert. in Celexa/Lexapro Suit Upheld
ALLERGAN PLC: Discovery Ongoing in Suit over Breast Implants
ALLERGAN PLC: Dismissal of Generic Drug Pricing Suit Challenged
ALLERGAN PLC: Plaintiffs Sue Warner Chilcott in NJ State Court

AQUA METALS: Seeks to Narrow Claims in 2nd Amended Securities Suit
ASC PROCESS: Fails to Pay All Wages, Rodriguez Labor Suit Claims
AT&T INC: Roberts Class Action over MBR Program Still Pending
AVEDRO INC: Continues to Defend Glaukos Merger-Related Suits
BELLICUM PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Kakkar Class Suit Still Pending

BOEING COMPANY: SWAPA Suit Removed to Northern District of Texas
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Blue Cross Suit Against Janssen Ongoing
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: New York Securities Class Suit Dismissed
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Says 43,500 Mesh Claims Resolved
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Continues to Defend Cazer Class Suit

CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Continues to Defend Gershman Class Suit
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Continues to Defend Palkon Class Suit
CHEBOYGAN: Arkona et al. Seek to Certify Property Owners Class
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Suit v. FTS International in Texas Ongoing
CINEMARK USA: Funds Brown Case Settlement

CLOSET WORLD: Denied Earned and Overtime Wages, Montano Claims
COLLEGIUM PHARMA: Triad Health Systems Class Suit Dismissed
COMSCORE INC: Bratusov Class Action Still Ongoing
COMSCORE INC: Privacy Class Action Litigation Ongoing
COTY INC: Laborers' Pension Fund Class Action Ongoing

CV SCIENCES: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Smith Class Suit Pending
DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Consolidated Securities Class Suit Underway
DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Paid $14.1MM in 3Q to Settle Class Action
EARTHSTONE ENERGY: Olenik Class Action Still Ongoing
ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Dougherty Class Suit

EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Lewin Files FCRA Suit in New York
FARMLAND PARTNERS: Turner Insurance Class Suit Remains in Discovery
FLEX-N-GATE CORP: Stewart Sues Over Collection of Biometric Data
FLORIDA COMMERCIAL: Woodard Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wage
GENESEE & WYOMING: Merger Related Suits Voluntarily Dismissed

GENIE ENERGY: IDT Energy Seeks Summary Judgment in TCPA Class Suit
GILEAD SCIENCES: Product Liability Suits over HIV Drugs Ongoing
GILEAD SCIENCES: Suit over Price-Fixing of HIV Drugs Ongoing
GLAUKOS CORP: Continues to Defend Class Suit over Avedro Merger
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: Did Not Give Seats to Workers, Recinos Says

HEALTH INSURANCE: Appeal Pending over 2 Classes in Moser TCPA Suit
HEALTH INSURANCE: Court Denies Bid to Nix Securities Suit in Fla.
HEALTH INSURANCE: Discovery in Florida Consolidated Suit Ongoing
HEALTH INSURANCE: S.D. Florida Court Narrows Bid to Nix Belin Suit
HELIUS MEDICAL: Bid to Combine Caramahai and Evans Suits Pending

HENRY SCHEIN: Faces City of Hollywood Police Officers Suit
HENRY SCHEIN: Hatchett Class Action Ongoing
HENRY SCHEIN: Kramer Class Action Suit Terminated
HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: Rodgers, et al. Seek to Certify Class
HUHTAMAKI INC: Chavez Files Suit in California

INDIA GLOBALIZATION: Bid to Dismiss Tchatchou Class Suit Pending
J. CREW GROUP: Mendez Alleges Violation under ADA
JEFFREE STAR COSMETICS: Kiler Files Suit in New York for ADA
KTH PARTS: Baughman, et al. Seek to Certify Class of Employers
KUSHCO HOLDINGS: Has Until January 2020 to Respond to May Complaint

LENDINGCLUB CORP: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Shron Suit Pending
LENDINGCLUB CORP: No Arbitration Initiated Yet in Moses Class Suit
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Plouffe Class Action Dismissed
LG HOUSEHOLD: Slade Files Suit under Disabilities Act
LIBERTY MEDIA: Flo & Eddie Class Suit Remanded to California

LIBERTY MEDIA: Ponderosa Twins Lawsuit Still Stayed in California
LIBERTY MEDIA: Sheridan Class Suits in 2 Courts Still Stayed
MACROGENICS INC: Continues to Defend Hill Class Suit
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Bid to Dismiss MSP Recovery Suit Pending
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Bid to Dismiss Steamfitters Union Suit Pending

MALLINCKRODT PLC: Plumbers & Pipefitters Union Class Suit Dismissed
MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Appeal from Dismissed Lennen Suit Underway
MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Still Faces Helman Class Suit in Virgin Islands
MASONITE INT'L: Trial in Consumer Class Suit Set for Oct. 2020
METLIFE INC: Sales Practices Suits vs. Sun Life Still Ongoing

MIKE PRENDERGRAST: Court Denies Motion for Class Certification
MONEYGRAM INT'L: Illinois Securities Action Remains Pending
NATURAL HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Kauffman Class Suit Ongoing
NEWLINK GENETICS: Appeal in Nguyen Class Action Pending
OASIS PETROLEUM: Solomon Class Suit Against Subsidiary Ongoing

OCWEN FINANCIAL: Carvelli Class Action Ongoing
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Settlement in McWhorter Wins Final Approval
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Still Defends Class Suit over TCPA Breach
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Takes Steps to Satisfy TCPA Settlement Obligations
OLD NAVY: Andrews Sues Over False Reference Prices and Discounts

PBF HOLDING: Court Certifies 2 Limited Classes in Goldstein Suit
PBF HOLDING: Initial Agreement Reached for Thomas Suit Settlement
PBF HOLDING: Parties in Kendig Suit Reach Initial Settlement Pact
PITNEY BOWES: Bid to Strike City of Livonia Complaint Granted
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Court Certifies Amended Fisher Subclass

PLANTRONICS INC: Shin Case Settlement Set for December 20
PNC MERCHANT: Court Reinstates Contract Breach Claim in ASBC Case
PPL CORP: Cane Run Environmental Claims Still Ongoing vs. LG&E
PPL CORP: Ruling in Retirement Plan Suit under Appeal
QUANTUM CORP: Awaits Court's Final Approval of Settlement

REDFIN CORP: Faces Third-Party Licensed Sales Associates' Suit
REGULUS THERAPEUTICS: Tentative Accord Reached in Securities Suit
RO-AL INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Mayowa Labor Suit Claims
ROACH & MURTHA: Faces Musarra Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
SCI DIRECT: $1.6MM Settlement in Romano Case Gets Final Ct. OK

SRC ENERGY: Continues to Defend PDC Merger-Related Class Suits
SUNOCO INC: Seeks Tenth Circuit Review of Ruling in Cline Suit
TERRAFORM POWER: Rosson Derivative Class Suit in Delaware Underway
TOMS KING: McGhee Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages for RAMs/RGMITs
TORY BURCH: Gift Cards Not Accessible to Blind, Thorne Claims

TY INC: Guglielmo Files Suit in New York under ADA
UPS STORE: Seeks Review of Circuit Court Judgment in Long Suit
US XPRESS: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Class Suits
US XPRESS: Discovery Still Ongoing in Cal. Wage & Hour Class Suit
US XPRESS: Seeks Arbitration of Contractors' Claims

VIEWRAY INC: Corwin Class Suit in Northern Dist. of Ohio Underway
VITAMIN SHOPPE: Continues to Defend Franchise Group Merger Suits
WASTE PRO: Faces Privette Suit in S.C. Alleging FLSA Violations
WELLS FARGO: Faces Toggas Suit Over Violations of Consumer Laws
WW INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated SDNY Suit Pending

WYNN RESORTS: Bid to Dismiss Ferris Securities Suit Still Pending
XEROX CORP: Certification Bid and Approval of Settlement Denied
XEROX CORP: Ribbe Suit over Fuji Transaction Still Ongoing
XEROX CORP: Time to Seek Review of 2nd Circuit Decision Expires
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Trial in Bid to Dismiss Gregory Suit Pending


                            *********

ADTRAN INC: Faces Burbridge Stockholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
ADTRAN, 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 been named as
a defendant in a purported stockholder class action suit entitled,
Burbridge v. ADTRAN, Inc. et al., Docket No. 19-cv-09619.

On October 17, 2019, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit,
captioned Burbridge v. ADTRAN, Inc. et al., Docket No. 19-cv-09619,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company, two of its current
executive officers and one of its former executive officers.  

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws and
seeks unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of purported
purchasers of ADTRAN securities between February 28, 2019 and
October 9, 2019.  

The lawsuit claims that the defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding, and/or failed to disclose material
adverse facts about, the Company's business, operations and
prospects, specifically relating to the Company's internal control
over financial reporting, excess and obsolete inventory reserves,
financial results and shipments from a Latin American customer.  

Investors in ADTRAN securities have until December 16, 2019 to move
the court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action.  

ADTRAN said, "We disagree with the claims made in the complaint and
intend to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. At this time, we
are unable to predict the outcome of or estimate the possible loss
or range of loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit."

ADTRAN, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, markets, and services
a variety of high-speed digital transmission products. The
Company's products are used by telephone companies and corporate
end-users to implement advanced digital data services over existing
telephone networks. ADTRAN also offers a line of multiplexers which
provides modular flexibility. The company is based in Huntsville,
Alabama.


ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Wyche Class Suit Concluded, No Appeal Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Drainage Systems, 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 Plaintiff in the
stockholder class action suit entitled, Christopher Wyche,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc., et al., did not taken an appeal
from the District Court's decision denying the Plaintiff's motion
for relief from final judgment and for leave to file an amended
complaint. Thus, the matter is concluded.

On July 29, 2015, a putative stockholder class action, Christopher
Wyche, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc., et al. (Case No.
1:15-cv-05955-KPF), was commenced in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (the "District Court"), naming
the Company, along with Joseph A. Chlapaty, the Company's former
Chief Executive Officer, and Mark B. Sturgeon, the Company's former
Chief Financial Officer, as defendants and alleging violations of
the federal securities laws.  An amended complaint was filed on
April 28, 2016.  The amended complaint alleged that the Company
made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact
in its public disclosures during the period from July 25, 2014
through March 29, 2016, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

On March 10, 2017, the District Court dismissed plaintiff's claims
against all defendants in their entirety and with prejudice.
Plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, and on October 13, 2017 the District Court's
judgment was affirmed by the Second Circuit.

On October 27, 2017, plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing with
the Second Circuit.  The Second Circuit denied the petition for
rehearing on November 28, 2017.

On November 27, 2018, the plaintiff filed with the District Court a
motion for relief from final judgment and for leave to file an
amended complaint, which, the defendants opposed.

On July 3, 2019, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion.
The Plaintiff did not appeal the District Court's decision and the
matter is concluded.

Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets
thermoplastic corrugated pipes and related water management
products, and drainage solutions for use in the underground
construction and infrastructure marketplace in the United States
and internationally. Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. was founded in
1966 and is headquartered in Hilliard, Ohio.


AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Appeal in Karth Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that in the case styled, Karth v.
Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., the plaintiff filed a
notice of appeal on September 24, 2019, from the Massachusetts
District Court's final judgment in favor of defendants on all
claims.  Plaintiff's appeal brief was due December 4, 2019, and
defendants' brief is due 30 days thereafter.  The First Circuit has
not yet set an oral argument date for the appeal.

Four putative class action lawsuits were filed against Keryx and
certain of its former officers (Gregory P. Madison, Scott A.
Holmes, Ron Bentsur, and James Oliviero) and consolidated in the
Massachusetts District Court, captioned Karth v. Keryx
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (filed October 26, 2016, with an
amended complaint filed on February 27, 2017).  Plaintiff sought to
represent all stockholders who purchased shares of Keryx common
stock between May 8, 2013 and August 1, 2016.

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

By order dated July 19, 2018, the Massachusetts District Court
granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint.

On February 27, 2019, defendants filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings.  

On April 30, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to further amend his
complaint, and also moved for class certification.  The
Massachusetts District Court heard oral argument on the motions for
judgment on the pleadings and class certification on June 19,
2019.

On September 23, 2019, the Massachusetts District Court issued a
Memorandum and Order denying plaintiff's motion for class
certification, granting defendants' motion for judgment on the
pleadings, and denying plaintiff's motion for leave to further
amend his Complaint.  That same day, the Massachusetts District
Court entered a final judgment in favor of defendants on all
claims.  

On September 24, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.
Plaintiff's appeal brief was due December 4, 2019, and defendants'
brief is due 30 days thereafter.  The First Circuit has not yet set
an oral argument date for the appeal.

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


ALAMANCE COUNTY, NC: Allison Sues Over Unaffordable Money Bail
--------------------------------------------------------------
LEA ALLISON, ANTONIO HARRELL, and KATHERINE GUILL, on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BRADLEY R.
ALLEN, SR., in his official capacity as Chief District Court Judge,
BRENDA BROWN, KELLY COUNCILMAN, DAVID CRABBE, RHONDA  CRISP,
BERTRAM HEATHCOTE, WENDY HUNTER, AMELIA KNAUFF, BOBBIE NANCE,
HELENA RODGERS, KIMESHA THORPE, JOHN WATTERSON, SUSAN WORTINGER, in
their official capacity as magistrates of the Alamance County
District Court, D. THOMAS LAMBETH, JR., in his official capacity as
Senior Resident Superior Court Judge, and TERRY S. JOHNSON, in his
official capacity as Alamance County Sheriff, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-01126-NCT-LPA (M.D.N.C., Nov. 12, 2019), seeks a
declaration from the Court that the Defendants' policies and
practices relating to money bail violate the Plaintiffs' equal
protection, substantive due process, and procedural due process
rights, as well as their right to counsel.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to issue appropriate injunctive
and declaratory relief that will ensure that individuals in
Alamance County do not remain in jail solely because of their
poverty. The Plaintiffs further ask that the Court immediately take
up their Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and order Defendant
Sheriff to release the Plaintiffs unless the Defendants provide him
with orders, including a finding, made after the required
procedural safeguards have been provided, that the Plaintiffs'
pretrial detention is necessary.

The Plaintiffs contend they have already suffered pretrial
incarceration without due process due to the Defendants' actions.
The Plaintiffs assert that every day in Alamance County,
presumptively innocent people remain in jail simply because they
are too poor to pay for their freedom.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are responsible for the
harms suffered by the Plaintiffs, as the Defendants implement and
employ policies and practices that imprison people on unaffordable
money bail, deny them even the most basic procedural protections,
and violate their fundamental constitutional rights to pretrial
liberty and to not be jailed because of their poverty. The
Defendants subject people arrested and charged in Alamance County
to unconstitutional de facto detention orders set without the
assistance of counsel and do not provide any process for the
incarcerated individuals to contest their jailing until days or
weeks have passed and the individual waives counsel or an attorney
enters an appearance.

The harms are inflicted on people living in poverty, who cannot pay
money bail despite compelling evidence that alternatives to
monetary release conditions are more effective in ensuring
appearance for trial and reduce the risk of re-arrest before trial,
the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Katherine Hubbard, Esq.
          Eric Halperin, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
          1601 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 800
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: 202-894-6124
          Facsimile: 202-609-8030
          E-mail: katherine@civilrightscorps.org
                  eric@civilrightscorps.org

               - and -

          Irena Como, Esq.
          Leah J. Kang, Esq.
          Ann C. Webb, Esq.
          Twyla Carter, Esq.
          Brandon Buskey, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF
          NORTH CAROLINA LEGAL FOUNDATION
          P.O. Box 28004
          Raleigh, NC 27611
          Telephone: 919 834-3466
          E-mail: icomo@acluofnc.org
                  lkang@acluofnc.org
                  awebb@acluofnc.org
                  tcarter@aclu.org
                  bbuskey@aclu.org


ALLERGAN INC: Sloan Sues Over Sale of Defective BIOCELL Implants
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA SLOAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALLERGAN INC., F/K/A INAMED CORPORATION;
ALLERGAN USA, INC.; AND ALLERGAN PLC, Defendants, alleges that
Allergan manufactured and sold BIOCELL textured breast implants and
tissue expanders that expose women to a higher risk of breast
implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma, a deadly cancer
of the immune system.

Although Allergan knew of the increased risks of BIA-ALCL as early
as 2011, Allergan failed to warn women considering its implants,
the Plaintiff alleges. She adds that although Allergan has now
issued a recall pursuant to FDA's directive, it refuses to take
full responsibility and refuses to cover the significant costs
associated with removal and replacement of the defective devices
and medical monitoring, among other damages.

Allergan announced a worldwide recall of all BIOCELL textured
breast implants and tissue expanders on July 14, 2019, following a
request by the FDA.

The models included in the recall are: Allergan Natrelle
Saline-Filled Breast Implants (formerly McGhan RTV Saline-Filled
Mammary Implant) approved under P990074; Allergan Natrelle
Silicone-Filled Textured Breast Implants (formerly Inamed
Silicone-Filled Breast Implants) approved under P020056; Natrelle
410 Highly Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Silicone Filled Breast
Implants approved under P040046; and Allergan tissue expanders for
the breast that have BIOCELL texturing originally cleared
as:Natrelle 133 Plus Tissue Expander (K143354) and Natrelle 133
Tissue Expander with Suture Tabs (K102806).

Prior to issuing a request for the recall, the FDA had received
reports establishing that BIOCELL implants and expanders were
associated with an increase in reported cases of BIA-ALCL: 573
cases of BIA-ALCL worldwide including 33 deaths.

According to the FDA, the risk of BIA-ALCL is six times higher with
Allergan's textured implants than textured implants from other
manufacturers.

Ms. Sloan contends that Allergen has refused to pay for the removal
of the recalled products or any of the consequences of additional
surgery that women, who choose removal will have to undergo, or for
medical monitoring of the substantially increased risk of BIA-ALCL
that all women implanted with the devices have been subjected to.
She asserts that Allergan should take responsibility for exposing
women to a higher risk of BIA-ALCL and to make all women implanted
with these defective devices whole by covering all costs associated
with the removal, replacement, and recovery, medical monitoring,
and all damages arising out of the sale and implanting of these
defective devices.

Allergan, Inc. is an American global pharmaceutical company focused
on eye care, neurosciences, medical dermatology, medical
aesthetics, breast enhancement, obesity intervention and urologics.
Allergan, Inc. was formed in 1948, incorporated in 1950 and became
a public company in 1970.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
          Brian O. Marty, Esq.
          Brandon M. Bohlman, Esq.
          SHINDLER, ANDERSON,
          GOPLERUD & WEESE, P.C.,
          5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
          West Des Moines, IA 50265
          Telephone: 515 223 4567
          E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com
                  marty@sagwlaw.com
                  bohlman@sagwlaw.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
          Jessica Meeder, Esq.
          FEGAN SCOTT LLC
          150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312.741.1019
          E-mail: beth@feganscott.com
                  jessica@feganscott.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          KOHN SWIFT GRAF, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-7225
          Telephone: 215 238 1700
          Facsimile: 215 238 1968
          E-mail: jshub@kohnswift.com


ALLERGAN PLC: Appeal in Testosterone Replacement Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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 appeal from a ruling in
the Testosterone Replacement Therapy Class Action remains pending.

Subsidiaries of the Company were named in a class action complaint
filed on behalf a putative class of third-party payers in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The suit alleges that the Company's subsidiaries violated various
laws including the federal the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO) statute and state consumer protection laws in
connection with the sale and marketing of Androderm(R).

The class plaintiffs seek to obtain certain equitable relief,
including injunctive relief and an order requiring restitution
and/or disgorgement, and to recover damages and multiple damages in
an unspecified amount.

While the lawsuit is ongoing, the court has denied plaintiff's
class certification motion. On February 14, 2019, the court granted
Defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case in its
entirety.   

On June 12, 2019, plaintiffs/appellants filed their opening brief
in the Seventh Circuit. Appellees' Seventh Circuit brief was filed
on July 17, 2019.

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

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: Denial of Class Cert. in Celexa/Lexapro Suit Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit has affirmed the denial of the class
certification motions but reversed the lower court's decision
granting the defendants' summary judgment motions in
Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) related suit.

Certain subsidiaries of the Company were named in federal court
actions relating to the promotion of Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R)
all of which were consolidated in an MDL proceeding in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Most of these claims were resolved through a settlement in
September 2014.

However, two lawsuits remain which assert claims under the federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act.

The court had entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants
in both actions and denied plaintiffs' class certification motions.


Plaintiffs in both cases appealed the dismissal of their claims and
denial of class certification to the United States Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit and the appeals court issued a decision in
January 2019 affirming the denial of the class certification
motions but reversing the lower court's decision granting the
defendants' summary judgment motions.

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

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: Discovery Ongoing in Suit over Breast Implants
------------------------------------------------------------
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 discovery is ongoing in the
class action suit related to breast implant associated anaplastic
large cell lymphoma.

In December 2018, two plaintiffs filed class action lawsuits
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers
alleging that defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's textured breast implants and
their association with an uncommon cancer known as breast implant
associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma.

These lawsuits have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages.  

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which
the court granted in part and denied in part in a ruling on
September 20, 2019.

The Company filed its answer on October 18, 2019 and the parties
are now engaging in discovery.

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: Dismissal of Generic Drug Pricing Suit Challenged
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 ERISA plaintiffs have
taken an appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals from a
district court's decision granting the company's motion to dismiss
the complaint in the Generic Drug Pricing Securities and the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)
Litigation.

Putative classes of shareholders and two individual opt-out
plaintiffs filed class action lawsuits against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers alleging that defendants
made materially false and misleading statements between February
2014 and November 2016 regarding the Company's internal controls
over its financial reporting and that it failed to disclose that
its former Actavis generics unit had engaged in illegal,
anticompetitive price-fixing with its generic industry peers.

These lawsuits have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey. The complaints seek unspecified
monetary damages.  

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint but the court
denied the motion in a ruling on August 6, 2019.  

The parties are now engaging in discovery in these cases.

In addition, class action complaints have been filed premised on
the same alleged underlying conduct that is at issue in the
securities litigation but that assert claims under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").

These complaints have been consolidated in the district court in
New Jersey. The court granted the Company's motion to dismiss this
complaint.

The ERISA plaintiffs have appealed this decision to the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals.

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

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: Plaintiffs Sue Warner Chilcott in NJ State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 following the dismissal of
the action in federal court related to Warner Chilcott Marketing
Practices class action suit, plaintiffs recently filed a nearly
identical complaint in state court in New Jersey.

A putative nationwide class of private payer entities, or their
assignees, that paid Medicare benefits on behalf of their
beneficiaries filed a complaint against certain subsidiaries of the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

The Complaint asserts claims under the federal RICO statute, state
consumer protection statutes, common law fraud, and unjust
enrichment with respect to the sale and marketing of certain
products.

The court recently granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint.  

Following the dismissal of the action in federal court, plaintiffs
recently filed a nearly identical complaint in state court in New
Jersey.

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.


AQUA METALS: Seeks to Narrow Claims in 2nd Amended Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled, In Re: Aqua Metals, Inc. Securities Litigation
Case No 3:17-cv-7142, the defendants have filed a motion to dismiss
the Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims in the Second
Amended Complaint based on alleged false and misleading statements,
but not the claims regarding site visits, according to Aqua Metals,
Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019.

Beginning on December 15, 2017, three purported class action
lawsuits were filed in the United Stated District Court for the
Northern District California against the Company and certain of its
former executive officers.

On March 23, 2018, the cases were consolidated under the caption In
Re: Aqua Metals, Inc. Securities Litigation Case No 3:17-cv-7142.

On July 20, 2018, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint ("Amended Complaint"), on behalf of a class of persons
who purchased the Company's securities between May 19, 2016 and
November 9, 2017, against the Company, Stephen Clarke, Thomas
Murphy and Selwyn Mould.

The Amended Complaint alleged the defendants made false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's lead recycling
operations and engaged in a plan to mislead analysts and investors
who attended site visits in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The Amended Complaint sought to hold the
individual defendants liable as control persons pursuant to Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The Amended Complaint also alleged a
violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities
Act") based on alleged false and misleading statements concerning
the Company's lead recycling operations contained in, or
incorporated by reference in, the Company's Registration Statement
on Form S-3 filed in connection with its November 2016 public
offering.

That claim is asserted on behalf of a class of persons who
purchased shares pursuant to, or that are traceable to, that
Registration Statement.  The Amended Complaint sought to hold the
individual defendants liable as control persons pursuant to Section
15 of the Securities Act.

In an Order dated August 14, 2019, the Court granted in part and
denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss.  The Court granted
the motion to dismiss the Securities Act Section 11 claim and the
Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim based on alleged
false and misleading statements and gave plaintiffs leave to amend
to address the deficiencies.  The Court denied the motion to
dismiss the Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims
regarding site visits.

On September 20, 2019, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint
that dropped the Securities Act Section 11 claim but otherwise
alleges the same claims as were alleged previously.  The Second
Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages and plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees and costs.

On November 1, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims in the Second
Amended Complaint based on alleged false and misleading statements,
but not the claims regarding site visits.

Aqua Metals said, "The Company denies that the claims in the
Amended Complaint have any merit and it intends to vigorously
defend the action."

Aqua Metals, Inc. engages in the recycling of lead primarily in the
United States. It produces and sells hard lead, lead compounds, and
plastics. The company was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in
McCarran, Nevada.


ASC PROCESS: Fails to Pay All Wages, Rodriguez Labor Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR RODRIGUEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASC PROCESS SYSTEMS, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendant, Case No. 19STCV40766 (Cal. Super., Nov. 12, 2019), seeks
to recover civil penalties under the California Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004 arising from the Defendants' failure
to pay all wages owed to the Plaintiff upon his separation of
employment.

The Defendants employed the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated
non-exempt employees within Los Angeles County.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt Welder
from May 28, 2010, through March 19, 2015. The Plaintiff was later
rehired as a Mechanical Fabricator from June 4, 2018, through
September 20, 2018, at which time his employment was terminated.
Throughout his employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff worked out
of the Defendants' facility in Valencia, California.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was not provided all
required meal periods due to the Defendants' meal period policies
and practices, which fail to provide uninterrupted, duty-free
30-minute meal periods prior to the end of the fifth hour of work.
Although Plaintiff was not provided with all legally-compliant meal
periods to which he was entitled, the Defendants failed to
compensate him with the required meal period premium for each
workday in which he experienced a meal period violation as mandated
by Labor Code Section 226.7.

As a result of Defendants' failure to pay all meal period premium
wages, the Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff with
accurate, itemized wage statements. As a further result of the
Defendants' failure to pay all meal period premium wages, the
Defendants failed to pay all wages owed to the Plaintiff upon his
separation of employment with the Defendants, the lawsuit says.

The Defendants did (and continue to do) business by manufacturing
autoclaves and ovens for the aerospace, composites, nuclear,
vulcanizing, and glass industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott M. Lidman, Esq.
          Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq.
          Milan Moore, Esq.
          LIDMAN LAW, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 322-4772
          Facsimile: (424) 322-4775
          E-mail: slidman@lidmanlaw.com
                  enguyen@lidmanlaw.com
                  mmoore@lidmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Hector Rodriguez, Esq.
          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292-2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com


AT&T INC: Roberts Class Action over MBR Program Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
AT&T 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 several class actions have
been filed challenging the company's MMaximum Bit Rate (MBR)
program.

AT&T said, "We secured dismissals in each of these cases except
Roberts v. AT&T Mobility LLC, which is ongoing."

AT&T Inc. provides communications and digital entertainment
services. The company operates through four segments: Business
Solutions, Entertainment Group, Consumer Mobility, and
International. The company was formerly known as SBC Communications
Inc. and changed its name to AT&T Inc. in November 2005. AT&T Inc.
was founded in 1983 and is based in Dallas, Texas.

AVEDRO INC: Continues to Defend Glaukos Merger-Related Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Avedro, 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 class action suits related to the company's merger with
Glaukos Corporation.

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

Between October 1, 2019 and October 31, 2019, two putative class
action lawsuits (captioned Kent v. Avedro, Inc., et al., No.
1:19-cv-01845 (D. Del. filed Oct. 1, 2019) and Thompson v. Avedro,
Inc. et al., No. 1:19-cv-02075 (D. Del. filed Oct. 31, 2019)) and
two individual lawsuits (captioned Payne v. Avedro, Inc., et al,
1:19-cv-02019 (D. Del. filed Oct. 24, 2019) and Bushansky v.
Avedro, Inc. et al, 1:19-cv-10015 (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 29, 2019))
were) were filed in federal court by alleged stockholders of the
Company challenging the Merger. The Payne and Bushansky complaints
name the Company and its board of directors as defendants. The Kent
and Thompson complaints additionally name two of our former
directors, Glaukos and the Merger Sub as defendants.

The lawsuits assert violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder against the Company and the individual defendants, and
assert violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against
Glaukos and the individual defendants.

The plaintiffs contend that the Registration Statement on Form S-4,
filed with the SEC on September 17, 2019, and the Definitive Proxy
Statement on Schedule 14A, filed with the SEC on October 17, 2019,
omitted or misrepresented material information regarding the
Merger.

The complaints seek injunctive relief, rescission, or rescissory
damages, dissemination of a registration statement that discloses
certain information requested by the plaintiff, and an award of
plaintiffs' costs, including attorneys' fees and expenses.

Avedro said, "Given the unpredictability inherent in litigation,
the Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter. The Company
is unable to estimate possible losses or ranges of losses that may
result from this matter, and therefore, the Company has not accrued
any amounts in connection with this matter other than ongoing
attorneys' fees.

Avedro, Inc. is a commercial-stage ophthalmic medical technology
company focused on treating corneal ectatic disorders and improving
vision to reduce dependency on eyeglasses or contact lenses. The
company's proprietary Avedro Corneal Remodeling Platform is
designed to strengthen, stabilize and reshape the cornea utilizing
corneal cross-linking in minimally invasive and non-invasive
outpatient procedures to treat corneal ectatic disorders and
correct refractive conditions, which are caused by changes in the
shape of the eye that prevent light from focusing on the retina,
causing blurred vision. The company's Avedro Corneal Remodeling
Platform is comprised of the company's KXL and Mosaic systems, each
of which delivers ultraviolet A, or UVA, light, and a suite of
proprietary single-use riboflavin drug formulations, which, when
applied together to the cornea, induce a biochemical reaction
called corneal collagen cross-linking, or corneal cross-linking.
Its KXL system in combination with its Photrexa drug formulations,
which the company launched in the United States in September 2016,
is the first and only minimally invasive product offering approved
by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or the FDA, indicated for
the treatment of progressive keratoconus and corneal ectasia
following refractive surgery. The company is based in Waltham,
Massachusetts.


BELLICUM PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Kakkar Class Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, 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 the class action suit entitled, Nipun Kakkar v. Bellicum
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Rick Fair and Alan Musso, is still pending.

On February 6, 2018, a purported securities class action complaint
captioned Nipun Kakkar v. Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Rick Fair
and Alan Musso was filed against the Company, and certain of its
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division.

A second substantially similar class action was filed on March 14,
2018 by plaintiff Frances Rudy against the same defendants in the
same court.  

The lawsuits purport to assert class action claims on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's securities during the period from May
8, 2017 through January 30, 2018. The complaints allege that the
defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, or the Exchange Act, by making materially false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's clinical trials
being conducted in the U.S. to assess rivo-cel (rivogenlecleucel,
formerly known as BPX-501) as an adjunct T-cell therapy
administered after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell
transplantation.  

The complaints purport to assert claims for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  

The complaints seek, on behalf of the purported class, an
unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and expenses
of attorneys and experts, and other relief.

On April 9, 2018, the District Court consolidated the two lawsuits
under the Kakkar action. On March 26, 2019, the court appointed
lead plaintiffs to represent the putative class and on May 15,
2019, plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint.

On July 5, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss
on August 26, 2019 and the Company filed its reply to the
opposition on September 22, 2019.

Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a clinical stage biopharmaceutical
company, focuses on discovering and developing novel cellular
immunotherapies for the treatment of hematological cancers, solid
tumors, and orphan inherited blood disorders in the United States
and internationally. Bellicum was founded in 2004 and is
headquartered in Houston, Texas.


BOEING COMPANY: SWAPA Suit Removed to Northern District of Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Boeing Company removed the case styled SOUTHWEST AIRLINES
PILOTS ASSOCIATION (SWAPA) on behalf of itself and its members,
Plaintiff v. THE BOEING COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant, Case No.
DC-19-16290 (Filed Oct. 7, 2019), from the District Court of Dallas
County, Texas, 160th Judicial District, and to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas on Nov. 8, 2019.

The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02680-N
to the proceeding.

SWAPA is a labor organization headquartered in Dallas, Texas. SWAPA
has represented Southwest's pilots for over 40 years and has
negotiated nine collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) with
Southwest to govern the terms of its pilots' employment.

The suit addresses what SWAPA contends are disadvantageous terms it
would not have otherwise agreed to in its current CBAs with
Southwest. SWAPA contends that Boeing interfered in the
negotiations of that CBA, made statements that SWAPA relied on in
connection with the negotiations of that CBA, and ultimately caused
SWAPA to alter its bargaining position and come to agreement with
Southwest, id. 4199.

The Federal Aviation Administration grounded the 737 MAX aircraft
following two airplane crashes--Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian
Airlines Flight 302--involving the 737 MAX aircraft.

Boeing is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in
Illinois.

Southwest flies only Boeing 737 aircraft and is the largest
operator of the 737 MAX. At the time of the grounding, Southwest
had 34 737 MAX aircraft in scheduled flight.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mary Dow, Esq.
          Evan Kwarta, Esq.
          Diana Gurfel Shapiro, Esq.
          Anthony U. Battista, Esq.
          CONDON & FORSYTH LLP
          Times Square, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: 212 490-9100
          Facsimile: 212 370-4453
          E-mail: mdow@condonlaw.com
                  ekwatta@condonlaw.com
                  dgurfel@condonlaw.com
                  abattista@condonlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey W. Hellberg, Jr., Esq.
          WICK PHILLIPS, LLP
          3 131 McKinney Ave., Suite 100
          Dallas, TX
          Telephone: 214 692-6200
          Facsimile: 214 692-6255
          E-mail: jeff.hellberg@wickphile-lips.com

Defendant The Boeing Company is represented by:

          E. Leon Carter, Esq.
          Courtney Barksdale Perez, Esq.
          CARTER ARNETT
          Campbell Centre II
          8150 N. Central Expressway, Suite 500
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 550-8160
          E-mail: lcarter@carterarnett.com
                  cperez(@carterarnett.com

               - and -

          Michael B. Slade, Esq.
          Craig S. Primis, Esq.
          Kasdin M. Mitchell, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Fielding, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          300 North LaSalle
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 862-2000
          E-mail: michael.slade@kirkland.com
                  craig.primis@kirkland.com
                  kasdin.mitchell@kirkland.com
                  jeremy.fielding@kirkland.com


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Blue Cross Suit Against Janssen Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific 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 class
action suit initiated by Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Louisiana and
HMO Louisiana, Inc. against Janssen Biotech, Inc, Janssen Oncology,
Inc, Janssen Research & Development, LLC and BTG International
Limited in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia is still ongoing.

On April 18, 2019, Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Louisiana and HMO
Louisiana, Inc. filed a class action complaint against Janssen
Biotech, Inc, Janssen Oncology, Inc, Janssen Research &
Development, LLC and BTG International Limited in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

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

On June 21, 2019, the case was transferred to the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey and has been
consolidated with similar complaints.

Boston Scientific Corporation develops, manufactures, and markets
medical devices for use in various interventional medical
specialties worldwide. It operates through three segments: MedSurg,
Rhythm and Neuro, and Cardiovascular. The company was founded in
1979 and is headquartered in Marlborough, Massachusetts.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: New York Securities Class Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific 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 a
securities class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York has been dismissed.

On April 24, 2019, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against Boston
Scientific Corporation, Michael F. Mahoney, its Chief Executive
Officer, and Daniel J. Brennan, its Chief Financial Officer.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws based
on false and/or misleading statements and failure to disclose facts
related to the Company's transvaginal surgical mesh products.

On September 20, 2019, the case was dismissed with prejudice.

Boston Scientific Corporation develops, manufactures, and markets
medical devices for use in various interventional medical
specialties worldwide. It operates through three segments: MedSurg,
Rhythm and Neuro, and Cardiovascular. The company was founded in
1979 and is headquartered in Marlborough, Massachusetts.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Says 43,500 Mesh Claims Resolved
---------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific 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, of the
approximately 52,000 cases and claims related to the company's
transvaginal surgical mesh products, approximately 43,500 have met
the conditions of the settlement and are final.

As of October 16, 2019, approximately 53,000 product liability
cases or claims related to transvaginal surgical mesh products
designed to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ
prolapse have been asserted against the company.

As of October 16, 2019, the company have entered into master
settlement agreements in principle or are in the final stages of
entering one with certain plaintiffs' counsel to resolve an
aggregate of approximately 52,000 cases and claims.

These master settlement agreements provide that the settlement and
distribution of settlement funds to participating claimants are
conditional upon, among other things, achieving minimum required
claimant participation thresholds.

Of the approximately 52,000 cases and claims, approximately 43,500
have met the conditions of the settlement and are final.

All settlement agreements were entered into solely by way of
compromise and without any admission or concession by the company
of any liability or wrongdoing.

Boston Scientific develops, manufactures, and markets medical
devices for use in various interventional medical specialties
worldwide. It operates through three segments: MedSurg, Rhythm and
Neuro, and Cardiovascular. The company was founded in 1979 and is
headquartered in Marlborough, Massachusetts.


CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Continues to Defend Cazer Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Caesars Entertainment 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
company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Cazer v.
Caesars Entertainment Corp., et al., Civil Action No.
A-19-801900-C.

On June 24, 2019, Caesars, Eldorado Resorts, Inc., a Nevada
corporation ("Eldorado"), and Colt Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Eldorado
("Merger Sub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (as
amended by Amendment No. 1 to Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated
as of August 15, 2019, and as it may be further amended from time
to time, the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which, on the terms
and subject to the conditions set forth therein, Merger Sub will
merge with and into Caesars (the "Merger"), with Caesars continuing
as the surviving corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary
of Eldorado. The transaction is expected to close in the first half
of 2020. In connection with the Merger, Eldorado will change its
name to Caesars Entertainment, Inc., subject to stockholder
approval.

On September 13, 2019, a class action complaint was filed against
Caesars, each member of the Caesars Board and Eldorado in the
Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada.

The lawsuit, captioned Cazer v. Caesars Entertainment Corp., et
al., Civil Action No. A-19-801900-C, asserts claims for breach of
fiduciary duties against the Caesars Board and aiding and abetting
breach of fiduciary duties against Caesars in connection with the
Merger.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the members of the
Caesars Board breached their fiduciary duties, and Caesars aided
and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties, by failing to
disclose (i) certain information about the process leading up to
the approval of the Merger by the Caesars Board; and (ii) certain
financial information relating to the financial advisors' analyses
of the transaction.

The plaintiff seeks (i) to compel the defendants to exercise their
fiduciary duties to Caesars stockholders in connection with the
Merger in accordance with the information discussed in the
complaint and (ii) an accounting to plaintiff for all damages
suffered as a result of defendants' alleged wrongdoing.

The plaintiff also seeks an award of costs and disbursements
incurred in the action, including a reasonable allowance for expert
fees and attorneys' fees.

Caesars Entertainment Corporation operates as a gaming company. The
Company operates casino resorts on multiple continents. Caesars
also owns an on-line gaming business provides real money casino and
poker games in the United Kingdom and play for fun offerings in
other jurisdictions. The company is based in Las Vegas Nevada.


CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Continues to Defend Gershman Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Caesars Entertainment 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
company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Gershman
v. Caesars Entertainment Corp., et al.

On June 24, 2019, Caesars, Eldorado Resorts, Inc., a Nevada
corporation ("Eldorado"), and Colt Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Eldorado
("Merger Sub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (as
amended by Amendment No. 1 to Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated
as of August 15, 2019, and as it may be further amended from time
to time, the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which, on the terms
and subject to the conditions set forth therein, Merger Sub will
merge with and into Caesars (the "Merger"), with Caesars continuing
as the surviving corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary
of Eldorado. The transaction is expected to close in the first half
of 2020. In connection with the Merger, Eldorado will change its
name to Caesars Entertainment, Inc., subject to stockholder
approval.

On September 12, 2019, a class action complaint was filed against
Caesars, each member of the Caesars Board and Eldorado in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware.

The lawsuit, captioned Gershman v. Caesars Entertainment Corp., et
al., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-01720, alleges violations of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder, against the defendants for allegedly disseminating a
false and misleading proxy statement in connection with the Merger.


The complaint alleges, among other things, that Caesars violated
the securities laws by failing to (i) disclose certain information
about the process leading up to the approval of the Merger by the
Caesars Board; (ii) disclose certain financial information relating
to the financial advisors' analyses of the transaction; and (iii)
obtain a proper valuation for Caesars.

The plaintiff seeks (i) to enjoin the defendants from proceeding
with filing an amendment to the Eldorado S-4 (as defined below) and
consummating the Merger, unless and until Caesars discloses to its
stockholders the allegedly material information discussed in the
complaint and (ii) if the Merger is consummated, rescission of the
Merger or rescissory damages.

The plaintiff also seeks an award of costs and disbursements
incurred in the action, including a reasonable allowance for expert
fees and attorneys' fees.

Caesars Entertainment Corporation operates as a gaming company. The
Company operates casino resorts on multiple continents. Caesars
also owns an on-line gaming business provides real money casino and
poker games in the United Kingdom and play for fun offerings in
other jurisdictions. The company is based in Las Vegas Nevada.


CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Continues to Defend Palkon Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Caesars Entertainment 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
company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Palkon v.
Caesars Entertainment Corp., et al., Civil Action No.
1:19-cv-01679.

On June 24, 2019, Caesars, Eldorado Resorts, Inc., a Nevada
corporation ("Eldorado"), and Colt Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Eldorado
("Merger Sub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (as
amended by Amendment No. 1 to Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated
as of August 15, 2019, and as it may be further amended from time
to time, the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which, on the terms
and subject to the conditions set forth therein, Merger Sub will
merge with and into Caesars (the "Merger"), with Caesars continuing
as the surviving corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary
of Eldorado. The transaction is expected to close in the first half
of 2020. In connection with the Merger, Eldorado will change its
name to Caesars Entertainment, Inc., subject to stockholder
approval.

On September 9, 2019, a class action complaint was filed against
Caesars, each member of the Caesars Board, Eldorado and Merger Sub
in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.

The lawsuit, captioned Palkon v. Caesars Entertainment Corp., et
al., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-01679, alleges violations of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder, against the defendants for allegedly disseminating a
false and misleading proxy statement in connection with the Merger.


The complaint alleges, among other things, that Caesars and/or
Eldorado violated the securities laws by failing to disclose (i)
certain information about the process leading up to the approval of
the Merger by the Caesars Board; (ii) certain financial information
relating to the financial advisors' analyses of the transaction;
and (iii) certain information regarding potential conflicts of
interest of the financial advisor.

The plaintiff seeks, among other things, (i) to enjoin the
defendants from proceeding with, consummating or closing the
Merger, unless and until Caesars discloses to its stockholders the
allegedly material information discussed in the complaint and (ii)
if the Merger is consummated, rescission of the Merger or
rescissory damages suffered as a result of defendants’ alleged
wrongdoing.

The plaintiff also seeks an award of costs incurred in the action,
including a reasonable allowance for expert fees and attorneys'
fees.

Caesars Entertainment Corporation operates as a gaming company. The
Company operates casino resorts on multiple continents. Caesars
also owns an on-line gaming business provides real money casino and
poker games in the United Kingdom and play for fun offerings in
other jurisdictions. The company is based in Las Vegas Nevada.


CHEBOYGAN: Arkona et al. Seek to Certify Property Owners Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ARKONA, LLC, and all those
similarly situated within Cheboygan County, and DIANNE KOSBAB and
all those similarly situated within Monroe County, the Plaintiffs,
vs. COUNTY OF CHEBOYGAN, by its BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, BUFFY JO
WELDON, in her official and personal/individual capacities, LINDA
A. CRONAN, in her personal/individual capacity, COUNTY OF MONROE,
by its BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, and KAY SISUNG, in her official and
personal/individual capacities, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-12372-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
certify a class of:

   "all property owners formerly owning property from within the
   counties of Monroe and Cheboygan who, since January 1, 2013,
   had said property seized by Defendants via the General Property

   Tax Act, MCL 211.78 et seq, which was worth more and/or was
   sold at tax auction for more than the total tax delinquency and

   was not refunded the excess/surplus equity but excluding any
   property owner who has filed their own post-forfeiture civil
   lawsuit to obtain such relief."

The class action lawsuit challenges the legality of certain
voluntarily undertaken practices of the Counties of Cheboygan and
Monroe, by, with, and through their respective current and past
treasurers seizing highly valuable real property for relatively
small unpaid tax debts and destroying/retaining the remaining
excess equity.

The Defendants have voluntarily agreed to administer Michigan's tax
foreclosure process in such a way as to foreclose on properties
whose value far exceeds the tax delinquency, sell the properties,
and then destroy and/or withhold the surplus after the entire tax
delinquency is resolved. At least one state court, with the same
undersigned counsel as co-class counsel, has found this process
unconstitutional as a form of takings undertaken in violation of
the respective provisions of the Michigan and Federal
Constitutions.

The Plaintiffs in this case are two property owners who both seek
to litigate this case as to their own circumstances and also on
behalf of their fellow property owners in their counties who have
suffered from the same unconstitutional misconduct.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

          Philip L. Ellison, Esq.
          OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL PLC
          PO Box 107
          Hemlock, MI 48626
          Telephone: (989) 642-0055
          Facsimile: (888) 398-7003
          E-mail: pellison@olcplc.com

               - and -

          Matthew E. Gronda, Esq.
          PO Box 70
          St. Charles, MI 48655
          Telephone: (989) 249-0350
          E-mail: matthewgronda@gmail.com

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Allan C. Vander Laan, Esq.
          Bradley C. Yanalunas, Esq.
          CUMMINGS, MCCLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO
          2851 Charlevoix Dr., SE, Ste. 327
          Grand Rapids, MI 49546
          Telephone: (616) 975-7470
          E-mail: avanderlaan@cmda-law.com
                  byanalunas@cmda-law.com

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Suit v. FTS International in Texas Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy 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 class
action suit against the company and FTS International, Inc., is
ongoing.

In February 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
District Court of Dallas County, Texas against FTS International,
Inc. (FTSI), certain investment banks, FTSI's directors including
certain of the company's officers and certain shareholders of FTSI
including the company.

The lawsuit alleges various violations of Sections 11 (with respect
to certain of our officers in their capacities as directors of
FTSI) and 15 (with respect to such officers and us) of the
Securities Act of 1933 in connection with public disclosure made
during the initial public offering of FTSI.

The suit seeks damages in excess of $1,000,000 and attorneys' fees
and other expenses.

Chesapeake said, "We intend to vigorously defend these claims."

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

Chesapeake Energy Corporation engages in the acquisition,
exploration, and development of properties for the production of
oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids (NGL) from underground
reservoirs in the United States. Chesapeake Energy Corporation was
founded in 1989 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


CINEMARK USA: Funds Brown Case Settlement
------------------------------------------
Cinemark USA, 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 in the
case, Silken Brown v. Cinemark USA, Inc., Case No. 3:13cv05669, in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, have approved a settlement in
the case, and the company has funded the appropriate amounts
required under the settlement with the administrator of the class
claims.

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 USA, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates in the
motion picture exhibition industry. The company operates in two
segments, U.S. Markets and International Markets. As of December
31, 2018, it operated 546 theatres and 6,048 screens in the United
States and Latin America. The company was incorporated in 1984 and
is headquartered in Plano, Texas. Cinemark USA, Inc. is a
subsidiary of Cinemark Holdings, Inc.


CLOSET WORLD: Denied Earned and Overtime Wages, Montano Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD MONTANO, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf
of all other Aggrieved Employees, and the general public, Plaintiff
v. CLOSET WORLD, INC, a Delaware corporation, HOME ORGANIZERS,
INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV40814 (Cal. Super., Nov. 12, 2019),
challenges the Defendants' employment practice of denying their
employees' earned wages under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, this practice affects the Defendants'
non-exempt, hourly workers employed in the State of California as
Installers or Drivers (or other similarly situated or sounding
title or position) for Closet World from September 6, 2018, to the
present, based on the Defendants' policy and practice of denying
earned wages, including overtime pay, failing to provide legally
compliant meal and rest breaks, failing to reimburse necessary
business expenditures, among other claims, to the Plaintiff and
Aggrieved Employees.

In particular, the Defendants utilized a rounding policy that
ignored the Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees' actual time punches
and, instead, rounded their time in favor of the Defendants, thus,
creating over time a disproportionate impact to Aggrieved
Employees, including the Plaintiff.

The Defendants also require such employees to perform work tasks
during unpaid breaks, failed to provide meal and rest breaks,
failed to timely compensate employees for all wages earned, and
failed to properly and accurately calculate overtime and report
wages earned, hours worked, and wage rates, the lawsuit says. The
Defendants also fail to reimburse Aggrieved Employees, including
the Plaintiff, for necessary business expenditures incurred in the
course of performing their work for the Defendants.

According to its Web site, Closet World is a "complete home
organizing service." Customers meet with a Closet World design
consultant and select a design, style or finish unique to their own
space. Then, after the design is selected an installer, like the
Plaintiff, arrives at the customer's home or office to remove all
existing units and install the custom unit selected by the customer
and Closet World's design consultation team.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael H. Boyamian, Esq.
          Katrina Castillo Espina, Esq.
          Alfred Movsesyan, Esq.
          BOYAMIAN LAW, INC.
          550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
          Glendale, CA 91203-1922
          Telephone: 818 547 5300
          Facsimile: 818 547 5678
          E-mail: michael@boyamianlaw.com
                  katrina@boyamianlaw.com
                  alfred@boyamianlaw.com


COLLEGIUM PHARMA: Triad Health Systems Class Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Collegium Pharmaceutical, 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 class
action suit initiated by Triad Health Systems has been dismissed.

On March 19, 2018, a lawsuit was filed by multiple local
governments in the Circuit Court of Crittenden County, Arkansas,
against the Company and other pharmaceutical manufacturers and
distributors alleging a variety of claims related to opioid
marketing and distribution practices. On January 29, 2019, the
Company was dismissed from this litigation without prejudice.

On March 21, 2018, the Company, along with other pharmaceutical
manufacturers and distributors, were named in a class-action
lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Kentucky by a family
practice clinic, on behalf of other similarly-situated healthcare
providers. The action alleges violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") relating to
opioid marketing and distribution practices. On April 14, 2018, the
lawsuit was conditionally transferred by the Judicial Panel on
Multi-District Litigation to the federal Prescription Opiate Multi
District Litigation (the "MDL") in the Southern District of Ohio.

On April 10, 2018, the conditional transfer was finalized, and the
lawsuit was docketed in the MDL on April 11, 2018. On May 4, 2018,
the Company, along with other pharmaceutical manufacturers and
distributors, were named in two lawsuits filed in the MDL by the
Fiscal Court of Bourbon County, Kentucky and the Fiscal Court of
Owen County, Kentucky, relating to opioid marketing and
distribution practices.

On June 11 and 12, 2018, the Company was named in four lawsuits
filed in the MDL by a health system and various member hospitals.
On September 26, 2018, the Company was named in two lawsuits filed
in the MDL by the Fiscal Court of Lee County, Kentucky and the
Fiscal Court of Wolfe County, Kentucky. On March 15, 2019, the
plaintiffs in all of the MDL cases in which the Company was named,
except for the City of Paterson case, filed amended complaints
which no longer name the Company as a defendant, effectively
terminating these lawsuits as to the Company.

On March 15, 2019, the Company was named in a lawsuit in the MDL by
the City of Paterson, New Jersey that alleges violations of fraud,
public nuisance, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of
state consumer protection laws, and seeks, generally, penalties
and/or injunctive relief. In April 2019, the City of Norwich,
Connecticut and the Town of Enfield, Connecticut filed lawsuits in
Connecticut Superior Court. The lawsuits allege violations of
fraud, public nuisance, negligent misrepresentation, and violations
of state consumer protection laws. On June 28, 2019, both cases
were transferred to the MDL.

On January 11, 2019, the City of Portsmouth filed a lawsuit in
Virginia Circuit Court against the Company and other pharmaceutical
manufacturers and distributors. The lawsuit alleges a variety of
claims related to opioid marketing and distribution practices
including public nuisance, common law fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, negligence, and violations of state consumer
protection laws.  On October 3, 2019, the case was transferred the
MDL.  

On September 6, 2019, Triad Health Systems filed a class action
lawsuit in the MDL on behalf of itself and similarly situated
health care systems.  On October 18, 2019, three counties in
Kentucky filed lawsuits in the MDL, naming the Company: the Fiscal
Court of Casey County Kentucky; the Fiscal Court of Gallatin County
Kentucky; and the Fiscal Court of Lewis County Kentucky.  

On November 6, 2019, the plaintiffs in these three lawsuits, as
well as the Triad case, dismissed the Company from these suits.
Each of the remaining lawsuits  in the MDL naming the Company
seeks, generally, penalties and injunctive relief.  

None of the remaining lawsuits naming the Company are designated as
representative cases in the MDL, and therefore, are effectively
currently stayed.

Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
develops and commercializes various products for patients suffering
from pain.  The Company was formerly known as Collegium
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and changed its name to Collegium
Pharmaceutical, Inc. in October 2003.  Collegium Pharmaceutical,
Inc. was incorporated in 2002 and is headquartered in Canton,
Massachusetts.


COMSCORE INC: Bratusov Class Action Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------
comScore, 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 initiated by Sergii
Bratusov.

On April 10, 2019, Sergii Bratusov, a purported shareholder of the
Company, filed a putative class action complaint against the
Company. The case, captioned Bratusov v. comScore, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 19 Civ. 03210, was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York and also names the Company's
Chief Financial Officer, Gregory Fink, and the Company's former
Chief Executive Officer, Bryan Wiener, as defendants.

The complaint, which was amended on September 30, 2019, purports to
bring claims on behalf of all persons and entities that acquired
securities of the Company between February 28, 2019 and August 7,
2019 and alleges that the Company, Mr. Wiener, and Mr. Fink
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by allegedly failing to disclose in public
statements in February and March 2019 material information
concerning a disagreement relating to the Company's business
strategy.

The complaint also alleges that Mr. Wiener and Mr. Fink, acting as
control persons of the Company, violated Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act in connection with the Company's alleged failure to
disclose material information.

The complaint seeks a determination of the propriety of the class,
compensatory damages and the award of reasonable costs and expenses
incurred in the action.

The defendants deny any wrongdoing or liability and intend to
vigorously defend against these claims.

comScore said, "Although the ultimate outcome of this matter is
unknown, the Company believes that a material loss was not probable
or estimable as of September 30, 2019."

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

comScore, Inc. operates as an information and analytics company
that measures audiences, consumer behavior, and advertising across
media platforms worldwide. The company was founded in 1999 and is
headquartered in Reston, Virginia.


COMSCORE INC: Privacy Class Action Litigation Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
comScore, 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 against a class action litigation over alleged
violation of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.

On September 11, 2017, the Company and a wholly-owned subsidiary,
Full Circle Studies, Inc., ("Full Circle"), received demand letters
on behalf of named plaintiffs and all others similarly situated
alleging that the Company and Full Circle collected personal
information from users under the age of 13 without verifiable
parental consent in violation of Massachusetts law and the federal
Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.

The letters alleged that the Company and Full Circle collected such
personal information by embedding advertising software development
kits ("SDKs") in applications created or developed by The Walt
Disney Company.

The letters sought monetary damages, attorneys' fees and damages
under Massachusetts law. On June 4, 2018, the plaintiffs filed
amended complaints with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California adding the Company and Full Circle as
defendants in a purported class action (captioned Rushing, et al v.
The Walt Disney Company, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-04419-JD) against
Disney, Twitter and other defendants, alleging violations of
California's constitutional right to privacy and intrusion upon
seclusion law, New York's deceptive trade practices statute, and
Massachusetts' deceptive trade practices and right to privacy
statutes.

The complaints allege damages in excess of $5 million, with any
award to be apportioned among the defendants. On May 22, 2019, the
Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaints.

The Company and Full Circle deny any wrongdoing or liability and
intend to vigorously defend against these claims.

comScore said, "Although the ultimate outcome of this matter is
unknown, the Company believes that a material loss was not probable
or estimable as of September 30, 2019."

comScore, Inc. operates as an information and analytics company
that measures audiences, consumer behavior, and advertising across
media platforms worldwide. The company was founded in 1999 and is
headquartered in Reston, Virginia.


COTY INC: Laborers' Pension Fund Class Action Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Coty 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 against a  consolidated purported stockholder class action
and derivative complaint against the directors of the Company, JAB
Holding Company, S.a.r.l., JAB Cosmetics B.V., and Cottage Holdco
B.V. in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The Company
was named as a nominal defendant.

The case, which was filed on May 6, 2019, was captioned
Massachusetts Laborers' Pension Fund v. Harf et.al., Case No.
2019-0336-CB. On June 14, 2019, plaintiffs in the consolidated
action filed a Verified Amended Class Action and Derivative
Complaint.

After defendants responded to the Amended Complaint, on October 21,
2019, plaintiffs filed a Verified Second Amended Class Action and
Derivative Complaint, alleging that the directors and JAB Holding
Company, S.a.r.l., JAB Cosmetics B.V., and Cottage Holdco B.V.
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders and
breached the Stockholders Agreement.

The Second Amended Complaint seeks, among other things, monetary
relief. The defendants' responses to the Second Amended Complaint
were due on November 21, 2019.

Coty Inc., together with its subsidiaries, manufactures, markets,
distributes, and sells beauty products worldwide. It operates in
three segments: Luxury, Consumer Beauty, and Professional Beauty.
The company was founded in 1904 and is based in New York, New York.
As of April 26, 2019, Coty Inc. operates as a subsidiary of JAB
Cosmetics B.V.



CV SCIENCES: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Smith Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CV Sciences, 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's
motion to dismiss the consolidated class action suit initiated by
David Smith remains pending.

On August 24, 2018, David Smith filed a purported class action
complaint in Nevada District Court (the "Smith Complaint") alleging
certain misstatements in the Company's public filings that led to
stock price fluctuations and financial harm.

Several additional individuals filed similar claims, and the Smith
suit and each of the other suits all arise out of a report
published by Citron Research on Twitter on August 20, 2018,
suggesting that the Company misled investors by failing to disclose
that the Company's efforts to secure patent protection had been
"finally rejected" by the United States Patent and Trademark Office
(USPTO).

On November 15, 2018, the Court consolidated the actions and
appointed Richard Ina, Trustee for the Ina Family Trust, as Lead
Plaintiff for the consolidated actions. On January 4, 2019, Counsel
for Lead Plaintiff Richard Ina, Trustee for the Ina Family Trust,
filed a "consolidated amended complaint".

On March 5, 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss the action.
The motion has been fully briefed, and the parties are awaiting a
decision from the Nevada District Court.

CV Sciences said, "Management intends to vigorously defend the
allegations. Three shareholder derivative suits have been filed
which are premised on the same event as the Smith Complaint. These
derivative suits are stayed pending the outcome of the Company's
motion to dismiss the Smith Complaint."

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

CV Sciences, Inc. operates as a life science company. It operates
through two segments, Consumer Products and Specialty
Pharmaceuticals. The company was formerly known as CannaVest Corp.
and changed its name to CV Sciences, Inc. in January 2016. CV
Sciences, Inc. was founded in 2010 and is based in Las Vegas,
Nevada.


DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Consolidated Securities Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc. is facing a consolidated securities class
action suit in the Northern District of Illinois, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019.

On February 24, 2019 and March 6, 2019, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California and on March 12, 2019 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, putative
class action complaints were filed against Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc.
and certain current and former officers of the Company.

The complaints alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with public
filings made between February 26, 2018 and February 21, 2019 (the
"potential class period").

The plaintiffs each sought to represent a class of shareholders who
purchased stock in the potential class period.  The complaints
sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

The cases were subsequently transferred and consolidated into a
single proceeding in the Northern District of Illinois.  The court
appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel on July 19, 2019, and
the lead plaintiff has sought leave until December 6, 2019 to file
an amended complaint.

Diplomat Pharmacy said, "The Company believes the complaints and
allegations to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend
itself against the action.  The Company is unable at this time to
determine whether the outcome of the litigation would have a
material impact on its results of operations, financial condition
or cash flows."

Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc. operates as an independent specialty
pharmacy in the United States. The company operates through
Specialty and PBM (pharmacy benefit management) segment. The
company was founded in 1975 and is headquartered in Flint,
Michigan.


DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Paid $14.1MM in 3Q to Settle Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Diplomat Pharmacy, 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 pursuant to an agreement to resolve
a putative class action in Michigan, the Company paid the
settlement amount of US$14,100,000 during the quarter ended
September 30, 2019.

On November 10, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
against Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc. and certain former officers of the
Company.  Following the appointment of lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel, an amended complaint was filed on April 11, 2017.  The
amended complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with public
filings made between February 29, 2016 and November 3, 2016 (the
"potential class period").  The plaintiffs sought to represent a
class of shareholders who purchased stock in the potential class
period.  The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May
26, 2017.  The court issued orders denying the Company's motion to
dismiss on January 19, 2018 and the Company's motion for
reconsideration of its motion to dismiss on August 9, 2018.

The parties reached an agreement-in-principle on April 22, 2019 to
resolve the litigation for a payment of US$14,100,000 which was
fully covered by the Company's insurance policies.  The court
approved the settlement on August 20, 2019.

The Company said, "The settlement, as a result of coverage
provided, did not have a material impact on the Company's results
of operations, financial condition or cash flows.  The settlement
was subsequently paid during the quarter ended September 30,
2019."

Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc. operates as an independent specialty
pharmacy in the United States. The company operates through
Specialty and PBM (pharmacy benefit management) segment. The
company was founded in 1975 and is headquartered in Flint,
Michigan.


EARTHSTONE ENERGY: Olenik Class Action Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Earthstone Energy, 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, Olenik v.
Lodzinksi et al.  

On June 2, 2017, Nicholas Olenik filed a purported shareholder
class and derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery
against Earthstone's Chief Executive Officer, along with other
members of the Board, EnCap Investments L.P. ("EnCap"), Bold, Bold
Energy Holdings, LLC ("Bold Holdings") and Oak Valley Resources,
LLC.

The complaint alleges that Earthstone's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the contribution dated as of
November 7, 2016 and as amended on March 21, 2017 (the "Bold
Contribution Agreement"), by and among Earthstone, EEH, Lynden US,
Lynden USA Operating, LLC, Bold Holdings and Bold.

The Plaintiff asserts that the directors negotiated the Bold
Transaction to benefit EnCap and its affiliates, failed to obtain
adequate consideration for the Earthstone shareholders who were not
affiliated with EnCap or Earthstone management, did not follow an
adequate process in negotiating and approving the Bold Transaction
and made materially misleading or incomplete proxy disclosures in
connection with the Bold Transaction.

The suit seeks unspecified damages and purports to assert claims
derivatively on behalf of Earthstone and as a class action on
behalf of all persons who held Common Stock up to March 13, 2017,
excluding defendants and their affiliates.

On July 20, 2018, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss and entered an order dismissing the
action in its entirety with prejudice.

The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Delaware Supreme Court. On
February 6, 2019, the Delaware Supreme Court heard oral arguments
from the Plaintiff and Defendants' counsel.

On April 5, 2019, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Delaware
Court of Chancery's dismissal of the proxy disclosure claims but
reversed the Delaware Court of Chancery's dismissal of the other
claims, holding that the allegations with respect to those claims
were sufficient for pleading purposes.

Earthstone and each of the other defendants believe the claims are
entirely without merit and intend to mount a vigorous defense.

Earthstone said, "The ultimate outcome of this suit is uncertain,
and while Earthstone is confident in its position, any potential
monetary recovery or loss to Earthstone cannot be estimated at this
time."

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

Earthstone Energy, Inc., an independent energy company, engages in
the development and operation of oil and gas properties in the
United States. Earthstone Energy, Inc. was founded in 1969 and is
headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas.


ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Dougherty Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Kevin L.
Dougherty v. Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., et al. (No.
16-cv-10089).

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

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

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

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

On January 24, 2017, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit filed a motion
to alter or amend the judgment.  In May 2017, the court denied the
plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment.

On June 19, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and on September 14, 2017, they
filed their opening brief in support of the appeal. The appeal was
fully briefed on December 7, 2017, and it was argued before the
Sixth Circuit on March 15, 2018.

On September 27, 2018, the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion in which
it reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded for further
proceedings. On October 11, 2018, the Company filed a petition for
rehearing en banc and, on October 23, 2018, the Sixth Circuit Court
of Appeals directed plaintiffs to respond to that petition.

On December 3, 2018, the Sixth Circuit denied the Company's
petition for en banc rehearing, and on December 11, 2018, the case
was returned to the federal district court by mandate from the
Sixth Circuit.

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

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

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

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



EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Lewin Files FCRA Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Experian Information
Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Sima Lewin, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-06804 (E.D., N.Y., Dec. 4, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc. operates as an information
services company. The Company offers credit information, analytical
tools, and marketing services. Experian Information Solutions
serves clients worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


FARMLAND PARTNERS: Turner Insurance Class Suit Remains in Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Farmland Partners 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 class action suit entitled, The
Turner Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Farmland Partners, Inc., is still
in discovery phase.

On July 11, 2018, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit,
captioned Kachmar v. Farmland Partners, Inc. (the Kachmar Action"),
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado against the Company and certain of its officers by a
purported Company stockholder.  The complaint alleges, among other
things, that the Company's disclosures related to the FPI Loan
Program were materially false and misleading in violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

On August 17, 2018, a second purported class action, then-captioned
Mariconda v. Farmland Partners Inc. (the "Turner Action") was filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado,
alleging substantially identical claims as the Kachmar Action.  

On November 20, 2018, the court appointed The Turner Insurance
Agency, Inc., and Cecilia Turner as lead plaintiffs in the Turner
Action and re-captioned the case as The Turner Insurance Agency,
Inc. v. Farmland Partners, Inc.

On March 11, 2019, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs and
additional plaintiff Obelisk Capital Management filed an amended
complaint in the Turner Action.  

On April 15, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint in the Turner Action.  

On June 18, 2019, the court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss the amended complaint in the Turner Action.  The defendants
answered the amended complaint on July 2, 2019.  The Turner Action
is now in the discovery phase of litigation.

The Company said, "At this time, no class has been certified in the
Turner Action and we do not know the amount of damages or other
remedies being sought by the plaintiffs.  The Company can provide
no assurances as to the outcome of this litigation or provide an
estimate of related expenses at this time.  The Company believes
that a substantial portion of the costs associated with the
stockholder class action litigation will be covered by insurance."

Farmland Partners Inc. is an internally managed real estate company
that owns and seeks to acquire high-quality North American farmland
and makes loans to farmers secured by farm real estate. The company
is based in Denver, Colorado.


FLEX-N-GATE CORP: Stewart Sues Over Collection of Biometric Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT STEWART, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FLEX-N-GATE CORP. and FLEX-N-GATE CHICAGO,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2019CH12984 (Ill. Cir., Nov. 8, 2019),
seeks to stop the Defendants' unlawful collection, use, and storage
of the Plaintiff's and the proposed Class members' sensitive
biometric data under the Biometric Information Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, individuals who perform work for
Defendants in Illinois have been required to place their entire
hand on the Defendants' biometric time clocks. That is because the
Defendants' use a biometric time tracking system that requires
employees to use their handprint and/or fingerprint as part of a
means of authentication addition to a 4-digit PIN).

The Defendants disregard their workers' statutorily protected
rights and unlawfully collect, store, and use their biometric data
in violation of the BIPA, the Plaintiff alleges. Specifically, the
Defendants have committed four distinct violations (and continue to
so violate) the BIPA because they did not (and continue not to):

   -- properly inform the Plaintiff and Class members in writing
      that their biometric information or identifiers were being
      collected;

   -- properly inform the Plaintiff and the Class members of the
      specific purpose and length of time for which their
      fingerprints were being collected, stored, and used, as
      required by the BIPA;

   -- provide a publicly available retention schedule and
      guidelines for permanently destroying the Plaintiff' and
      the Class's fingerprints, as required by the BIPA; nor

   -- 5eceive a prior written authorization from the Plaintiff or
      the members of the Class to collect, capture, or otherwise
      obtain their fingerprints, as required by the BIPA.

Robert Stewart is a natural person and citizen of the State of
Illinois. He performed work for the Defendants at the FNG-Chicago
location from August 11, 2019, through October 22, 2019.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
          Lorrie T. Peeters, Esq.
          Katherine Stryker, Esq.
          CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD.
          224 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 763-6880


FLORIDA COMMERCIAL: Woodard Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL WOODARD, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FLORIDA COMMERCIAL CARE, INC., and STEPHEN
MCDOWELL, Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-02772 (M.D. Fla., Nov. 8,
2019), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
and prejudgment interest.

The Plaintiff was hired on July 1, 2019, as an Irrigation Tech and
was paid $21 per hour. He alleges that he regularly worked
substantial hours in excess of 40 hours each work week but was only
paid for 40 hours. He estimates he worked an average of 5-10
overtime hours per week. He contends that the Defendants' failure
to pay him the required overtime pay was intentional and willful.

Knowing he was regularly working extra hours, the Plaintiff says he
called a co-worker regarding how many hours the co-worker was
working and was informed that it was approximately 40-42 hours per
week. The Plaintiff's co-worker then told their boss, the
Irrigation Tech Director, about the Plaintiff's phone call and his
excess hours of work without compensation.

On October 2, 2019, the Plaintiff was terminated by the Irrigation
Tech Director.

As a direct and legal consequence of the Defendants' unlawful acts,
the Plaintiff asserts he has suffered damages and has incurred, or
will incur, costs and attorneys' fees in the prosecution of this
matter.

The Defendants provide property landscaping and property
maintenance services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
          Christopher D. Gray, Esq.
          FLORIN GRAY BOUZAS OWENS, LLC
          16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
          Lutz, FL 33558
          Telephone: (727) 254-5255
          Facsimile: (727) 483-7942
          E-mail: wolfgang@fgbolaw.com
                  chris@fgbolaw.com


GENESEE & WYOMING: Merger Related Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Genesee & Wyoming 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
Gordon vs. Genesee & Wyoming Inc. et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-01558-MN, Thompson vs. Genesee & Wyoming Inc. et al., Case
No. 1;19-cv-01650-MN and Geery vs. Genesee & Wyoming Inc. et al.,
Case No. 3:19-cv-01438-VLB (merger related suits), have filed
voluntary dismissals of their respective actions.

On July 1, 2019, the Company, together with Brookfield
Infrastructure, GIC and Brookfield Infrastructure's institutional
partners, announced an agreement pursuant to which affiliates of
Brookfield Infrastructure and GIC will acquire G&W for a
transaction price of $112.00 per share of common stock valued at
approximately $8.4 billion including debt (the Merger).

The proposed Merger was approved by the Company stockholders on
October 3, 2019 by an affirmative vote of the holders of
approximately 82.9% of the voting power of the outstanding shares
of G&W's common stock on the record date. Subject to the
satisfaction of the other closing conditions, the Merger is
expected to close by year end 2019 or early 2020.

The Merger will be effected pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the Merger Agreement), by and among the Company, DJP XX,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (Parent), and MKM XXII
Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of
Parent (Merger Sub). Merger Sub will be merged with and into G&W
with G&W surviving the Merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Parent. The proposed Merger will result in G&W becoming a privately
held company.

Following the filing of the Company's definitive proxy statement
(the Proxy Statement) associated with the Merger with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 20, 2019, three
lawsuits were filed in connection with the Merger, including two
purported class action lawsuits that were filed on August 21, 2019
and September 4, 2019 in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware, and one lawsuit filed on behalf of a
purported individual shareholder on September 12, 2019 in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.

These lawsuits, Gordon vs. Genesee & Wyoming Inc. et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-01558-MN, Thompson vs. Genesee & Wyoming Inc. et al., Case
No. 1;19-cv-01650-MN and Geery vs. Genesee & Wyoming Inc. et al.,
Case No. 3:19-cv-01438-VLB (collectively, the Disclosure Actions),
named the Company and individual officers and members of the
Company's board of directors as defendants.

The actions alleged, among other things, that the defendants failed
to disclose certain information relating to the Company's financial
projections set forth in the Proxy Statement.
On September 25, 2019, solely to eliminate the burden, expense, and
uncertainty inherent in such litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, the Company filed a Form 8-K containing
certain supplemental disclosures with the SEC. In consideration for
such supplemental disclosures by the Company, plaintiffs in the
Disclosure Actions had agreed to voluntarily dismiss the Disclosure
Actions. On October 4, 2019, pursuant to those agreements,
plaintiffs filed voluntary dismissals of the Disclosure Actions.

Genesee & Wyoming Inc. owns and operates short line and regional
freight railroads and provides
railcar switching and other rail-related services in the United
States of America, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands and Belgium.
The Company was incorporated in Delaware in 1977 and is
headquartered in Greenwich, Connecticut.


GENIE ENERGY: IDT Energy Seeks Summary Judgment in TCPA Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Genie Energy Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019, that on September 19, 2019, its indirect
subsidiary IDT Energy, Inc. filed a motion for summary judgment on
personal jurisdiction grounds as to one of the Plaintiffs in a
putative class action related to Telephone Consumer Protection Act.


On October 5, 2018, named plaintiffs Scott Mackey and Daniel
Hernandez filed a putative class action complaint against IDT
Energy in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, et seq.

The named plaintiffs filed the suit on behalf of: (1) a putative
Cell Phone class consisting of all persons in the U.S. to whom IDT
Energy and/or a third party acting on IDT Energy's behalf allegedly
made one or more telemarketing calls promoting IDT Energy's goods
or services to their cellular telephone number through the use of
an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
prerecorded voice within the four year period preceding the filing
of the complaint and (2) a putative Do-Not-Call class consisting of
all persons in the U.S. who allegedly received more than one call
from IDT Energy and/or some party acting on IDT Energy's behalf
promoting IDT Energy's goods or services in a 12-month period on
their cellular phone or residential telephone line and whose number
appears on the National Do-Not-Call registry within the four year
period preceding the filing of the complaint.

On November 30, 2018, IDT Energy filed its Answer and Defenses to
the complaint and the parties are now engaged in discovery.

On July 10, 2019, IDT Energy filed a motion to (1) compel
arbitration of claims made by one of the named plaintiffs along
with a stay of litigation against such named plaintiff pursuant to
terms alleged to have been opted in and agreed to, and (2)
bifurcation of individual and class claims to expedite discovery
and dispositive motions related to the named plaintiffs.

On September 19, 2019, IDT Energy filed a motion for summary
judgment on personal jurisdiction grounds as to one of the
Plaintiffs.  IDT Energy's motion for bifurcation of discovery was
granted and the ruling on the other motions is scheduled for
January 9, 2020.

Genie Energy said, "IDT Energy denies the allegations in the
complaint, which it believes to be meritless and plans to
vigorously defend this action.  Based upon the Company's assessment
of this matter, a loss based on the merits is not considered
probable, nor is the amount of loss, if any, estimable as of
September 30, 2019."

Genie Energy Ltd., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retail
energy provider; and an oil and gas exploration company. The
company operates through three segments: Genie Retail Energy; Genie
Energy Services; and Genie Oil and Gas, Inc. Genie Energy Ltd. was
incorporated in 2001 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.


GILEAD SCIENCES: Product Liability Suits over HIV Drugs Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gilead Sciences, 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 related to the side effects
of its HIV drugs, namely, Viread, Truvada, Atripla, Complera and
Stribild.

The company has been named as a defendant in one class action
lawsuit and various product liability lawsuits related to Viread,
Truvada, Atripla, Complera and Stribild.

Plaintiffs allege that Viread, Truvada, Atripla, Complera and/or
Stribild caused them to suffer kidney and/or bone injuries.

The lawsuits, which are pending in state or federal court in
California, Delaware or Floria, involve thousands of plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs in these cases seek damages and other relief on various
grounds for alleged personal injury and economic loss.

The company intends to vigorously defend ourselves in these
actions.

Gilead said, "While we believe these cases are without merit, we
cannot predict the ultimate outcome. If plaintiffs are successful
in their claims, we could be required to pay significant monetary
damages."

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

Gilead Sciences, Inc., a research-based biopharmaceutical company,
discovers, develops, and commercializes medicines in the areas of
unmet medical needs in the United States, Europe, and
internationally. The company was founded in 1987 and is
headquartered in Foster City, California.


GILEAD SCIENCES: Suit over Price-Fixing of HIV Drugs Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Gilead Sciences, 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 litigation over alleged rigging of the price of
HIV medication.

The company along with JT, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and Johnson
& Johnson, Inc. have been named as defendants in a class action
lawsuit filed in 2019 related to various drugs used to treat HIV,
including drugs used in combination antiretroviral therapy.

Plaintiffs allege that we (and the other defendants) engaged in
various conduct to restrain competition in violation of federal and
state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws.

The lawsuit, a consolidated action pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, seeks to
bring claims on behalf of a nationwide class of end-payor
purchasers.

Plaintiffs seek damages, permanent injunctive relief, and other
relief.

The company intends to vigorously defend ourselves in this action.


Gilead said, "While we believe this action is without merit, we
cannot predict the ultimate outcome. If plaintiffs are successful
in their claims, we could be required to pay significant monetary
damages or could be subject to permanent injunctive relief."

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

Gilead Sciences, Inc., a research-based biopharmaceutical company,
discovers, develops, and commercializes medicines in the areas of
unmet medical needs in the United States, Europe, and
internationally. The company was founded in 1987 and is
headquartered in Foster City, California.


GLAUKOS CORP: Continues to Defend Class Suit over Avedro Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glaukos 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 four class action suits related to Avedro,
Inc.'s merger.

On August 7, 2019, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger by and among Glaukos, Atlantic Merger Sub, Inc. (Merger
Sub) and Avedro, Inc. (Avedro), pursuant to which Merger Sub will
merge with and into Avedro, with Avedro continuing as the surviving
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company (the
Merger). The Merger is subject to certain closing conditions,
including but not limited to, the adoption of the Agreement and
Plan of Merger by holders of a majority of the outstanding common
stock of Avedro entitled to vote which is expected to occur on
November 19, 2019.  

On October 1, 2019, an alleged Avedro stockholder filed a lawsuit
challenging the Merger. Such lawsuit, a putative class action
complaint, is captioned Kent v. Avedro, Inc., et. al,
1:19-cv-01845-MN (the Kent complaint), and was filed by Michael
Kent in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware.

The Kent complaint names as defendants Avedro and each member of
the Avedro board of directors, including former directors Dr.
Gilbert H. Kliman and Thomas W. Burns, as well as Glaukos and
Merger Sub.

The Kent complaint alleges violations of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9. The plaintiff in this action
generally alleges that the Registration Statement omits material
information with respect to the Merger, which renders such
Registration Statement false and misleading.

The complaint seeks preliminary and permanent injunction of the
Merger and, if the Merger is consummated, rescission or rescissory
damages. The complaint also seeks the dissemination of a
registration statement that discloses certain information requested
by the plaintiff.

In addition, the complaint seeks attorneys' and experts' fees.

Three additional lawsuits challenging the Merger have also been
filed by alleged Avedro stockholders. Those additional lawsuits
allege similar causes of action, based on similar allegations, and
seek similar relief to the Kent complaint. Two of those lawsuits,
Payne v. Avedro, Inc. et. al, 1:19-cv-02019-CFC in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware and Bushansky v.
Avedro, Inc. et. al, 1:19-cv-10015-LAP in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, name as
defendants Avedro and each member of the Avedro board of directors
but do not name former Avedro directors, Glaukos or Merger Sub as
defendants. The final lawsuit, Thompson v. Avedro, Inc., et. al,
1:19-cv-02075-UNA in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Delaware names the same defendants as the Kent
complaint.  

The Company believes that all four of these complaints are without
merit.

Glaukos Corporation operates as an ophthalmic medical technology
company. The Company develops, manufactures, and markets medical
devices for the treatment of glaucoma. Glaukos offers micro-scale
injectable therapies designed to address the complete range of
glaucoma disease states and progression. The company is based in
San Clemente, California.


GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: Did Not Give Seats to Workers, Recinos Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
GENESSIS RECINOS, individually, and as a representative of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 19STCV40694 (Cal. Super., Nov. 12, 2019), seeks to recover
civil penalties pursuant to the California Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004.

Goodwill associate, checker and/or cashier duties include several
duties where the associate, checker and/or cashier work in place
for an entire work shift. During these time periods, a seat is
required by law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has been employed by the
Defendants as an associate and doing checker and/or cashier duties
in the County of Los Angeles. The Plaintiff alleges that Goodwill
has failed to provide seats to their employees in violation of
Section 14(a) of Wage Order 7-2001.

Goodwill owns and operates a network of retail chain that sells
recycled or reused donated items nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andre E. Jardini, Esq.
          K.L. Myles, Esq.
          KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE
          550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 547-5000
          Facsimile: (818) 547-5329
          E-mail: aej@kpclegal.com
                  klm@kpclegal.com

               - and -

          Michael V. Jehdian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL V. JEHDIAN, APC
          550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 2150
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 247-9111
          Facsimile: (818) 247-9222
          E-mail: jehdian@lawyer.com


HEALTH INSURANCE: Appeal Pending over 2 Classes in Moser TCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Health Insurance Innovations is awaiting the Court's action on the
Company's appeal from the District Court's August 7, 2019 ruling
certifying two classes in the Moser Telephone Consumer Protection
Act lawsuit, according to the Company'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.

Health Insurance said, "The Company has received a number of
private-party claims relating to telephonic-sales calls allegedly
conducted by independent third-party distributors.  Generally,
these claims assert that the Company violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), although the Company does not
engage in the alleged activities.  In fact, the Company maintains
internal and external compliance staff and processes to monitor
independent third-party distributor compliance.

Historically, the Company has been successful at obtaining
dismissals or settling the claims for immaterial amounts.  The
Company continues to vigorously defend itself in pending cases
filed by what has been determined to be serial-professional
plaintiffs such as those cases filed by Craig Cunningham, Kenneth
Moser, and more recently by additional groups of Plaintiffs led by
Robert Hossfeld, Annette Barnes, Mary Bilek, and Paula Foote.  In
the Cunningham case, the Company's motion for summary judgment is
pending.  Moser, like Cunningham, has been a plaintiff in hundreds
of similar cases against a variety of types of companies
nationwide.  On August 7, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California (Case No. 17-CV-1127) certified two
classes in the Moser case, and the Company timely appealed the
Court's Order on the Motion for Class Certification.  The parties
are awaiting a ruling on such."

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


HEALTH INSURANCE: Court Denies Bid to Nix Securities Suit in Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida has
denied Health Insurance Innovations, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the
securities class action led by Oklahoma Municipal Retirement Fund
and City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System, according to
Health Insurance'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.

On February 18, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit styled Julian
Keippel v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., Gavin Southwell, and
Michael D. Hershberger, Case No. 8:19-cv-00421, was filed against
the Company, its chief executive officer, and chief financial
officer in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida.  According to the complaint, the plaintiff in the action
is seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest, attorneys'
fees, and costs on behalf of a putative class of individuals and
entities that acquired shares of the Company's common stock during
the period February 28, 2018 through November 27, 2018.

The complaint alleges that the Company made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or material omissions during the
purported class period relating to the Company's relationship with
third parties, particularly Health Benefits One LLC/Simple Health
Plans and affiliates.  The complaint alleges that, among other
things, the Company failed to disclose to investors that a
substantial portion of the Company's revenues were derived from
third parties who allegedly used deceptive tactics to sell the
Company's products and that regulatory scrutiny of such third
parties would materially impact the Company's operations.  The
complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the
Securities Exchange Act.

On May 13, 2019, the court appointed lead plaintiff Oklahoma
Municipal Retirement Fund and City of Birmingham Retirement and
Relief System and lead counsel Saxena White P.A.  The lead
plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on July 19, 2019.
The consolidated complaint incorporated the allegations from the
first complaint and added allegations of alleged materially false
or misleading statements or material omissions relating to alleged
deficiencies in the Company's compliance and customer service
programs and the number of complaints the Company received from
consumers relating to third parties, particularly Health Benefits
One LLC/Simple Health and affiliates.  The complaint also adds
allegations regarding insider stock sales by Messrs. Southwell and
Hershberger.  The plaintiffs are seeking an undetermined amount of
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of putative
classes of individuals and entities that acquired shares of the
Company's common stock during a purported class period of September
25, 2017 through April 11, 2019.

On August 28, 2019, the Company moved to dismiss the action, which
the court denied on November 4, 2019.  The Company intends to
vigorously defend against these claims.

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


HEALTH INSURANCE: Discovery in Florida Consolidated Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated class action suit
entitled, In re Health Insurance Innovations Securities Litigation,
Case No. 8:17-cv-02186-EAK-MAP (M.D. Fla.), according to Health
Insurance Innovations, 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.

In September 2017, three putative securities class action lawsuits
were filed against the Company and certain of its current and
former executive officers.  The cases were styled Cioe Investments
Inc. v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., Gavin Southwell, and
Michael Hershberger, Case No. 1:17-cv-05316-NG-ST, filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on
September 11, 2017; Michael Vigorito v. Health Insurance
Innovations, Inc., Gavin Southwell, and Michael Hershberger, Case
No. 1:17-cv-06962, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on September 13, 2017; and Shilpi
Kavra v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., Patrick McNamee, Gavin
Southwell, and Michael Hershberger, Case No. 8:17-cv-02186-EAK-MAP,
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
on September 21, 2017.

All three of the foregoing actions (the "Securities Actions") were
filed after a decline in the trading price of the Company's common
stock following the release of a report authored by a short-seller
of the Company's common stock raising questions about, among other
things, the Company's public disclosures relating to the Company's
regulatory examinations and regulatory compliance.  All three of
the Securities Actions contained substantially similar allegations
to those raised in the short-seller report alleging that the
Company made materially false or misleading statements or omissions
relating to regulatory compliance matters, particularly regarding
the Company's application for a third-party administrator license
in the State of Florida, which was issued by the State on February
14, 2018.

In November and December 2017, the Cioe Investments and Vigorito
cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, and on December 28, 2017, they were
consolidated with the Kavra matter under the case caption, In re
Health Insurance Innovations Securities Litigation, Case No.
8:17-cv-02186-EAK-MAP (M.D.  Fla.).

On February 6, 2018, the court appointed Robert Rector as lead
plaintiff and appointed lead counsel, and lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated complaint on March 23, 2018.  The consolidated
complaint, which dropped Patrick McNamee as a defendant and added
Michael Kosloske as a defendant, largely sets forth the same
factual allegations as the initially filed Securities Actions filed
in September 2017 and added allegations relating to alleged
materially false statements and omissions relating to the
regulatory proceeding previously initiated against the Company by
the Montana State Auditor, Commissioner of Securities and Insurance
(the "CSI") which proceeding was dismissed on October 31, 2017.
The complaint also adds allegations regarding insider stock sales
by Messrs. Kosloske and Hershberger.  The consolidated complaint
alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), SEC Rule 10b-5, and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  According to the consolidated
complaint, the plaintiffs in the action are seeking an undetermined
amount of damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of
putative classes of individuals and entities that acquired shares
of the Company's common stock on periods ending September 11,
2017.

On May 7, 2018, the Company and co-defendants filed a motion to
dismiss all claims.

On March 29, 2019, the court sua sponte ordered mandatory mediation
before United States Magistrate Judge Christopher Tuite, which did
not result in a settlement.

On June 28, 2019, the court granted in part, and denied in part,
the motion to dismiss, and dismissed all claims against Messrs.
Southwell and Kosloske.  Discovery is ongoing.

The Company said it intends to vigorously defend against the
remaining claims.

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


HEALTH INSURANCE: S.D. Florida Court Narrows Bid to Nix Belin Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Health Insurance Innovations, 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 30, 2019, that its motion
to dismiss the case, Belin et al. v. Health Insurance Innovations,
Inc., et al., was partially denied.

The Company said, "A proposed class action, but not yet certified,
styled as Belin et al. v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., et
al., Case No. 19-cv-61430, was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on June 7, 2019.  The case alleges
that the Company conspired with Simple Health using a theory of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act along with other
claims and seeks unspecified damages.  The Company's Motion to
Dismiss was partially denied and the Company intends to vigorously
defend against the claims."

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


HELIUS MEDICAL: Bid to Combine Caramahai and Evans Suits Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Helius Medical Technologies, Inc. shareholder's motion to
consolidate two putative shareholder class action lawsuits into a
single putative class action remains pending in 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 or about July 9, 2019, a putative shareholder class action
lawsuit, Caramahai v. Helius Medical Technologies, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-06365 (S.D.N.Y.), was filed against the Company
and three of its individual officers in the Southern District of
New York ("the Caramahai Action").  The lawsuit alleges that the
Company made materially false and misleading statements regarding
the prospects for FDA approval of Helius's application for de novo
classification and marketing authorization of its PoNS device in
the United States.  As a result of these alleged misstatements, the
Caramahai Action asserts claims on behalf of shareholders who
bought or sold Helius common stock between from November 9, 2017 to
April 10, 2019 for alleged violations of the federal securities
laws, specifically Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

On or about July 31, 2019, a putative shareholder class action
lawsuit, Evans v. Helius Medical Technologies, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:19-cv-07171 (S.D.N.Y.), was filed against the Company and
three of its individual officers in the Southern District of New
York (the "Evans Action").  The Evans Action alleges similar claims
as the Caramahai Action.

On September 9, 2019, three Helius shareholders each filed motions
in the Caramahai and Evans cases seeking to consolidate the two
proceedings into a single putative class action.  The individual
motions also sought to have the movant appointed as Lead Plaintiff
and have the movant's attorneys appointed as Lead Counsel.  

On September 13 and 17, 2019, respectively, two of the movants
filed notices withdrawing their motions on the ground that they did
not appear to have "the largest financial interest in the relief
sought by the class." The motion filed by the third movant remains
pending before the Court and unopposed.

Helius Medical said, "While the Company believes that each of the
Caramahai Action and the Evans Action is without merit and intends
to vigorously defend its position in each case, it recognizes that
additional putative class actions or related proceedings may be
filed.  Given that each of these legal proceedings is in its early
stages, the Company is unable to predict the probable outcomes at
this time."

Helius Medical Technologies, Inc. is a neurological research
company. The Company explores neuroplasticity, electrotactile
stimulation and neuromodulation. The company is based in Newtown,
Pennsylvania.


HENRY SCHEIN: Faces City of Hollywood Police Officers Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
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 is
defending against a putative class action suit initiated by City of
Hollywood Police Officers Retirement System.

On September 30, 2019, City of Hollywood Police Officers Retirement
System, 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., Covetrus,
Inc., and Benjamin Shaw and Christine Komola (Covetrus's then Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively) in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Case No.
2:19-cv-05530-FB-RLM.

The complaint seeks to certify a class consisting of all persons
and entities who, subject to certain exclusions, purchased or
otherwise acquired Covetrus common stock from February 8, 2019
through August 12, 2019.

The case relates to the Animal Health Spin-off and Merger of the
Henry Schein Animal Health Business with Vets First Choice in
February 2019.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 and asserts that defendants'
statements in the offering documents and after the transaction were
materially false and misleading because they purportedly overstated
Covetrus's capabilities as to inventory management and supply-chain
services, understated the costs of integrating the Henry Schein
Animal Health Business and Vets First Choice, understated
Covetrus's separation costs from Henry Schein, and understated the
impact on earnings from online competition and alternative
distribution channels and from the loss of an allegedly large
customer in North America just before the Separation and Merger.  

The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and a jury trial.


Henry Schein said, "We intend to defend ourselves vigorously
against this action."

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: Hatchett Class Action Ongoing
-------------------------------------------
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 purported class action suit initiated by R.
Lawrence Hatchett, M.D.

On January 29, 2019, a purported class action complaint was filed
by R. Lawrence Hatchett, M.D. against Henry Schein, Inc., Patterson
Co., Inc., Benco Dental Supply Co., and unnamed co-conspirators in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

The complaint alleges that members of the proposed class suffered
antitrust injury due to an unlawful boycott, price-fixing or
otherwise anticompetitive conspiracy among Henry Schein, Patterson
and Benco.

The complaint alleges that the alleged conspiracy overcharged
Illinois dental practices, orthodontic practices and dental
laboratories on their purchase of dental supplies, which in turn
passed on some or all of such overcharges to members of the class.


Subject to certain exclusions, the complaint defines the class as
"all persons residing in Illinois purchasing and/or reimbursing for
dental care provided by independent Illinois dental practices
purchasing dental supplies from the defendants, or purchasing from
buying groups purchasing these supplies from the defendants, on or
after January 29, 2015."

The complaint alleges violations of the Illinois Antitrust Act, 740
Ill. Comp. Stat. §Sections 10/3(2), 10/7(2), and seeks a permanent
injunction, actual damages to be determined at trial, trebled,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment
interest.

Henry Schein said, "We intend to defend ourselves vigorously
against this action."

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.


HENRY SCHEIN: Kramer Class Action Suit Terminated
-------------------------------------------------
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 in Kramer
v. Henry Schein, Inc., Patterson Co., Inc., Benco Dental Supply
Co., and Unnamed Co-Conspirators, has approved a stipulation of
dismissal with prejudice and terminated the case.

On October 9, 2018, a purported class action complaint entitled
Kramer v. Henry Schein, Inc., Patterson Co., Inc., Benco Dental
Supply Co., and Unnamed Co-Conspirators, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

The complaint alleges that members of the proposed class, comprised
of purchasers of dental services from dental practices in
California, suffered antitrust injury due to an unlawful boycott,
price-fixing or otherwise anticompetitive conspiracy among Henry
Schein, Patterson and Benco.

The complaint alleges that the alleged conspiracy overcharged
California dental practices, orthodontic practices and dental
laboratories on their purchase of dental supplies, which in turn
passed on some or all of such overcharges to members of the
California class purchasing dental services.

Subject to certain exclusions, the complaint defines the class as
"all persons residing in California purchasing and/or reimbursing
for dental services from California dental practices on or after
August 31, 2012."

The complaint alleges violations of California antitrust laws,
including the Cartwright Act (Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code Section
16720) and the Unfair Competition Act (Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code
Section 17200), and seeks a permanent injunction, actual damages to
be determined at trial, trebled, reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest.

On December 7, 2018, an amended complaint was filed asserting the
same claims against the same parties.

On June 28, 2019, the court granted Defendants' motions to dismiss
with leave to amend. The parties subsequently stipulated to
dismissal of the action with prejudice, pursuant to a settlement in
which Henry Schein agreed to pay the plaintiff a de minimis amount.


The court entered the stipulation of dismissal with prejudice and
terminated the case on August 2, 2019.

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.


HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: Rodgers, et al. Seek to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as PATRICIA RODGERS, et al., the
Plaintiffs, vs. HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL OF AMERICA, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-07480-JAK-MRW (C.D. Cal.), Patricia
Rodgers, Jeff Rodgers, Jennifer Ribalta and Izaar Valdez will move
the Court on Feb. 10, 2020, for an order certifying a class of:

   "all persons who purchased tickets to and attended at least
   two Circle of Success events from 2009 until the present, in
   pursuit of Herbalife's business opportunity."

Excluded from the class are the Defendants, past or present members
of Herbalife's President's Team, their employees, proxies, and
family members.

According to the complaint, Herbalife utilizes standardized,
deceptive methods to recruit and retain its "business opportunity"
participants across the nation; ensnaring tens of thousands of
vulnerable consumers each year into a hopeless quest to achieve the
impossible. The live event "Circle of Success" enterprise, which
Herbalife operates in close conjunction with dozens of its most
"successful" distributors -- the Featured Speakers -- is the
essential mechanism through which the Defendants recruit and retain
their victims.

To convince victims to attend events, Defendant uniformly
misrepresents that the events will reveal how the Featured Speakers
achieved their success. Herbalife uniformly misrepresents that
hopeful attendees can achieve the same results as the Featured
Speakers and attain Herbalife's Holy Grail -- a spot on the
President's Team. Each of the events repeats the same fundamental
message: If you obsessively 25 consume Herbalife's products, attend
every event, work to bring others to events, qualify for everything
at events, and never give up on your pursuit of Herbalife's
business opportunity -- you will make it to President's Team, the
lawsuit says.

The complaint asserts claims against Defendant's violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and the
California's Unfair Competition.

Herbalife Nutrition is a global multi-level marketing corporation
that develops, markets, and sells dietary supplements, weight
management, sports nutrition, and personal-care products.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are

          Paul A. Levin, Esq.
          MORTGAGE RECOVERY LAW GROUP LLP
          550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1100
          3 Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 630-7900
          Facsimile: (818) 630-7920
          E-mail: plevin@themrlg.com

               - and -

          Etan Mark, Esq.
          Donald J. Hayden, Esq.
          MARK MIGDAL & HAYDEN
          80 SW 8th Street, Suite 1999
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 374-0440
          E-mail: etan@markmigdal.com
                  don@markmigdal.com

Attorneys for Herbalife International of America, Inc. are:

          Mark T. Drooks, Esq.
          Paul S. Chan, Esq.
          Gopi K. Panchapakesan, Esq.
          BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM,
             DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW, P.C.
          1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561
          Telephone: (310) 201-2100
          Facsimile: (310) 201-2110
          E-mail: mdrooks@birdmarella.com
                  pchan@birdmarella.com
                  gpanchapakesan@birdmarella.com


HUHTAMAKI INC: Chavez Files Suit in California
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Huhtamaki Inc. The
case is styled as Juan J. Chavez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Huhtamaki Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 19STCV43672 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles County, Dec. 4,
2019).

The case type of the lawsuit is stated as Other Employment
Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction).

Huhtamaki Inc. manufactures packaging products. The Company
provides consumer goods packaging products, foodservice containers,
disposable tableware, containers for ice cream and frozen desserts,
custom plastic containers, insulated paper and cups, paper food
containers, and molded lids.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Kane Moon, Esq.
   Moon & Yang, APC
   1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
   Los Angeles, CA 90017
   Tel: (213)232-3128

INDIA GLOBALIZATION: Bid to Dismiss Tchatchou Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
India Globalization Capital, 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 the consolidated class action suit entitled,
Tchatchou v. India Globalization Capital, Inc., is pending.

On November 2, 2018, IGC shareholder Alde-Binet Tchatchou
instituted a shareholder class action complaint on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland. IGC, Ram Mukunda,
Richard Prins, and Sudhakar Shenoy were named as defendants.

On May 13, 2019, the plaintiff in the Tchatchou litigation filed an
amended complaint against IGC, Mukunda, and Claudia Grimaldi,
thereby removing Prins and Shenoy as defendants.

The plaintiff in Tchatchou alleges that IGC, Mukunda, and Grimaldi
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, SEC Rule 10b-5, and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and made false and misleading
statements to the public by issuing a September 25, 2018 press
release entitled "IGC to Enter the Hemp/CBD-Infused Energy Drink
Space," and related disclosures in which IGC announced it had
"executed a distribution and partnership agreement" for the
sugar-free energy drink named Nitro G, as well as through related
public statements.

The plaintiff in Tchatchou has not publicly disclosed the amount of
damages they seek.

On February 28, 2019, all pending shareholder class actions were
consolidated, and the Tchatchou litigation was designated as the
lead case.

On October 11, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
pending class action shareholder litigation, i.e., the consolidated
Tchatchou matter.

The Motion to Dismiss seeks dismissal of all securities fraud
claims asserted against the Company and named officers and
directors and termination of the proceedings with prejudice, i.e.,
permanently. Additional briefing is scheduled for November and
December 2019.

At this time, the Company is unable to estimate when the court may
rule on the Motion to Dismiss.

India Globalization Capital, Inc. engages in the development and
commercialization of cannabis-based therapies to treat Alzheimer's,
pain, nausea, eating disorders, several end points of Parkinson's,
and epilepsy in humans, dogs, and cats. The company operates
through two segments, Legacy Infrastructure and Medical Cannabis
Based Alternative Therapies. The company was founded in 2005 and is
based in Bethesda, Maryland.


J. CREW GROUP: Mendez Alleges Violation under ADA
-------------------------------------------------
J. Crew Group, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Himelda Mendez and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. J. Crew Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-11135 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 4, 2019).

J.Crew Group, Inc., is an American multi-brand, multi-channel,
specialty retailer. The company offers an assortment of women's,
men's, and children's apparel and accessories, including swimwear,
outerwear, lounge-wear, bags, sweaters, denim, dresses, suiting,
jewelry, and shoes.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.

The Defendant is represented by:

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


JEFFREE STAR COSMETICS: Kiler Files Suit in New York for ADA
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffree Star Cosmetics, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Marion Kiler, individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Jeffree Star Cosmetics,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06805 (E.D. N.Y., Dec. 4, 2019).

Jeffree Star Cosmetics is an American cosmetics company founded and
owned by Jeffree Star.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
   Scarsdale, NY 10583
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com




KTH PARTS: Baughman, et al. Seek to Certify Class of Employers
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Baughman, et al., On behalf
of themselves and other members of the general public similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. KTH Parts Industries, Inc., et al.,
the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00008-WHR (S.D. Ohio), the
Plaintiffs move the Court pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, for entry of an order:

   1. conditionally certifying proposed collective FLSA class of:

      "all current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of
      Defendants working at either the St Paris Facility or the
      Leesburg Facility who, during any workweek within the three
      years preceding the filing of this Motion, have: (1)
      "clocked in" or "clocked out" to keep track of their
      compensable hours; and (2) worked at least 40 hours in any
      workweek";

   2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
      Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail and e-mail)
      to the Class:

   3. approving a Reminder Email to be sent to Putative Class
      Members halfway through the 90-day notice period; and

   4. requiring Defendant to, within 14 days of this Court's
      order, identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by providing

      a list in electronic and importable format, of the names,
      positions of employment, last-known mailing addresses, last-
      known telephone numbers, email addresses, and dates of
      employment of all potential opt-in plaintiffs who worked for

      Defendant at any time from three years preceding the filing
      of this Motion through the present.

KTH Parts Industries is a Tier-1 Automotive Supplier, for underbody
structural parts, providing automotive components to companies
worldwide.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: 614-949-1181
          Facsimile: 614-386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

               - and -

          Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
          BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: (614) 704-0546
          Facsimile: (614) 573-9826
          E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com

KUSHCO HOLDINGS: Has Until January 2020 to Respond to May Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KushCo Holdings, Inc. has until January 2020 to respond to an
amended complaint in the case styled, May v. KushCo Holdings, Inc.,
et al. Filed April 30, 2019. Case No. 8:19-cv-00798-JLS-KES, U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 12, 2019, for the fiscal year ended August
31, 2019.

This putative shareholder class action against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the Company's securities between July 13, 2017 and
April 9, 2019, inclusive.

In July 2019, purported Company shareholders filed motions for
appointment of lead counsel and lead plaintiffs.

In September 2019, the Court appointed co-lead plaintiffs and
co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs.  The lead plaintiffs' amended
complaint was due in November 2019, and the defendants' responses
to the complaint are currently due in January 2020.

The Company said it intends to vigorously defend itself against
these claims.

KushCo Holdings, Inc. primarily engages in the wholesale
distribution of packaging supplies in the United States, Canada,
Europe, and internationally. The company offers pop-top bottles;
child resistant exit, paper exit, and foil barrier bags; tubes; and
polystyrene, silicone-lined polystyrene or glass containers. The
company was formerly known as Kush Bottles, Inc. and changed its
name to KushCo Holdings, Inc. in September 2018. KushCo Holdings,
Inc. was founded in 2010 and is headquartered in Garden Grove,
California.


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Shron Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 company has
filed a motion in the class action suit entitled, Shron v.
LendingClub Corp., 1:19-cv-06718, to compel arbitration of
plaintiff's claims on an individual basis.

In July 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company in federal court in the State of New York (Shron v.
LendingClub Corp., 1:19-cv-06718) alleging various claims including
fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and violations of the
federal Truth-in-Lending Act and New York General Business Law
sections 349 and 350, et seq., based on allegations, among others,
that the Company made misleading or inadequate statements or
omissions in relation to the total cost and origination fee
associated with loans available through the Company's platform.

The plaintiff seeks to represent classes of similarly situated
individuals in the lawsuit.

The Company has filed a motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff's
claims on an individual basis.

LendingClub said, "The timing of a ruling on that motion is
unclear. This matter 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."

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

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.


LENDINGCLUB CORP: No Arbitration Initiated Yet in Moses Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
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 plaintiff in
the class action suit entitled, Moses v. LendingClub Corporation,
2:17-cv-03071-JAD-PAL, has not initiated arbitration.

In December 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company in the State of Nevada (Moses v. LendingClub
Corporation, 2:17-cv-03071-JAD-PAL) alleging violations of the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The complaint alleged that the Company improperly accessed the
credit report of the plaintiff, who had formerly had a loan
serviced by the Company. The complaint further alleged, on
information and belief, that the Company improperly accessed credit
reports of other similarly situated individuals.

The Company filed a motion to compel arbitration on the grounds
that the plaintiff waived the right to bring a class action and
must individually arbitrate any claim.

On February 6, 2019, the Court issued an order granting this
motion, dismissed the putative class action without prejudice, and
ordered the parties to arbitrate the plaintiff's claim.

LendingClub said, "As of the date of this Report, the plaintiff has
not initiated arbitration. The Company denies the plaintiff's claim
and is prepared to vigorously defend against it in the event the
plaintiff initiates an arbitration following the Court's recent
order. 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.


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Plouffe Class Action Dismissed
------------------------------------------------
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 class action
suit entitled, Plouffe v. LendingClub Corporation,
0:19-cv-60715-FAM, has been dismissed.

In March 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company in the State of Florida (Plouffe v. LendingClub
Corporation, 0:19-cv-60715-FAM) alleging violations of the federal
Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The complaint alleged that the Company made unauthorized credit
report inquiries relating to the plaintiff following the receipt of
a bankruptcy discharge by the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought to
represent a class of similarly situated individuals in the lawsuit.


In May 2019, the parties agreed to submit all claims in the case to
binding arbitration and to stay all court proceedings pending the
outcome of the arbitration.

The parties have reached a resolution of this matter, the terms of
which are not material to the Company's financial position or
results of operations, and the case has been dismissed.

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.


LG HOUSEHOLD: Slade Files Suit under Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------
LG Household and Health Care America, Inc. is facing a class action
lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The
case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. LG Household and Health Care America, Inc. doing business as:
Belif, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11117 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 4,
2019).

Belif is a korean skincare brand sold at Sephora.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
   Scarsdale, NY 10583
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


LIBERTY MEDIA: Flo & Eddie Class Suit Remanded to California
------------------------------------------------------------
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has remanded the Pre-1972 Sound
Recording Litigation initiated by Flo & Eddie Inc. against Pandora
Media, Inc. to the Central District of California for further
proceedings, according to Liberty Media Corporation'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.

On October 2, 2014, Flo & Eddie Inc. filed a class action suit
against Pandora in the federal district court for the Central
District of California.  The complaint alleges a violation of
California Civil Code Section 980, unfair competition,
misappropriation and conversion in connection with the public
performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15, 1972
("pre-1972 recordings").

On December 19, 2014, Pandora filed a motion to strike the
complaint pursuant to California's Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against
Public Participation ("Anti-SLAPP") statute, which following denial
of Pandora's motion was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.

In March 2017, the Ninth Circuit requested certification to the
California Supreme Court on the substantive legal questions.  The
California Supreme Court accepted certification.

In May 2019, the California Supreme Court issued an order
dismissing consideration of the certified questions on the basis
that, following the enactment of the Orrin G.  Hatch-Bob Goodlatte
Music Modernization Act, Pub. L. No. 115-264, 132 Stat. 3676 (2018)
(the "MMA"), resolution of the questions posed by the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals was no longer "necessary to. . . settle an
important question of law."

Three class action lawsuits are currently stayed pending the Ninth
Circuit's decision in the Flo & Eddie case.

  * Arthur and Barbara Sheridan's class action suit against Pandora
in the federal district courts for the Northern District of
California;

  * The Sheridans' class action suit filed in the District of New
Jersey; and

  * a class action suit filed by Ponderosa Twins Plus One and
others against Pandora.

The Company said that the MMA grants a newly available federal
preemption defense to the claims asserted in the lawsuit.

In July 2019, Pandora made the required payments and reporting
under the MMA for certain of its uses of pre-1972 recordings to
avail itself of this federal preemption defense.  Based on the
federal preemption contained in the MMA (along with other
considerations), Pandora asked the Ninth Circuit to order the
dismissal of the Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media, Inc. case.

On October 17, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a
memorandum disposition concluding that the question of whether the
MMA preempts Flo and Eddie's claims challenging Pandora's
performance of pre-1972 recordings "depends on various unanswered
factual questions" and remanded the case to the District Court for
further proceedings.

Liberty Media Corporation, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
media and entertainment businesses primarily in North America and
the United Kingdom. The company operates through SIRIUS XM and
Formula 1 segments. The company is headquartered in Englewood,
Colorado.


LIBERTY MEDIA: Ponderosa Twins Lawsuit Still Stayed in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Pre-1972 Sound Recording class action by Ponderosa Twins Plus
One and others against Pandora Media, Inc. remains stayed in the
Northern District of California pending the Ninth Circuit's
decision in Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media, Inc., according to
Liberty Media Corporation'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.

The Company said, "In September 2016, Ponderosa Twins Plus One and
others filed a class action suit against Pandora alleging claims
similar to those asserted in Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media
Inc. This action is also currently stayed in the Northern District
of California pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in Flo & Eddie,
Inc. v. Pandora Media, Inc."

On October 17, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded
the Flo & Eddie case to the District Court for further
proceedings.

The Company further disclosed that when the stay in the Ponderosa
Twins case is lifted, Pandora expects to file motions to dismiss
the action.

Liberty Media Corporation, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
media and entertainment businesses primarily in North America and
the United Kingdom. The company operates through SIRIUS XM and
Formula 1 segments. The company is headquartered in Englewood,
Colorado.



LIBERTY MEDIA: Sheridan Class Suits in 2 Courts Still Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur and Barbara Sheridan's separate class action suits (Pre-1972
Sound Recording Litigation) against Pandora Media, Inc. in the
federal district courts for the Northern District of California and
the District of New Jersey remain stayed pending the Ninth
Circuit's decision in Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media, Inc.,
according to Liberty Media Corporation'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.

In September and October 2015, Arthur and Barbara Sheridan filed
separate class action suits against Pandora in the federal district
courts for the Northern District of California and the District of
New Jersey.  The complaints allege a variety of violations of
common law and state copyright statutes, common law
misappropriation, unfair competition, conversion, unjust enrichment
and violation of rights of publicity arising from allegations that
Pandora owes royalties for the public performance of pre-1972
recordings.  The Sheridan actions in California and New Jersey are
currently stayed pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in Flo &
Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media, Inc.

On October 17, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded
the Flo & Eddie case to the District Court for further
proceedings.

The Company further disclosed that when the stays in the two
Sheridan cases are lifted, Pandora expects to file motions to
dismiss those actions.

Liberty Media Corporation, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
media and entertainment businesses primarily in North America and
the United Kingdom. The company operates through SIRIUS XM and
Formula 1 segments. The company is headquartered in Englewood,
Colorado.


MACROGENICS INC: Continues to Defend Hill Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
MacroGenics, 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, Todd Hill v.
MacroGenics, Inc. (Case No. 8:19-cv-02713).

On September 13, 2019, a class action suit, entitled Todd Hill v.
MacroGenics, Inc. (Case No. 8:19-cv-02713), was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland against the Company and
certain of its officers and/or directors, alleging violations of
securities laws during 2019.

The suit asserts certain claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 based on alleged
misstatements or omissions concerning the Company's margetuximab
Phase 3 SOPHIA study.

MacroGenics said, "The Company believes this suit is without merit
and plans to vigorously defend against these claims. Currently, no
reserve has been established for any potential liability related to
this suit."

MacroGenics, Inc. develops novel biologics. The Company specializes
in treatments for autoimmune disorders, cancer, and infectious
diseases. MacroGenics serves the healthcare industry in the United
States. The company is based in Rockville, Maryland.


MALLINCKRODT PLC: Bid to Dismiss MSP Recovery Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
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's
motion to dismiss the class action suit entitled, MSP Recovery
Claims, Series II, LLC, et al. v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al.,
is pending.

On October 30, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and United BioSource Corporation in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

Pursuant to a motion filed by the defendants, the case was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois in January 2018, and is currently proceeding as MSP
Recovery Claims, Series II, LLC, et al. v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc.,
et al.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss on February 23, 2018, which
was granted on January 25, 2019 with leave to amend.

MSP filed the operative First Amended Class Action Complaint on
April 10, 2019, in which it asserts claims under federal and state
antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws. The complaint
alleges that the Company unlawfully maintained a monopoly in a
purported ACTH product market by acquiring the U.S. rights to
Synacthen(R) Depot ("Synacthen") and reaching anti-competitive
agreements with the other defendants by selling Acthar Gel through
an exclusive distribution network.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all third-party
payers, or their assignees, in the U.S. and its territories, who
have, as indirect purchasers, in whole or in part, paid for,
provided reimbursement for, and/or possess the recovery rights to
reimbursement for the indirect purchase of Acthar Gel from August
1, 2007 to present.

The Company moved to dismiss the First Amended Class Action
Complaint on May 24, 2019.

The Company's motion to dismiss remains pending.

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


MALLINCKRODT PLC: Bid to Dismiss Steamfitters Union Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
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's
motion to dismiss the class action suit entitled, Steamfitters
Local Union No. 420 v. Mallinckrodt ARD, LLC et al., is pending.

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

The complaint makes similar allegations as those alleged in related
state and federal actions that were filed by the same plaintiff's
law firm in Illinois, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Maryland, and
includes references to allegations at issue in a pending qui tam
actions against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

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

The complaint also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter, and
on August 22, 2019, moved to dismiss the complaint.

The Company's motion to dismiss remains pending.

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: Plumbers & Pipefitters Union Class Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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 plaintiff in
the case, United Assoc. of Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 322 of
Southern New Jersey v. Mallinckrodt ARD, LLC, has voluntarily
dismissed the lawsuit.

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

The complaint made similar allegations as those alleged in related
state and federal actions filed by the same plaintiff law firm
filed in Illinois, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Maryland, including
references to allegations at issue in pending qui tam actions
against the Company with the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

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

Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit on September 6, 2019.

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.


MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Appeal from Dismissed Lennen Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marriott Vacations Worldwide 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 plaintiffs in
the class action suit initiated by Anthony and Beth Lennen have
taken an appeal from the District Court's August 2019 ruling
dismissing the case.

In May 2016, a purported class-action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida by Anthony and
Beth Lennen against the Company and certain third parties.  The
complaint challenged the characterization of the beneficial
interests in the MVCD trust that are sold to customers as real
estate interests under Florida law, the structure of the trust, and
associated operational aspects of the trust.  The plaintiffs sought
declaratory relief, an unwinding of the MVCD product, and punitive
damages.

In August 2019, the District Court granted the Company's motion for
judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the case.  The plaintiffs
have appealed the ruling.

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

Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation develops, markets, sells,
and manages vacation ownership and related products under the
Marriott Vacation Club, Grand Residences by Marriott, Sheraton,
Westin, Hyatt Residence Club brands, and Marriott Vacation Club
Pulse brands. The company operates through two segments, Vacation
Ownership and Exchange & Third-Party Management. Marriott Vacations
Worldwide Corporation is headquartered in Orlando, Florida.


MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Still Faces Helman Class Suit in Virgin Islands
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation still defends itself
against a putative class action suit initiated by Alan and Marjorie
Helman, 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.

In April 2019, a purported class-action lawsuit was filed by Alan
and Marjorie Helman and others against the Company in the Superior
Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Thomas alleging that
their fractional interests were devalued by the affiliation of The
Ritz-Carlton Club, St. Thomas and other Ritz-Carlton Clubs with the
Company's MVCD program.  The lawsuit was subsequently removed to
the U.S. District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands.
The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages, disgorgement of
profits, fees and costs.

Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation develops, markets, sells,
and manages vacation ownership and related products under the
Marriott Vacation Club, Grand Residences by Marriott, Sheraton,
Westin, Hyatt Residence Club brands, and Marriott Vacation Club
Pulse brands. The company operates through two segments, Vacation
Ownership and Exchange & Third-Party Management. Marriott Vacations
Worldwide Corporation is headquartered in Orlando, Florida.


MASONITE INT'L: Trial in Consumer Class Suit Set for Oct. 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------
Masonite International 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 29, 2019, that the
court has set a trial date of October 20, 2020, in the class action
suit filed against the company and Jeld-Wen, Inc.

On September 18, 2019, the Court ruled on Defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated purported class action direct purchaser
and end-purchaser complaints filed against the company and
Jeld-Wen, Inc.

The Court: (i) denied Defendants' motion to dismiss the direct
purchasers' Sherman Act claims, (ii) granted Defendants' motion to
dismiss the direct purchasers' fraudulent concealment claims
(limiting the claims they may assert to those within four years of
the filing of their complaint), and (iii) granted in part and
denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss the state law claims
filed by the end-purchaser plaintiffs, dismissing 66 of 91 state
law claims.

On October 31, 2019, the Court granted end-purchaser plaintiffs'
motion to amend their complaint in order to correct certain
deficiencies identified by the Court in its order on the motion to
dismiss various state law claims.

The Court's order is likely to lead to the reinstatement of some of
the end-purchaser plaintiffs' dismissed claims where the basis for
dismissal was the lack of a representative plaintiff from certain
states. The Court gave end-purchaser plaintiffs until November 12,
2019, to amend their complaint. Discovery in the case is
proceeding.

The Court has set a trial date of October 20, 2020.

Masonite International Corporation designs, manufactures, and
distributes interior and exterior doors for the new construction
and repair, renovation, and remodeling sectors of the residential
and non-residential building construction markets worldwide.
Masonite International Corporation was founded in 1925 and is
headquartered in Tampa, Florida.


METLIFE INC: Sales Practices Suits vs. Sun Life 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 Sun Life Assurance
Company of Canada continues to face sales practices lawsuits.

In 2006, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada ("Sun Life"), as
successor to the purchaser of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's
(MLIC's) Canadian operations, filed a lawsuit in Toronto, seeking a
declaration that MLIC remains liable for "market conduct claims"
related to certain individual life insurance policies sold by MLIC
that were subsequently transferred to Sun Life.

In January 2010, the court found that Sun Life had given timely
notice of its claim for indemnification but, because it found that
Sun Life had not yet incurred an indemnifiable loss, granted MLIC's
motion for summary judgment.

In September 2010, Sun Life notified MLIC that a purported class
action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Toronto alleging sales
practices claims regarding the policies sold by MLIC and
transferred to Sun Life (the "Ontario Litigation").

On August 30, 2011, Sun Life notified MLIC that another purported
class action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Vancouver, BC
alleging sales practices claims regarding certain of the same
policies sold by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life.

Sun Life contends that MLIC is obligated to indemnify Sun Life for
some or all of the claims in these lawsuits. In September 2018, the
Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed the lower court's decision to
not certify the sales practices claims in the Ontario Litigation.

These sales practices cases against Sun Life are ongoing, and the
Company is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range
of loss arising from this litigation.

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.


MIKE PRENDERGRAST: Court Denies Motion for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DAWN ALEXANDER, LISA
VENTIMIGLIA, MICHELE TEWELL and KELLIE REESE, the Plaintiffs, v.
MIKE PRENDERGRAST, the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00519-JSM-PRL
(M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge James S. Moody Jr. denied Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

The Court said, "Plaintiffs' motion is defective because it is (1)
untimely and (2) fails to define the class or provide the number of
persons in the class. This case was filed in October 2018, but
Plaintiffs did not move for class certification until November
2019, well past the 90-day deadline."

The Plaintiffs did not seek an extension of time to move for class
certification, and do not explain in their motion any reason the
Court should consider it timely. So the Court concludes the motion
is due to be denied on this basis.

Additionally, the motion is defective because it fails to define
the class or provide the number of persons in the class. The only
definition of the proposed class the Court can find is in the
Second Amended Complaint, where Plaintiffs alleged the following
class:

   "all female employees employed by CCSO at any time from the
   implementation of the mandatory PAT in July 2008 through the
   resolution of this action for claims under Title VII and FCRA
   who: (1) were subjected to the PAT Policy and failed the
   mandatory PAT; and (2) as a result of such failure, were
   subjected to the Accompanying Policies and suffered adverse
   employment actions by way of application of the Accompanying
   Policies."

But even if the Court can rely on this class definition, it cannot
determine how many potential members are in the class.  The data
from Plaintiffs' expert, Miniata, includes data from 1999 to 2008,
so it is impossible to determine how many female employees failed
the PAT after July 2008. Further, the data reveals 11 females
failed to pass the PAT on their first attempt between 1999 and 2008
-- which would be a cap on the potential class -- but the data
provides no information about whether those females faced an
adverse employment action. Because Plaintiffs have not provided
sufficient information defining the class or determining the
potential size of the class, the Court cannot conduct the analysis
required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and must deny the motion.

The Plaintiffs sued their former and/or current employer, the
Citrus County Sheriff's Office (CCSO), for alleged gender
discrimination related to CCSO's mandatory physical abilities test
(PAT) in October 2018.[CC]

MONEYGRAM INT'L: Illinois Securities Action Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
MoneyGram International, Inc. continues to defend against a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, the Company 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.

The putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against
MoneyGram and certain of its executive officers on November 14,
2018.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges that MoneyGram made
material misrepresentations regarding its compliance with the
stipulated order for permanent injunction and final judgment that
MoneyGram entered into with the Federal Trade Commission in October
2009 and with the deferred prosecution agreement (the "DPA") that
MoneyGram entered into with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania and the U.S. Department of Justice
in November 2012.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, equitable relief, interest,
and costs and attorneys' fees.

MoneyGram said, "The Company is vigorously defending this matter.
We are unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range
of loss, if any, related to this matter."

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

MoneyGram International, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
provides money transfer services in the United States and
internationally. The company operates through two segments, Global
Funds Transfer and Financial Paper Products. MoneyGram
International, Inc. was founded in 1940 and is based in Dallas,
Texas.


NATURAL HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Kauffman Class Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
The defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in the case, Daniel
Kauffman v. Natural Health Trends Corp. et al., Case No.
2:19-cv-00163 (C.D. Cal., January 8, 2019), has been taken under
submission.

Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald held a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss
on November 22, 2019, and heard arguments by counsel.

Natural Health Trends 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 on January 8, 2019,
the Company and its two executive officers were named in a putative
securities class action filed in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, captioned Kauffman v.
Natural Health Trends Corp.

The complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock
between April 27, 2016 and January 5, 2019, inclusive, under (i)
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder against the Company and Chris T. Sharng and
Timothy S. Davidson (together, the "Individual Defendants"), and
(ii) Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Individual
Defendants.

The complaint alleges, in part, that the Company made materially
false and misleading statements regarding the legality of its
business operations in China, including running an allegedly
illegal multilevel marketing business.

The complaint seeks an indeterminate amount of damages, plus
interest and costs.

On May 3, 2019, the court issued an order appointing Xia Yang as
lead plaintiff and appointing The Rosen Law Firm, P. A. as lead
counsel. On June 3, 2019, lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint.

On June 27, 2019, the parties filed a joint stipulation seeking to
postpone briefing on defendants' motion to dismiss to allow the
parties to continue ongoing discussions, which stipulation was
entered by the court on July 1, 2019.  

On September 6, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which plaintiff opposed on October 16, 2019.  

Defendants' reply in support of their motion to dismiss was filed
on November 4, 2019, and a hearing on the motion was set for
November 18.  The hearing date was continued to November 22.

Defendants believe that these claims are without merit and intend
to vigorously defend against them.

Natural Health Trends Corp., a direct-selling and e-commerce
company, provides personal care, wellness, and lifestyle products
under the NHT Global brand. Natural Health Trends Corp. was founded
in 1988 and is headquartered in Kowloon, Hong Kong.


NEWLINK GENETICS: Appeal in Nguyen Class Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
NewLink Genetics 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 appeal
in the Nguyen class action  lawsuit is pending.

On or about May 12, 2016, Trevor Abramson filed a putative
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, captioned Abramson v.
NewLink Genetics Corp., et al., Case 1:16-cv-3545. Subsequently,
the Court appointed Michael and Kelly Nguyen as lead plaintiffs and
approved their selection of Kahn, Swick & Foti, LLC as lead counsel
in the Securities Action.

On October 31, 2016, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
asserting claims under the federal securities laws against the
Company, the Company's Chief Executive Officer Charles J. Link,
Jr., and the Company's Chief Medical Officer and President Nicholas
Vahanian,. The amended complaint alleges the Defendants made
material false and/or misleading statements that caused losses to
the Company's investors.

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
July 14, 2017. On March 29, 2018, the Court dismissed the amended
complaint for failure to state a claim, without prejudice, and gave
the lead plaintiffs until May 4, 2018 to file any amended complaint
attempting to remedy the defects in their claims.

On May 4, 2018, the lead plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint asserting claims under the federal securities laws
against the Defendants.

Like the first amended complaint, the second amended complaint
alleges that the Defendants made material false and/or misleading
statements or omissions relating to the Phase 2 and 3 trials and
efficacy of the product candidate algenpantucel-L that caused
losses to the Company's investors.

The lead plaintiffs do not quantify any alleged damages in the
second amended complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and
costs, they sought to recover damages on behalf of themselves and
other persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
stock during the putative class period of September 17, 2013
through May 9, 2016, inclusive, at allegedly inflated prices and
purportedly suffered financial harm as a result.

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint on July 31, 2018. On February 13, 2019, the Court
dismissed the second amended complaint for failure to state a
claim, with prejudice, and closed the case.

On March 14, 2019, lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. The
briefing on lead plaintiffs' appeal was completed in early July
2019 and oral argument before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals
was held on October 21, 2019.

The Company intends to continue defending the Securities Action
vigorously.

NewLink Genetics Corporation, a late clinical-stage immuno-oncology
company, focuses on discovering and developing novel
immunotherapeutic products for the treatment of patients with
cancer. NewLink Genetics Corporation was founded in 1999 and is
headquartered in Ames, Iowa.


OASIS PETROLEUM: Solomon Class Suit Against Subsidiary Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oasis Petroleum 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 Oasis Petroleum
LLC, a company subsidiary, continues to defend a class action suit
entitled, Andrew Solomon, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated vs. Oasis Petroleum, LLC.

On or about August 28, 2019, Oasis Petroleum LLC, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company ("OP LLC"), was named as a defendant in
the lawsuit styled Andrew Solomon, on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated vs. Oasis Petroleum, LLC, pending in the United
States District Court for the Western District of North Dakota.

The lawsuit alleged violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act (the "FLSA") and Title 29 of the North Dakota Century Code as
the result of OP LLC's alleged practice of paying the plaintiff and
similarly situated current and former employees overtime at rates
less than required by applicable law, or failing to pay for certain
overtime hours worked.

The lawsuit requested that: (i) its federal claims be advanced as a
collective action, with a class of all Operators, Technicians, and
all other employees in substantially similar positions employed by
OP LLC who were paid hourly for at least one week during the three
year period prior to the commencement of the lawsuit, who worked 40
or more hours in at least one workweek and/or eight or more hours
on at least one workday; and (ii) its state claims be advanced as a
class action, with a class of all Operators, Technicians, and all
other employees in substantially similar positions employed by OP
LLC in North Dakota during the two year period prior to the
commencement of the lawsuit, who worked 40 or more hours in at
least one workweek and/or worked eight or more hours in a day on at
least one workday.

No motion has been filed for class certification, and the Company
cannot predict whether such a motion will be filed or a class
certified.

Oasis Petroleum said, "The Company believes that Mr. Solomon's
claims are without merit and that OP LLC has complied with its
obligations under the FLSA and Title 29. OP LLC has filed an answer
denying all of Mr. Solomon’s claims and intends to vigorously
defend against the claims. The Company cannot predict or guarantee
the ultimate outcome or resolutions of such matter. If such matter
were to be determined adversely to the Company's interests, or if
the Company were forced to settle such matter for a significant
amount, such resolution or settlement could have a material adverse
effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows."

Oasis Petroleum Inc. is an independent exploration and production
(E&P) company focused on the acquisition and development of
onshore, unconventional crude oil and natural gas resources in the
United States. Oasis Petroleum North America LLC (OPNA) and Oasis
Petroleum Permian LLC (OP Permian) conduct the company's
exploration and production activities and own its crude oil and
natural gas properties located in the North Dakota and Montana
regions of the Williston Basin and the Texas region of the Delaware
Basin, respectively. The company is based in Houston, Texas.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Carvelli Class Action Ongoing
----------------------------------------------
Ocwen Financial 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 company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Carvelli v. Ocwen
Financial Corporation et al. (S.D. Fla.).

The company had previously disclosed that as a result of the
federal and state regulatory actions taken in April 2017 and
shortly thereafter, and the impact on the company's stock price,
several putative securities fraud class action lawsuits were filed
against Ocwen and certain of its officers that contain allegations
in connection with Ocwen's statements concerning its efforts to
satisfy the evolving regulatory environment, and the resources it
devoted to regulatory compliance, among other matters.

Those lawsuits were consolidated in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida in the matter captioned
Carvelli v. Ocwen Financial Corporation et al. (S.D. Fla.).

In April 2018, the court in Carvelli granted the company's motion
to dismiss, and dismissed the consolidated case with prejudice.
Plaintiffs thereafter filed a notice of appeal with the Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and a hearing took place in June
2019. In August 2019, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district
court's ruling dismissing the consolidated case with prejudice.

Plaintiffs have until November 13, 2019 to appeal to the United
States Supreme Court.

Ocwen and the other defendants intend to defend themselves
vigorously.

Ocwen, a financial services holding company, originates and
services loans in the United States, the United States Virgin
Islands, India, and Philippines. Ocwen Financial Corporation was
founded in 1988 and is headquartered in West Palm Beach, Florida.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Settlement in McWhorter Wins Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
Ocwen Financial 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 class
settlement in the class action suit entitled, McWhorter et al. v.
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, has been granted final approval.

In 2014, plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Ocwen in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama, alleging that Ocwen violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA) by charging borrowers a convenience fee for
making certain loan payments. McWhorter et al. v. Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC (N.D. Ala.).

The plaintiffs sought statutory damages under the FDCPA,
compensatory damages and injunctive relief.

The company subsequently entered into an agreement in principle to
resolve this matter, and in August 2019, the court granted final
approval of the class settlement.

Ocwen  said, "While we believe we had sound legal and factual
defenses, we agreed to this settlement in order to avoid the
uncertain outcome of litigation and the additional expense and
demands on the time of our senior management that such litigation
would involve."

Ocwen Financial Corporation, a financial services holding company,
originates and services loans in the United States, the United
States Virgin Islands, India, and Philippines. Ocwen Financial
Corporation was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in West Palm
Beach, Florida.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Still Defends Class Suit over TCPA Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Ocwen Financial 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 company
continues to defend a class action alleging violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Ocwen is involved in a TCPA class action that involves claims
against trustees of RMBS trusts based on vicarious liability for
Ocwen's alleged non-compliance with the TCPA. The trustees have
indicated they may seek indemnification from Ocwen based on the
vicarious liability claims.

"Additional lawsuits have been and may be filed against us in
relation to our TCPA compliance," Ocwen said.

The company said accrual with respect to TCPA matters is included
in the $39.0 million legal and regulatory accrual indicated in its
quarterly report.

Ocwen said, "At this time, Ocwen is unable to predict the outcome
of existing lawsuits or any additional lawsuits that may be filed,
the possible loss or range of loss, if any, above the amount
accrued or the potential impact such lawsuits may have on us or our
operations. Ocwen intends to vigorously defend against these
lawsuits. If our efforts to defend these lawsuits are not
successful, our business, reputation, financial condition,
liquidity and results of operations could be materially and
adversely affected."

Ocwen, a financial services holding company, originates and
services loans in the United States, the United States Virgin
Islands, India, and Philippines. Ocwen Financial Corporation was
founded in 1988 and is headquartered in West Palm Beach, Florida.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Takes Steps to Satisfy TCPA Settlement Obligations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ocwen Financial 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 court has
entered an order approving a class action settlement, and the
company is taking steps to satisfy its settlement obligations.

Ocwen has been named in putative class actions and individual
actions related to its compliance with the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA).

Generally, plaintiffs in these actions allege that Ocwen knowingly
and willfully violated the TCPA by using an automated telephone
dialing system to call individuals' cell phones without their
consent.

In July 2017, Ocwen entered into an agreement in principle to
resolve two such putative class actions, which have been
consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois. Snyder v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (N.D.
Ill.); Beecroft v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (N.D. Ill.).

In October 2017, the court preliminarily approved the settlement
and, thereafter, the company paid a settlement amount into an
escrow account held by the settlement administrator.

However, in September 2018, the Court denied the motion for final
approval. In November 2018, the parties engaged in mediation to
address the issues raised by the Court in its denial order. The
parties thereafter reached agreement on a revised settlement.

In June 2019, the court entered an order approving the settlement,
and Ocwen is taking steps to satisfy its settlement obligations.

The settlement provides for the establishment of a settlement fund
to be distributed to class members that submit claims for
settlement benefits pursuant to a claims administration process.

While Ocwen believes that it has sound legal and factual defenses,
Ocwen agreed to the settlement in order to avoid the uncertain
outcome of litigation and the additional expense and demands on the
time of its senior management that such litigation would involve.

Ocwen Financial Corporation, a financial services holding company,
originates and services loans in the United States, the United
States Virgin Islands, India, and Philippines. Ocwen Financial
Corporation was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in West Palm
Beach, Florida.


OLD NAVY: Andrews Sues Over False Reference Prices and Discounts
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES ANDREWS, for Himself, as a Private Attorney General, and/or
On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. OLD NAVY,
LLC; OLD NAVY (APPAREL), LLC; OLD NAVY HOLDINGS, LLC; GPS SERVICES,
INC.; THE GAP, INC.; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants,
CGC-19-58-0710 (Cal. Super., Nov. 12, 2019), seeks to recover
damages arising from the Defendants' intentional and unlawful
pattern and practice of using false reference prices and false
discounts.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to order the Defendants to
disgorge all revenues they have unjustly received from the proposed
Class due to their unlawful practice.

Old Navy calls itself "one of the fastest-growing apparel brands in
the U.S. and category leader in family apparel." Almost all the
items offered by Old Navy are branded as "Old Navy" products, and
are exclusively offered by Old Navy. Approximately 80% of Old
Navy's $7.2 billion annual U.S. sales are in its brick-and-mortar
Old Navy and Old Navy Outlet stores, and the remaining 20% of its
sales are online on its retail Web site.

For years, Old Navy has perpetrated a massive false discount
advertising scheme across nearly all of its Old Navy-branded
products across all of its sales channels, the Plaintiff alleges.
Old Navy advertises perpetual or near perpetual discounts
(typically a purported savings of 30-60% off) from Old Navy's
self-created list prices for the products.

Old Navy represents its list prices to be the "regular" and normal
prices of the items, and the list prices function as reference
prices from which the advertised discounts and percentage-off sales
are calculated. Accordingly, the Plaintiff contends, Old Navy's
discounts and reference prices are false, because Old Navy rarely
if ever offers the products at the advertised list price. Old Navy
invents inflated and fictitious list prices in order to enable it
to advertise perpetual store-wide "sale" events and product
discounts to induce customers to purchase its products.

Old Navy's marketing plan is to trick its customers into believing
that its products are worth, and have a value equal to, the
inflated list price, and that the lower advertised sale price
represents a special bargain--when in reality and unbeknownst to
the customer, the "sale" price is approximately equal to Old Navy's
usual and normal selling price for the product, the Plaintiff
asserts. He points out that Old Navy's nationwide fraudulent
advertising scheme harms consumers like him, who purchased a
falsely discounted product in a California Old Navy retail store,
by causing them to pay more than they otherwise would have paid and
to buy more than they otherwise would have bought.

Customers do not enjoy the actual discounts Old Navy represents to
them, and the products are not in fact worth the inflated amount
that Old Navy represents to them, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel M. Hattis, Esq.
          Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq.
          HATTIS & LUKACS
          1401 Twenty-First Street, Suite 400
          Sacramento, CA 95811
          Telephone: (425) 233-8650
          Facsimile: (425) 412-7171
          E-mail: dan@hattislaw.com
                  pkl@hattislaw.com

               - and -

          Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
          Shane T. Prince, Esq.
          DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
          Greentree Centre, Suite 410
          525 Route 73 N.
          Marlton, NJ 08057
          Telephone: (856) 797-9951
          Facsimile: (856) 797-9978
          E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com
                  sprince@denittislaw.com


PBF HOLDING: Court Certifies 2 Limited Classes in Goldstein Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The judge overseeing the class action styled, Arnold Goldstein, et
al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., has granted certification
to two limited classes of property owners, rejecting two other
proposed subclasses based on negligence and on strict liability for
ultrahazardous activities.

According to PBF Holding Company LLC'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, the certified
subclasses relate to trespass claims for ground contamination and
nuisance for air emissions.

On February 17, 2017, in Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil
Corporation, et al., the Company and PBF Energy Company LLC, and
the Company's subsidiaries, PBF Energy Western Region LLC and
Torrance Refining Company LLC and the manager of the Company's
Torrance refinery along with Exxon Mobil Corporation were named as
defendants in a class action and representative action complaint
filed on behalf of Arnold Goldstein, John Covas, Gisela Janette La
Bella and others similarly situated.  The complaint was filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles and alleges negligence, strict liability, ultrahazardous
activity, a continuing private nuisance, a permanent private
nuisance, a continuing public nuisance, a permanent public nuisance
and trespass resulting from the February 18, 2015 electrostatic
precipitator ("ESP") explosion at the Torrance refinery which was
then owned and operated by ExxonMobil.  The operation of the
Torrance refinery by the PBF entities subsequent to the Company's
acquisition in July 2016 is also referenced in the complaint.  To
the extent that plaintiffs' claims relate to the ESP explosion,
Exxon has retained responsibility for any liabilities that would
arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the agreement relating to the
acquisition of the Torrance refinery.

On July 2, 2018, the Court granted leave to plaintiffs' to file a
Second Amended Complaint alleging groundwater contamination.  With
the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs' added an
additional plaintiff.

On March 18, 2019, the class certification hearing was held and the
judge took the matter under submission.

On April 1, 2019, the judge issued an order denying class
certification.

On April 15, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Petition with the Ninth
Circuit for Permission to Appeal the Order Denying Motion for Class
Certification.  The appeal is currently pending with the Ninth
Circuit.

On May 3, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Motion with the Central District
Court for Leave to File a Renewed Motion for Class Certification.

On May 22, 2019, the judge granted Plaintiffs' motion.  The Company
filed its opposition to the motion on July 29, 2019.  The
Plaintiffs' motion was heard on September 23, 2019.

On October 15, 2019, the judge granted certification to two limited
classes of property owners, rejecting two other proposed subclasses
based on negligence and on strict liability for ultrahazardous
activities.  The certified subclasses relate to trespass claims for
ground contamination and nuisance for air emissions.

The Company presently believes the outcome will not have a material
impact on its financial position, results of operations or cash
flows.

PBF Holding Company LLC is one of the largest independent petroleum
refiners and suppliers of unbranded transportation fuels, heating
oil, petrochemical feedstocks, lubricants and other petroleum
products in the United States. The company sells its products
throughout the Northeast, Midwest, Gulf Coast and West Coast of the
United States, as well as in other regions of the United States and
Canada, and is able to ship products to other international
destinations. The company is based in Parsippany, New Jersey.


PBF HOLDING: Initial Agreement Reached for Thomas Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PBF Holding Company LLC 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 30, 2019, that on October 9, 2019,
the parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle a
class action lawsuit, which is expected to result in the dismissal
with prejudice of all outstanding claims.

On December 5, 1990, prior to the Company's ownership of the
Chalmette refinery, the plaintiff in Adam Thomas, et al. v. Exxon
Mobil Corporation and Chalmette Refining, L.L.C., filed an action
on behalf of himself and potentially thousands of other individuals
in St. Bernard Parish and Orleans Parish who were allegedly exposed
to hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide as a result of more than 100
separate flaring events that occurred between 1989 and 2010.

The Company said, "This litigation is proceeding as a mass action
with individually named plaintiffs as a result of a 2008 trial
court decision, affirmed by the court of appeals that denied class
certification.  The plaintiffs claim to have suffered physical
injuries, property damage, and other damages as a result of the
releases.  Plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages, interest, and costs.  The Court had scheduled an
October 2019 mini-trial of up to 10 plaintiffs, relating to as many
as 5 separate flaring events that occurred between 2002 and 2007.
However, on October 9, 2019, the parties reached an agreement in
principle to settle this matter, which is expected to result in the
dismissal with prejudice of all outstanding claims.  Although the
settlement resolution has not been finalized, we presently believe
the outcome will not have a material impact on our financial
position, results of operations, or cash flows."

PBF Holding Company LLC is one of the largest independent petroleum
refiners and suppliers of unbranded transportation fuels, heating
oil, petrochemical feedstocks, lubricants and other petroleum
products in the United States. The company sells its products
throughout the Northeast, Midwest, Gulf Coast and West Coast of the
United States, as well as in other regions of the United States and
Canada, and is able to ship products to other international
destinations. The company is based in Parsippany, New Jersey.


PBF HOLDING: Parties in Kendig Suit Reach Initial Settlement Pact
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PBF Holding Company LLC 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 30, 2019, that parties in the
class action suit entitled, Michelle Kendig and Jim Kendig, et al.
v. ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, et al., have reached a tentative
agreement in principle to settle the case.

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

On September 18, 2018, in Michelle Kendig and Jim Kendig, et al. v.
ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, et al., PBF Energy Limited and Torrance
Refining Company LLC along with ExxonMobil Oil Corporation and
ExxonMobil Pipeline Company were named as defendants in a class
action and representative action complaint filed on behalf of
Michelle Kendig, Jim Kendig and others similarly situated.

The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles and alleges failure to authorize
and permit uninterrupted rest and meal periods, failure to furnish
accurate wage statements, violation of the Private Attorneys
General Act and violation of the California Unfair Business and
Competition Law.

Plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified economic damages, statutory
damages, civil penalties provided by statute, disgorgement of
profits, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, interest,
attorney's fees and costs.

To the extent that plaintiffs' claims accrued prior to July 1,
2016, ExxonMobil has retained responsibility for any liabilities
that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the agreement
relating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery and logistics
assets.

On October 26, 2018, the matter was removed to the Federal Court,
California Central District.  A mediation hearing between the
parties was held on August 23, 2019.  From the mediation hearing,
the parties have reached a tentative agreement in principle to
settle.

The Company said, "Although the settlement resolution has not been
finalized, we presently believe the outcome will not have a
material impact on our financial position, results of operations or
cash flows."

PBF Holding Company LLC is one of the largest independent petroleum
refiners and suppliers of unbranded transportation fuels, heating
oil, petrochemical feedstocks, lubricants and other petroleum
products in the United States. The company sells its products
throughout the Northeast, Midwest, Gulf Coast and West Coast of the
United States, as well as in other regions of the United States and
Canada, and is able to ship products to other international
destinations. The company is based in Parsippany, New Jersey.


PITNEY BOWES: Bid to Strike City of Livonia Complaint Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pitney Bowes 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
overseeing the case, City of Livonia Retiree Health and Disability
Benefits Plan v. Pitney Bowes Inc. et al., has granted the
defendants' motions to strike the complaint for failure to state a
claim.

In August 2018, the Company, certain of its directors, officers and
several banks who served as underwriters, were named as defendants
in City of Livonia Retiree Health and Disability Benefits Plan v.
Pitney Bowes Inc. et al., a putative class action lawsuit filed in
Connecticut state court.

The complaint asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, on behalf of those who purchased notes issued by the
Company in connection with a September 13, 2017 offering, alleging,
among other things, that the Company failed to make certain
disclosures relating to components of its third quarter 2017
performance at the time of the notes offering. The complaint seeks
compensatory damages and other relief.

On October 24, 2019, the court granted the defendants' motions to
strike the complaint for failure to state a claim.

Pitney Bowes Inc. offers customer information management, location
intelligence, and customer engagement products and solutions in the
United States and internationally. The company operates in three
segments: Commerce Services; Small & Medium Business Solutions; and
Software Solutions. The company was formerly known as Pitney Bowes
Postage Meter Company. Pitney Bowes Inc. was founded in 1920 and is
headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.


PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Court Certifies Amended Fisher Subclass
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Keith Andrews et al., the
Plaintiffs, v. Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., the Defendants,
Case No. 2:15-cv-04113-PSG-JEM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Philip
S. Gutierrez has entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' motion to amend the order certifying
      fisher subclass;

   2. certifying the fisher subclass under plaintiffs' proposed
      amended definition:

      "all persons and businesses (Fishers) who owned or worked on

      a vessel that was in operation as of May 19, 2015 and that:
      (1) landed any commercial seafood in California Department
      of Fish and Wildlife ("CDFW") fishing blocks 654, 655, or
      656; or (2) landed any commercial seafood, except groundfish

      or highly migratory species (as defined by the CDFW and the
      Pacific Fishery Management Council), in CDFW fishing blocks
      651-656, 664-670, 678-686, 701-707, 718-726, 739-746, 760-
      765, or 806-809; from May 19, 2010 to May 19, 2015,
      inclusive; and All persons and businesses (Processors) in
      operation as of May 19, 2015 who purchased such commercial
      seafood directly from the Fishers and re-sold it at the
      retail or wholesale level. Excluded from the proposed
      Subclass are: (1) Defendants, any entity or division in
      which Defendants have a controlling interest, and their
      legal representatives, officers, directors, employees,
      assigns and successors; (2) the judge to whom this case is
      assigned, the judge's staff, and any member of the judge's
      immediate family, and (3) businesses that contract directly
      with Plains for use of the Pipeline."

   3. denying Defendants' ex parte application.

Judge Gutierrez agreed with Plaintiffs that the amendment to the
class definition to conform to newly-discovered evidence,
specifically, to ensure that the class corresponds to the area
impacted by the spill based on Plaintiffs' experts' evidence, is
appropriate.

Courts have permitted modification of a certified class to conform
to newly-discovered evidence, Judge Gutierrez said.  In addition,
courts have permitted the enlargement of a certified class to
include new alleged victims where the new victims excluded from the
class definition share common factual circumstances and have the
same legal claims, he added.  Subsequently, counsel for plaintiffs
learned of parents detained by ICE whose children were separated
from them even before a preliminary injunction issued, and the
court granted plaintiffs' subsequent motion to expand the
class.[CC]

PLANTRONICS INC: Shin Case Settlement Set for December 20
---------------------------------------------------------
A hearing has been set for December 20, 2019, before Judge
Nathanael M. Cousins to consider final approval to the settlement
in the class action lawsuit initiated by Phil Shin.

Objections to the settlement are due December 20.

Plantronics, 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 Phil Shin on
September 13, 2018, filed on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, a purported Class Action Complaint in the United States
District Court of the Northern District of California alleging
violations of various federal and state consumer protection laws in
addition to unfair competition and fraud claims in connection with
the Company's BackBeat FIT headphones.  

The Company disputes the allegations and filed a motion to dismiss
the Complaint in November 2018.  

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on December 14, 2018. The
matter has now been resolved and the settlement is pending court
approval.

On May 24, 2019, Plaintiff filed an unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. On June 17, 2019,
the Court denied preliminary approval on the basis that the scope
of the release was overly broad.  

On August 12, 2019, the settlement has received preliminary
approval from the court. Final approval will occur in December
2019.

Plantronics, Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets various
integrated communications and collaborations solutions for
corporate customers, small businesses, and individuals worldwide.
Plantronics, Inc. was founded in 1961 and is headquartered in Santa
Cruz, California.


PNC MERCHANT: Court Reinstates Contract Breach Claim in ASBC Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York issued an Order granting in part and denying in part
Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration to the Memorandum and Order
dismissing their claims in the case captioned KELWIN INKWEL, LLC;
ANITA'S SKIN & BODY CARE; D.B. KOSIE & ASSOCIATES, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PNC
MERCHANT SERVICES COMPANY, L.P., Defendant, Case No. 17-CV-6255
(NGG) (CLP), (E.D.N.Y.).

Former Plaintiffs Choi's Beer Shop, LLC and Abramoff Law Offices
(ALO)and Plaintiff Anita's Skin & Body Care (ASBC) seek
reconsideration of this court's October 8, 2019 Memorandum & Order
(M&O) dismissing certain of their claims against Defendant pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  

The movants requested reconsideration of the M&O, arguing that the
court overlooked two key facts when adjudicating Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss. Choi's LLC and ALO argue that, in dismissing their
breach claims insofar as premised on the allegedly wrongful 2018
annual fee for failure to plausibly allege their performance of the
contractual notice-of-dispute provision, the court overlooked an
allegation in the CCAC that the putative class action complaint
that they filed in a separate proceeding,later consolidated with
this action, itself satisfied this provision because it was served
upon Defendant within 60 days of the fee having been assessed.  

The standard for a motion for reconsideration is strict and such
motions are generally denied unless the moving party can establish:
(1) that the court overlooked controlling decisions or data (2)
that there has been a change in decisions or data (3) that new
evidence has become available or (4) that reconsideration is
necessary to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.

The Court finds that dismissal of ASBC's claims warrants
reconsideration. ASBC's claim that the monthly statement fees it
was charged violated its agreement with Defendant rests on the fact
that Defendant's sales representative, Don Phillips, manually
struck through those fees on ASBC's Merchant Processing Application
and Agreement prior to ASBC executing it.

However, the Program Guide that Plaintiffs attached to the CCAC1
provides, in conspicuous type, that no sales representative is
authorized to make any verbal or written modification of the
Agreement and that NO ALTERATIONS OR STRIKE-OUTS TO THE AGREEMENT
WILL BE ACCEPTED. If these provisions applied to ASBC's Merchant
Agreement, which the court assumed to be the case, they would be
sufficient to nullify any alterations Mr. Phillips may have made to
ASBC's Application, including his striking out of the monthly
statement fee.

In this circumstance, the court believes that reconsideration of
its dismissal of these claims is warranted. ASBC has alleged that
Defendant agreed not to charge it a monthly statement fee and that
Defendant nonetheless proceeded to charge it a monthly statement
fee. This plausibly states a breach of ASBC's Merchant Agreement
with Defendant. Further, ASBC has plausibly pleaded compliance with
the Merchant Agreement's notice-of-dispute provision.  

Accordingly, the court vacates the M&O insofar as it dismissed
ASBC's claims concerning the October and November 2015 monthly fees
and reinstates those claims.

For these reasons, Abramoff Law Offices; Choi's Beer Shop, LLC; and
Anita's Skin and Body Care's Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED
IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The court's Memorandum & Order is
VACATED to the extent that it dismissed Anita's Skin and Body
Care's claim for breach of contract insofar as premised on the
allegedly improper assessment of paper statement fees in October
and November 2015, and these claims are reinstated. The Motion is
DENIED in all other respects; Abramoff Law Offices and Choi's Beer
Shop, LLC remain dismissed from this case. Counsel for the
remaining parties are DIRECTED to contact Magistrate Judge Cheryl
L. Pollak concerning the next steps in this case.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 18, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/vyysokd   from Leagle.com.

Kelwin Inkwel, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by E. Adam Webb  -
Contact@WebbLLC.com - Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC, pro hac vice.

Anita's Skin & Body Care & D.B. Kosie & Associates, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by E. Adam Webb , Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC.

PNC Merchant Services Company, L.P., Defendant, represented by
Casey D. Laffey , ReedSmith LLP, 225 Fifth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA
15222, Perry A. Napolitano , Reed Smith LLP, Fifth Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222, pro hac vice & Justin J. Kontul , Reed Smith
LLP, Fifth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222, pro hac vice.

PPL CORP: Cane Run Environmental Claims Still Ongoing vs. LG&E
--------------------------------------------------------------
PPL 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 company and
Louisville Gas and Electric Company continue to defend a class
action suit related to the Cane Run Environmental Claims.

In December 2013, six residents, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against LG&E and
PPL in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
alleging violations of the Clean Air Act, Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), and common law claims of nuisance,
trespass and negligence.

These plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and civil penalties, plus
costs and attorney fees, for the alleged statutory violations.

Under the common law claims, these plaintiffs seek monetary
compensation and punitive damages for property damage and
diminished property values for a class consisting of residents
within four miles of the Cane Run plant, which retired three
coal-fired units in 2015.

In their individual capacities, these plaintiffs sought
compensation for alleged adverse health effects.

In July 2014, the court dismissed the RCRA claims and all but one
Clean Air Act claim, but declined to dismiss the common law tort
claims.

In November 2016, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
removing the personal injury claims and removing certain previously
named plaintiffs.

In February 2017, the U.S. District Court issued an Order
dismissing PPL as a defendant and dismissing the final federal
claim against LG&E.

In April 2017, the U.S. District Court issued an Order declining to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction on the state law claims and
dismissed the case in its entirety.

In June 2017, the plaintiffs filed a class action complaint in
Jefferson County, Kentucky Circuit Court, against LG&E alleging
state law nuisance, negligence and trespass tort claims.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages for alleged
property damage due to purported plant emissions on behalf of a
class of residents within one to three miles of the plant.

Proceedings are currently underway regarding potential class
certification, for which a decision may be rendered in 2019.

PPL, LKE and LG&E cannot predict the outcome of this matter and an
estimate or range of possible losses cannot be determined.

PPL Corporation, a utility company, delivers electricity and
natural gas in the United States and the United Kingdom. The
Company operates in three segments: U.K. Regulated, Kentucky
Regulated, and Pennsylvania Regulated.  It was founded in 1920 and
is headquartered in Allentown, Pennsylvania.


PPL CORP: Ruling in Retirement Plan Suit under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------
PPL 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 petition for
appeal in the case, Talen Montana Retirement Plan and Talen Energy
Marketing, LLC, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. PPL Corporation et al., is under consideration by the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On October 29, 2018, Talen Montana Retirement Plan and Talen Energy
Marketing filed a putative class action complaint on behalf of
current and contingent creditors of Talen Montana who allegedly
suffered harm or allegedly will suffer reasonably foreseeable harm
as a result of the November 2014 distribution.

The action was filed in the Sixteenth Judicial District of the
State of Montana, Rosebud County, against PPL and certain of its
affiliates and current and former officers and directors (Talen
Putative Class Action).

The plaintiffs assert claims for, among other things, fraudulent
transfer, both actual and constructive; recovery against subsequent
transferees; civil conspiracy; aiding and abetting tortious
conduct; and unjust enrichment.

They are seeking avoidance of the purportedly fraudulent transfer,
unspecified damages, including punitive damages, the imposition of
a constructive trust, and other relief.

In December 2018, PPL removed the Talen Putative Class Action from
the Sixteenth Judicial District of the State of Montana to the
United States District Court for the District of Montana, Billings
Division (MT Federal Court).

In January 2019, the plaintiffs moved to remand the Talen Putative
Class Action back to state court, and dismissed without prejudice
all current and former PPL Corporation directors from the case.

In September 2019, the MT Federal Court granted plaintiffs' motion
to remand the case back to state court, and the PPL defendants
promptly petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to grant an
appeal of the remand decision. The petition for appeal is under
consideration by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

PPL Corporation, a utility company, delivers electricity and
natural gas in the United States and the United Kingdom. The
Company operates in three segments: U.K. Regulated, Kentucky
Regulated, and Pennsylvania Regulated.  It was founded in 1920 and
is headquartered in Allentown, Pennsylvania.


QUANTUM CORP: Awaits Court's Final Approval of Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Quantum 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
consolidated class action suit pending before the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California are awaiting the
court's final approval of their settlement agreement.

In February 2018, two putative class action lawsuits were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against the Company and two former executive officers. The lawsuits
were consolidated on May 16, 2018.

The Class Action plaintiffs sought unspecified damages for certain
alleged material misrepresentations and omissions made by the
Company in connection with its financial statements for fiscal year
2017. On September 25, 2018, the Court granted permission to
plaintiffs in the action to file an Amended Consolidated Complaint.


Before the plaintiffs filed their amended consolidated complaint,
the parties met with a mediator to discuss a potential settlement
of the case.

On February 20, 2019, the parties reached a settlement in
principal; under the terms of the settlement, the Company agreed to
pay $8.2 million to plaintiffs. The amount includes all of
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, and the full amount was paid by the
company's directors and officers liability insurance carriers. A
Stipulation of Settlement was signed by the Parties on June 28,
2019, and the Court entered preliminary approval of the settlement
on July 26, 2019.

In its order granting preliminary approval, the Court set November
14, 2019 as the date for consideration of a motion for final
approval of the settlement.

Quantum Corporation provides scale-out storage, archive, and data
protection solutions for small businesses and multi-national
enterprises in the Americas, Europe, and the Asia Pacific. Quantum
Corporation was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in San Jose,
California.


REDFIN CORP: Faces Third-Party Licensed Sales Associates' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Redfin 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 is
facing a class action suit initiated by its former third-party
licensed sales associates.

On August 28, 2019, one of the Company's former third-party
licensed sales associates, which are referred to as associate
agents, filed a complaint against the Company in the Superior Court
of California, County of San Francisco.

The complaint is pled as a class action and alleges that the
Company misclassified the plaintiff as an independent contractor
instead of an employee. The case includes representative claims
under California's Private Attorney General Act.

The plaintiff is seeking unspecified amounts of unpaid overtime
wages, straight time wages, meal and rest period compensation,
penalties, injunctive, and other equitable relief, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.

Redfin said, "Given the preliminary stage of this case, the claims
and issues presented, and the great uncertainties regarding which
associate agents, if any, may be part of a class if one is
certified, the Company cannot estimate a range of reasonably
possible losses."

Redfin Corporation is a technology-powered, residential real estate
brokerage. The company represents people buying and selling homes
in over 80 markets throughout the United States. The company is
based in Seattle, Washington.


REGULUS THERAPEUTICS: Tentative Accord Reached in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Regulus Therapeutics 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 parties in the Federal
Securities Litigation have agreed in principle to settle the case
for US$0.9 million, with approximately US$0.3 million to be paid by
the Company and US$0.6 million to be paid by the Company's D&O
insurance carrier.

The Court has previously dismissed this consolidated case on
September 5, 2019, with leave to amend.  Plaintiffs filed their
amended complaint on October 1, 2019.

On January 31, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed by
Baran Polat in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California ("District Court") against the Company, its
then-Chief Executive Officer Paul C. Grint, and its then-Chief
Operating Officer Joseph P. Hagan (currently the Company's Chief
Executive Officer).  The complaint includes claims asserted, on
behalf of certain purchasers of the Company's securities, under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.  In general, the complaint alleges that, between January
21, 2016, and June 27, 2016, the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business and the prospects for
RG-101, thereby artificially inflating the price of the Company's
securities.  The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.

On February 10, 2017, a second putative class action complaint was
filed by Li Jin in the District Court against the Company, Mr.
Hagan, Dr. Grint, and Timothy Wright, the Company's Chief Research
and Development Officer.  The Complaint alleges claims similar to
those asserted by Mr. Polat.  The actions have been related.  

On February 17, 2017, the District Court entered an order stating
that defendants need not answer, or otherwise respond, until the
District Court enters an order appointing, pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, lead plaintiff and lead
counsel, and the parties then submit a schedule to the District
Court for the filing of an amended or consolidated complaint and
the timing of defendants' answer or response.

On April 3, 2017, two motions for consolidation of the two actions,
appointment of lead plaintiff, and approval of counsel were filed
in the action ("Motions to Consolidate").

On October 26, 2017, the District Court entered an order
consolidating the cases, appointing Mark Appel and Michael Spitters
to serve as co-lead plaintiffs, and appointing Levi & Korsinsky LLP
to serve as lead counsel.

On December 22, 2017, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint against the Company, Dr. Grint, Mr. Hagan, and Michael
Huang (the Company's former Vice President of Clinical
Development).  The consolidated complaint alleges that between
February 17, 2016 and June 12, 2017, the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, by making materially false and misleading statements
regarding RG-101.  The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

On February 6, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.

On March 23, 2018, lead plaintiffs filed their opposition to the
motion to dismiss.

On April 24, 2018, the defendants filed their reply in support of
the motion to dismiss.

On September 5, 2019, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss with leave to amend.  Plaintiffs filed their amended
complaint on October 1, 2019.  Subsequent to the filing of the
amended complaint, counsel for the parties engaged in negotiations
to resolve the case.

On November 4, 2019, the parties agreed in principle to settle the
case for US$0.9 million, with approximately US$0.3 million to be
paid by the Company and US$0.6 million to be paid by the Company's
D&O insurance carrier.

The Company said, "In connection with the proposed settlement and
in accordance with authoritative guidance, we recorded the US$0.9
million loss contingency as a current liability on our condensed
balance sheet at September 30, 2019, and recorded the US$0.6
million of expected insurance proceeds from our D&O insurance
carrier as a current receivable on our condensed balance sheet at
September 30, 2019.  The US$0.3 million settlement amount payable
by the Company was recorded to the condensed statement of
operations and comprehensive loss for the three and nine months
ended September 30, 2019.  The settlement is contingent upon both
the parties' entry into a definitive settlement agreement and court
approval."

Regulus Therapeutics Inc. operates within the biopharmaceutical
industry. The Company's products aim to treat and prevent hepatitis
C infections, cardiovascular, fibrosis, oncology,
immuno-inflammatory, and metabolic diseases. Regulas Therapeutics
offers its services worldwide. Regulus Therapeutics Inc. was
founded in 2007 and is headquartered in San Diego, California.


RO-AL INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Mayowa Labor Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN MAYOWA, Plaintiff v. RO-AL INC. dba PATRICK MOLLOY'S SPORTS
PUB; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
19STCV40682 (Cal. Super., Nov. 12, 2019), arises out of the
Defendant's violation of numerous Labor Code provisions.

These violations include the Defendant's failure to provide meal
periods, to provide rest periods, to pay overtime wages, to
reimburse employees for business-related expenses, to keep accurate
payroll records, and to pay waiting time penalties.

The Plaintiff and similarly aggrieved employees seek wages and
reimbursements that the Defendant has failed and/or refused to pay
to their employees.

The Defendants own an Irish-inspired pub, which offers bar food and
outdoor seating with occasional live music located in Hermosa
Beach, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          Berkeh Alemzadeh, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: 562 590 5550
          Facsimile: 562 590 8400
          E-mail: amahoney@mahoney-law.net
                  balem@mahoney-law.net


ROACH & MURTHA: Faces Musarra Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Musarra, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Roach & Murtha Attorneys at Law,
P.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06373-WFK-PK (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 12,
2019), seeks to recover damages for the Defendant's violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

In its efforts to collect an alleged debt incurred by the
Plaintiff, the Defendant contacted her by letter dated November 13,
2018. The Letter conveyed information regarding the alleged Debt.

The Plaintiff contends that Section 1692e of the FDCPA protects her
concrete interests. The Plaintiff has the interest and right to be
free from deceptive and/or misleading communications from the
Defendant, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant regularly collects or attempts to collect debts
asserted to be owed to others.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SCI DIRECT: $1.6MM Settlement in Romano Case Gets Final Ct. OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California issued a final judgment granting approval of the
Settling Parties' Class Settlement Agreement in the case captioned
NICOLE ROMANO, JONATHAN BONO, and JAMES DOYLE individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SCI DIRECT,
INC., TRIDENT SOCIETY INC., NEPTUNE SOCIETY OF AMERICA, INC., and
NEPTUNE MANAGEMENT CORP., Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-03537-ODW-JEM (C.D. Cal.).

The Court finds the Settlement was entered into in good faith, that
the Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate, and that the
Settlement satisfies the standards and applicable requirements for
final approval of this class action settlement under California and
federal law, including the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23. The Settlement falls within the range of possible
approval as fair, adequate and reasonable, appears to be the
product of arms-length and informed negotiations, and treats all
members of the Class fairly.

1 Class Member has objected to the terms of the Settlement. His
objection is overruled.

The Court approves the Settlement Amount of $1,625,000.

In addition to any recovery that Plaintiffs may receive under the
Settlement, and in recognition of the Plaintiffs' efforts and risks
taken on behalf of the Settlement Class, the Court approves the
payment of an incentive award to the Plaintiff James Doyle in the
amount of $5,000, to the Plaintiff Jonathan Bono in the amount of
$5,000, and to the Plaintiff Nicole Romano in the amount of
$7,500.

The Court approves the payment of attorneys' fees to Class Counsel
in the sum of $706,500.00, and the reimbursement of litigation
expenses in the sum of $20,786.05.10. The Court approves and orders
payment in an amount commensurate with Simpluris's actual costs of
$5,500 to Simpluris for performance of its settlement claims
administration services.

This Judgment is intended to be a final disposition of the above
captioned action in its entirety, and is intended to be immediately
appealable.

The Action is dismissed with prejudice, permanently barring the
Plaintiffs and all other members of the Class (other than those
members of the Class who timely and validly opted out of the
settlement) from prosecuting any of the Released Claims. The Court
reserves and retains exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the
above-captioned matters, the Plaintiffs, the Class, and Defendants
for the purposes of supervising the implementation, effectuation,
enforcement, construction, administration and interpretation of the
Settlement Agreement and this Judgment.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 18, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/w7fztrm   from Leagle.com.

Nicole Romano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Jonathan Bono, Plaintiffs, represented by Adrian Robert
Bacon  - abacon@ toddflaw.com - Law Offices of Todd M Friedman PC,
Thomas Edward Wheeler  - twheeler@toddflaw.com - Law Offices of
Todd Friedman PC & Todd M. Friedman  - tfriedman@ toddflaw.com -
Law Office of Todd M Friedman PC.

James Doyle, 2:18-cv-05859-ODW-JEM, Consol Plaintiff, represented
by Thomas Edward Wheeler , Law Offices of Todd Friedman PC, Adrian
Robert Bacon , Law Offices of Todd M Friedman PC & Todd M. Friedman
, Law Office of Todd M Friedman PC.

SCI Direct, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher P. Leyel
– clevel.yokasmith.com - Yoka and Smith LLP, Javier Torres  -
javier.torres@stinson.com - Stinson Leonard Street LLP, Lonnie J.
Williams, Jr.  - lonnie.williams@stinsonleonard.com - Stinson
Leonard Street LLP, pro hac vice & Carrie M. Francis -
carrie.francis@stinson.com - Stinson Leonard Street LLP.

TRIDENT SOCIETY INC., Neptune Society of America, Inc. & Neptune
Management Corp., Defendants, represented by Lonnie J. Williams,
Jr. , Stinson Leonard Street LLP.

Charles S Ward, Objector, represented by Carl M. Lewis -
clewis@carlmlewis.com - Carl M Lewis Law Offices.



SRC ENERGY: Continues to Defend PDC Merger-Related Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
SRC Energy 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 class action suits related to its merger with
PDC Energy, Inc.

On August 25, 2019, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger ("PDC Merger Agreement") with PDC Energy, Inc., a
Delaware corporation ("PDC"), which provides that, among other
things, and subject to the terms and conditions of the PDC Merger
Agreement, SRC will be merged with and into PDC, with PDC
continuing as the surviving corporation (the "PDC Merger").

On October 4, 2019 and October 11, 2019, purported shareholders of
SRC filed putative class action lawsuits against the members of the
SRC board, SRC, and PDC in Colorado District Court in Arapahoe
County and Denver County, captioned Robert Garfield v. Lynn A.
Peterson, et al., Case No. 2019CV32360 and George Korol v. SRC
Energy Inc., et al., Case No. 2019CV33933.

The plaintiffs in these complaints generally claim that (i) SRC and
the members of the SRC board breached their fiduciary duties to SRC
shareholders by authorizing the PDC Merger for what the plaintiffs
assert is inadequate consideration and pursuant to an unfair
process and with inadequate disclosures and (ii) PDC aided and
abetted the other defendants' alleged breach of duties.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, to rescind the transaction
or obtain rescissory damages if the PDC Merger is consummated, to
recover other unspecified damages, including recover attorneys'
fees and costs, and to obtain injunctive relief.

On October 8, 2019 and October 11, 2019, purported shareholders of
SRC filed putative class action lawsuits against SRC, the members
of the SRC board, and PDC in the United States District Court,
District of Delaware, captioned Patrick Plumley v. SRC Energy Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01912 and Juan Aguirre v. SRC Energy Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:19-mc-01934.

The plaintiffs in these complaints generally claim that the
defendants disseminated a false or misleading registration
statement regarding the proposed merger in violation of Section
14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and/or Rule 14a-9
promulgated under the Exchange Act.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, injunctive relief to
prevent consummation of the PDC Merger until the alleged disclosure
violations are cured, damages in the event the PDC Merger is
consummated, and an award of attorney's fees.

SRC Energy said, "Although the Company believes these actions are
without merit, it is not possible at this time to predict the
outcome of these matters nor can the amount of possible losses be
reasonably estimated."

SRC Energy Inc. is an independent oil and gas company engaged in
the acquisition, development, and production of oil, natural gas,
and NGLs in the D-J Basin, which the company believes to be one of
the premier, liquids-rich oil and natural gas resource plays in the
United States. The company is based in Denver, Colorado.


SUNOCO INC: Seeks Tenth Circuit Review of Ruling in Cline Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Sunoco, Inc. (R&M) and Sunoco Partners Marketing &
Terminals L.P. filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
styled PERRY CLINE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SUNOCO, INC. (R&M), and, SUNOCO PARTNERS MARKETING &
TERMINALS, L.P., Case No. 6:17-cv-313-JAG, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma - Muskogee.

The appellate case is captioned as Sunoco, Inc. (R&M), et al. v.
Cline, Case No. 19-608, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Nov. 18, 2019, District
Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr., denied Sunoco's motion to stay the
case pending its appeal of the District Court's class certification
ruling to the Tenth Circuit.

Mr. Cline owns a royalty interest in one or more oil wells in
Oklahoma. Sunoco, Inc. (R&M), and Sunoco Partners Marketing &
Terminals, L.P. ("Sunoco"), purchase and resell oil from Cline's
wells. Oklahoma law requires Sunoco to pay proceeds from the oil to
Mr. Cline. If Sunoco pays the proceeds late, it must pay Cline
interest on the payment at a rate set forth in Oklahoma's
Production Revenue Standards Act.  Mr. Cline has sued Sunoco for
paying his production proceeds late without paying the required
interest.

On Oct. 3, 2019, the Court granted Mr. Cline's motion to maintain a
class action on behalf of other owners whom Sunoco paid late and
did not pay interest.  On Oct. 8, 2019, Sunoco filed a motion to
stay the case pending its appeal of the District Court's class
certification ruling to the Tenth Circuit.  On Oct. 17, 2019,
Sunoco filed its appeal.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent PERRY CLINE, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jeffrey J. Angelovich, Esq.
          Lisa P. Baldwin, Esq.
          Brooke A. Churchman, Esq.
          Bradley E. Beckworth, Esq.
          Andrew G. Pate, Esq.
          NIX PATTERSON, LLP
          3600 North Capital of Texas Highway
          Building B, Suite 350B
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (903) 645-7333
          E-mail: jangelovich@nixlaw.com
                  lbaldwin@nixlaw.com
                  bchurchman@nixlaw.com
                  bbeckworth@nixlaw.com
                  dpate@nixlaw.com

               - and -

          James Edward Warner, III, Esq.
          NIX PATTERSON, LLP
          512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 206
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 516-7800
          E-mail: jwarner@nixlaw.com

               - and -

          Susan R. Whatley, Esq.
          NIX PATTERSON, LLP
          205 Linda Drive
          Daingerfield, TX 75638
          Telephone: (903) 645-7333
          E-mail: swhatley@nixlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert N. Barnes, Esq.
          Patranell Britten Lewis, Esq.
          BARNES & LEWIS LLP
          208 NW 60th Street
          Oklahoma City, OK 73118
          Telephone: (405) 843-0363
          E-mail: rbarnes@barneslewis.com
                  plewis@barneslewis.com

               - and -

          Michael Burrage, Esq.
          WHITTEN BURRAGE
          512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 516-7800
          E-mail: mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com

               - and -

          Paula Jantzen, Esq.
          Jason A. Ryan, Esq.
          Patrick M. Ryan, Esq.
          Phillip G. Whaley, Esq.
          RYAN WHALEY COLDIRON JANTZEN PETERS & WEBBER PLLC
          900 Robinson Renaissance
          119 North Robinson
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 239-6040
          E-mail: pjantzen@ryanwhaley.com
                  jryan@ryanwhaley.com
                  pryan@ryanwhaley.com
                  pwhaley@ryanwhaley.com

               - and -

          Emily Nash Kitch, Esq.
          WIGGINS SEWELL & OGLETREE
          210 Park Avenue, Suite 3100
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 232-1211

               - and -

          Lawrence R. Murphy, Jr., Esq.
          SMOLEN LAW
          611 South Detroit
          Tulsa, OK 74120
          Telephone: (918) 777-4529

Defendants-Petitioners SUNOCO, INC. (R&M) and SUNOCO PARTNERS
MARKETING & TERMINALS L.P. are represented by:

          Mark D. Christiansen, Esq.
          EDINGER LEONARD & BLAKLEY PLLC
          6301 North Western Avenue, Suite 250
          Oklahoma City, OK 73118
          Telephone: (405) 702-9900
          E-mail: MChristiansen@ELBattorneys.com

               - and -

          Rebecca J. Cole, Esq.
          Matthew Dekovich, Esq.
          Daniel Mead McClure, Esq.
          Kevin W. Yankowsky, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
          1301 McKinney Street, Suite 5100
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 651-5151
          E-mail: rebecca.cole@nortonrosefulbright.com
                  matt.dekovich@nortonrosefulbright.com
                  dan.mcclure@nortonrosefulbright.com
                  kevin.yankowsky@nortonrosefulbright.com

               - and -

          Jonathan S. Franklin, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
          799 9th Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20001-4501
          Telephone: (202) 662-0200
          E-mail: jonathan.franklin@nortonrosefulbright.com


TERRAFORM POWER: Rosson Derivative Class Suit in Delaware Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
TerraForm Power, Inc. has been named as a nominal defendant in a
derivative and class action lawsuit in the Delaware Court of
Chancery with Martin Rosson as the lead plaintiff, 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 19, 2019, lead plaintiff Martin Rosson filed a
derivative and class action lawsuit in the Delaware Court of
Chancery on behalf of the Company, himself, and other minority
stockholders of the Company against Brookfield and certain of its
affiliates (including the Company as a nominal defendant).

The complaint alleges that the defendant controlling stockholders
breached their fiduciary duty to minority stockholders because the
Company undertook a private placement of the Company's stock on
terms that the complaint alleges are unfair, instead of pursuing a
public offering.  The proceeds of the private placement were used
to fund the acquisition by the Company of Saeta and had been
approved by the Conflicts Committee of the Company's Board of
Directors.

The complaint seeks the rescission and invalidation of the private
placement and payment to the Company of rescissory damages, among
other relief.

In a related development, on October 15, 2019, the Company received
a demand letter (the "220 Demand") for the production of books and
records pursuant to 8 Del. C. Section 220 to allow counsel to a
purported shareholder of the Company to investigate potential
breaches of fiduciary duty by Brookfield and the Company's Board of
Directors in connection with the funding of the acquisition of
Saeta.

TerraForm Power said, "The Company believes that these claims are
without merit.  However, the Company cannot predict with certainty
the ultimate resolution of any proceedings brought in connection
with these claims."

TerraForm Power, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, owns and
operates clean power generation assets. The company was formerly
known as SunEdison Yieldco, Inc. and changed its name to TerraForm
Power, Inc. in May 2014. TerraForm Power, Inc. was founded in 2014
and is headquartered in New York, New York.


TOMS KING: McGhee Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages for RAMs/RGMITs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM McGHEE and CRYSTAL KERIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TOMS KING, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-01470-NR (W.D. Pa., Nov. 12, 2019), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968.

The Plaintiffs are current and former "Restaurant Assistant
Managers" ("RAMs") and "Restaurant General Managers-in-Training"
("RGMITs"), however variously titled.

Toms violated the FLSA by failing to pay its RAMs and RGMITs
overtime compensation for the hours they worked over 40 in one or
more work weeks because TOMS King classifies them as exempt from
overtime, the lawsuit says.

Toms King LLC owns and operates a chain of restaurants. The Company
offers meals, snacks, and beverages. Toms King serves customers in
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason Conway, Esq.
          CONWAY LEGAL, LLC
          1700 Market Street, Suite 1005
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 278-4782
          Facsimile: (215) 278-4807
          E-mail: jconway@conwaylegalpa.com

               - and -

          Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
          LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1000
          Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
          E-mail: dlevin@lfsblaw.com


TORY BURCH: Gift Cards Not Accessible to Blind, Thorne Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRAULIO THORNE, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. TORY BURCH LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-10403 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2019), arises from the
Defendant's failure to sell store gift cards to consumers that
contain writing in Braille and to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its store gift
cards, and, therefore, denial of its products and services offered
thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a
violation of his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA"), the Plaintiff contends. He adds that because the
Defendant's store gift cards are not equally accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA.

Store Gift Card is an electronic promise, plastic card, or other
device that is redeemable at a single merchant or an affiliated
group of merchants that share the same name, mark or logo.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires Braille, which is a tactile writing system, to read
written material, including books, signs, store gift cards, credit
cards, etc. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its store gift cards will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

Tory Burch LLC is an American fashion label which is based in New
York City. It was founded by American designer Tory Burch in
2004.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: 212 228 9795
          Facsimile: 212 982 6284


TY INC: Guglielmo Files Suit in New York under ADA
--------------------------------------------------
Ty Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Joseph
Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Ty Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11059 (S.D. N.Y.,
Dec. 3, 2019).

Ty is an American multinational corporation headquartered in Oak
Brook, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago. Founded by Ty Warner in 1986,
Ty is now the largest manufacturer of stuffed plush toys in the
world. It designs, develops and sells products exclusively to
specialty markets worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



UPS STORE: Seeks Review of Circuit Court Judgment in Long Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant The UPS Store, Inc., filed an appeal from a Circuit Court
judgment issued in the lawsuit titled TERESA LONG (ON BEHALF OF
HERSELF AND A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED) v. THE UPS STORE, INC.,
Case No. 15-CI-000695, in the Kentucky Circuit Court, Jefferson
County.

The appellate case is captioned as THE UPS STORE, INC. v. TERESA
LONG (ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED), Case
No. 2019-CA-001577, in the Kentucky Court of Appeals.[BN]

Defendant-Appellant THE UPS STORE, INC., is represented by:

          Winston E. Miller, Esq.
          Miles Harrison, Esq.
          FROST BROWN TODD LLC
          400 W Market St., 32nd Floor
          Louisville, KY 40202-3363
          Telephone: (502) 589-5400
          E-mail: wmiller@fbtlaw.com
                  mharrison@fbtlaw.com

Plaintiff-Appellee TERESA LONG, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND A CLASS OF
SIMILARLY SITUATED, is represented by:

          Thomas Scott Abell, Esq.
          Joshua Taylor Rose, Esq.
          ABELL ROSE LAW
          108 S. Madison Avenue
          Louisville, KY 40243
          Telephone: (502) 450-5611

Appellees 3S & 3M LLC; AJS' INC.; ANOTHER DAY IN PARADISE, INC.;
BELINDA UNDERWOOD; BINKY, INC.; BLETH CORPORATION; BOWLING GREEN
ARMORY, LLC; BUSINESS ADVENTURES, LLC; CAL ENTERPRISES, LLC;
CLARKCO, LLC; D&A ASSOCIATES, LLC; FOUR OF A KIND, INC.; GIDEON
ENTERPRISES, LLC; GILES MARKET, INC.; GIMME FIVE, INC.; J&K CORP.;
JBRB, INC.; JOSHE, INC.; KINGMAN ENTERPRISES, LLC KMSK, LLC; LEGACY
ENTERPRISES, LLC; MEL MOORE, INC.; MINIARD PROPERTIES, INC.; MW
VENTURES, LLC; P AND L VENTURES, LLC; PACIFICA MANAGEMENT GROUP,
LLC; PACKAGING UNLIMITED OF PIKEVILLE LLC; PAQRATZ, LLC; PCC
SERVICES, LLC; REVA & REVA, LLC; SCHILLINGS, INC.; SHANDA BUSINESS
SERVICES, CAPITOL WEST LLC; SR ASSOCIATES, INC.; THE BRITT-TIFF
COMPANY; TWO DUX IN A ROW, INC.; and W. SCOTT UNDERWOOD are
represented by:

          Virgil Brandon McGrath, Esq.
          BINGHAM GREENEBAUM DOLL LLP
          255 E 5th St., Suite 2350
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 455-7641
          E-mail: BMcGrath@bgdlegal.com

               - and -

          Jason Trent Ams, Esq.
          BINGHAM GREENEBAUM DOLL LLP
          300 West Vine Street, Suite 1200
          Lexington, KY 40507-1622
          Telephone: (859) 288-4679
          E-mail: JAms@bgdlegal.com

Appellee FORTY-ONE ADVENTURES, INC., is represented by:

          Michael W. Bouldin, Esq.
          BOULDIN LAW FIRM
          618 Washington St.
          Covington, KY 41011
          Telephone: (859) 581-6453

Appellee JZJ, INC., is represented by:

          Daniel M. Oyler, Esq.
          PARRENT & OYLER
          First Trust Centre, Suite 610 North
          200 South Fifth Street
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 584-7500
          E-mail: doyler@parrentoyler.com


US XPRESS: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Xpress Enterprises, 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 initial public offering (IPO) related class
action suits across the United States.

Between November 2018 and April 2019, eight substantially similar
putative securities class action complaints were filed against the
company and certain other defendants: five in the Circuit Court of
Hamilton County, Tennessee ("Tennessee State Court Cases"), two in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
("Federal Court Cases"), and one in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York ("New York State Court Case").

Two of the Tennessee State Court Cases and one of the Federal Court
Cases have been voluntarily dismissed. All of these matters are in
preliminary stages of litigation, and discovery has not yet begun.
The company is currently not able to predict the probable outcome
or to reasonably estimate a range of potential losses, if any.

On November 21, 2018, a putative class action complaint was filed
in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee against the
company, five of its officers or directors, and the seven
underwriters who participated in our June 2018 initial public
offering ("IPO"), alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.

The class action lawsuit is based on allegations that the Company
made false and/or misleading statements in the registration
statement and prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the IPO.

The lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of
all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the
IPO, and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, costs and
expenses (including attorneys' fees) on behalf of the putative
class.

On January 23, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County,
Tennessee, by a different plaintiff alleging claims under Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same defendants as in
the action commenced on November 21, 2018. On March 7, 2019, this
case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.

On January 30, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County,
Tennessee, by a different plaintiff alleging claims under Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same defendants as in
the action commenced on November 21, 2018, and also alleging a
claim under Section 12 of the Securities Act.

On February 5, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County,
Tennessee, by a different plaintiff alleging claims under Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same defendants as in
the action commenced on November 21, 2018, and also alleging a
claim under Section 12 of the Securities Act.

On February 6, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County,
Tennessee, by different plaintiffs alleging claims under Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same defendants as in
the action commenced on November 21, 2018. On March 19, 2019, this
case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.

On March 8, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee by a different plaintiff alleging claims
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same
defendants as in the action commenced on November 21, 2018. On May
9, 2019, this case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.

On March 14, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of New York, by a different plaintiff alleging claims under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same
defendants as in the action commenced on November 21, 2018.

The parties have stipulated to extend the time for defendants to
respond to the complaint in this matter pending resolution of the
motions to dismiss filed (or to be filed) in the remaining of the
Tennessee State Court Cases and the Federal Court Cases.

On April 2, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee, by a different plaintiff alleging claims
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the company
and the same five of our officers and directors as in the action
commenced on November 21, 2018.  

Unlike the previously filed complaints, this complaint did not name
as defendants any of the seven underwriters who participated in our
IPO; however, an amended complaint was filed on October 8, 2019
which added all underwriters who participated in the IPO as
defendants.

The three remaining Tennessee State Court Cases have been
consolidated, and discovery is currently stayed pending a decision
on a motion to dismiss filed by the company and the other
defendants.

On July 18, 2019, the court presiding over the remaining of the
Federal Court Cases issued an order appointing lead plaintiff and
lead counsel.  

Pursuant to a stipulation entered in that matter, the appointed
lead plaintiff filed the Amended Federal Complaint on October 8,
2019.  

The Amended Federal Complaint is made on behalf of a putative class
that consists of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
the Class A common stock of USX between June 14, 2018 and November
1, 2018 and who were allegedly damaged thereby.  

In addition, the Amended Federal Complaint alleges additional
violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 against the Company, its Chief Executive Office and its
Chief Financial Officer.

The complaints in all the actions listed above allege that the
Company made false and/or misleading statements in the registration
statement and prospectus filed with the SEC in connection with the
IPO, and that, as a result of such alleged statements, the
plaintiffs and the members of the putative classes suffered
damages.

The Amended Federal Complaint additionally alleges that the
Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial
Officer made false and/or misleading statements and/or material
omissions in press releases, earnings calls, investor conferences,
television interviews, and filings made with the SEC subsequent to
the IPO.

U.S. Xpress said, "We believe the allegations made in the
complaints are without merit and intend to defend ourselves
vigorously in these matters."

U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. operates as an asset-based truckload
carrier providing services primarily in the United States. It
operates in two segments, Truckload and Brokerage. The company was
founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Chattanooga, Tennessee.


US XPRESS: Discovery Still Ongoing in Cal. Wage & Hour Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Xpress Enterprises, 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 discovery
is still ongoing in a wage and hour class suit in California.

On December 23, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
company and its subsidiary U.S. Xpress, Inc. in the Superior Court
of California, County of San Bernardino. The case was transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.


The putative class includes current and former truck drivers
employed by us who worked or work in California after the
completion of their training while residing in California since
December 23, 2011 to present.

The case alleges that class members were not paid for off-the-clock
work, were not provided duty free meal or break times, and were not
paid premium pay in their absence, were not paid minimum wage for
all hours worked, were not provided accurate and complete time and
pay records and were not paid all accrued wages at the end of their
employment, all in violation of California law.

The class seeks a judgment for compensatory damages and penalties,
injunctive relief, attorney fees and costs and pre- and
post-judgment interest.

On May 2, 2019, the court dismissed on grounds of preemption the
claims alleging failure to provide duty free meal and rest breaks
or to pay premium pay for failure to provide such breaks under
California law.

The matter is currently in discovery, and a jury trial has been
requested. There is currently no trial date set.

U.S. Xpress said, "We are currently not able to predict the
probable outcome or to reasonably estimate a range of potential
losses, if any. We intend to vigorously defend the merits of these
claims."

U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. operates as an asset-based truckload
carrier providing services primarily in the United States. It
operates in two segments, Truckload and Brokerage. The company was
founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Chattanooga, Tennessee.


US XPRESS: Seeks Arbitration of Contractors' Claims
---------------------------------------------------
U.S. Xpress Enterprises, 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 in the Independent Contractor class action suit in
Tennessee have filed a motion to compel arbitration.

On March 26, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
against the company and its subsidiaries U.S. Xpress, Inc. and U.S.
Xpress Leasing, Inc.

The putative class includes all individuals who performed work for
U.S. Xpress, Inc. or U.S. Xpress Leasing, Inc. as lease drivers
from March 26, 2016 to present.

The complaint alleges that independent contractors are improperly
designated as such and should be designated as employees and thus
subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The complaint
further alleges that U.S. Xpress, Inc.'s pay practices with regard
to the putative class members violated the minimum wage provisions
of the FLSA for the period from March 26, 2016 to present.

The complaint further alleges that the company violated the
requirements of the Truth in Leasing Act with regard to the
independent contractor agreements and lease purchase agreements the
company entered into with the putative class members.

The complaint further alleges that the company failed to comply
with the terms of the independent contractor agreements and lease
purchase agreements entered into with the putative class members,
that the company violated the provisions of the Tennessee Consumer
Protection Act in advertising, describing and marketing the lease
purchase program to the putative class members, and that the
company was unjustly enriched as a result of the foregoing
allegations.

The defendants have filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration.

U.S. Xpress said, "The matter is not yet in discovery, and we are
currently not able to predict the probable outcome or to reasonably
estimate a range of potential losses, if any. We believe the
allegations made in the complaint are without merit and intend to
defend ourselves vigorously against the complaints relating to such
actions."

U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. operates as an asset-based truckload
carrier providing services primarily in the United States. It
operates in two segments, Truckload and Brokerage. The company was
founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Chattanooga, Tennessee.


VIEWRAY INC: Corwin Class Suit in Northern Dist. of Ohio Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ViewRay, Inc. is facing the class action complaint, captioned
Corwin v. ViewRay, Inc., et al., in Ohio over alleged violations of
federal securities laws, 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 class action complaint for violation of
federal securities laws was filed in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio against the Company, its chief executive
officer, chief science officer and former chief financial officer.


The complaint purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of
the Company's common stock between March 15, 2019 and August 8,
2019, alleges that the Company violated federal securities laws by
issuing materially false and misleading statements that failed to
disclose adverse facts concerning the Company's business,
operations, and financial results.

The Company said it believes the allegations in the complaint are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend the litigation.

ViewRay, Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets radiation therapy
systems. The company offers MRIdian, a magnetic resonance
image-guided radiation therapy system to image and treat cancer
patients. Its MRIdian integrates MRI technology, radiation
delivery, and proprietary software to see the soft tissues, shape
the dose to accommodate for changes in anatomy, and strike the
target using real-time targeting throughout the treatment. ViewRay,
Inc. serves university research and teaching hospitals, community
hospitals, private practices, government institutions, and
freestanding cancer centers. The company markets its MRIdian
through a direct sales force in North America. ViewRay, Inc. was
founded in 2004 and is headquartered in Oakwood, Ohio.


VITAMIN SHOPPE: Continues to Defend Franchise Group Merger Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vitamin Shoppe, 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 28, 2019, that the company
continues to defend three class action suits related to its merger
deal with Franchise Group, Inc.

On August 7, 2019, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Franchise Group, Inc. (formerly known as Liberty
Tax, Inc.) and Valor Acquisition, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Franchise Group ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which Merger Sub will
merge with and into the Company, with the Company continuing as the
surviving corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Franchise
Group (the "Merger").

On September 30, 2019, a purported stockholder of the Company
commenced a federal securities action in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and its
directors, captioned Shiva Stein v. Vitamin Shoppe, Inc., et al.,
No. 19 Civ. 18543 (D.N.J.).  

On October 1, 2019, a second purported Company stockholder
commenced a putative securities class action in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware against the same
defendants, captioned Jordan Rosenblatt v. Vitamin Shoppe, Inc., et
al., No. 19 Civ. 1848 (D. Del.).

On October 25, 2019, a third purported stockholder of the Company
commenced a federal securities action in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey against the same defendants,
captioned Kathleen S. Bell v. Vitamin Shoppe, Inc., et al., No. 19
Civ. 19334 (D.N.J.).

All three lawsuits were brought under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and challenge as allegedly
materially false and misleading the disclosures the Company made in
its September 30, 2019 preliminary proxy statement filed with the
SEC in connection with the Merger.  

The complaints seek injunctive relief against the closing of the
Merger pending additional disclosures, attorneys' fees, and other
relief. Other, similar lawsuits may follow.  

Vitamin Shoppe said, "The defendants believe that the lawsuits are
without merit."

Vitamin Shoppe, Inc. is an omni-channel specialty retailer of
vitamins, minerals, herbs, specialty supplements, sports nutrition
and other health and wellness products. The company is based in
Secaucus, New Jersey.


WASTE PRO: Faces Privette Suit in S.C. Alleging FLSA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Waste Pro of North
Carolina Inc. The case is captioned as Kenneth Privette,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Waste Pro of North Carolina Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-03221-DCN (D.S.C., Nov. 12, 2019).

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge David C. Norton.

Waste Pro is a privately owned solid waste collection, recycling,
processing and disposal companies, operating in eight southeastern
states. Serving more than two million customers from over 70
operating locations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Austin Winters Anderson, Esq.
          ANDERSON 2X PLLC
          819 N Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          E-mail: austin@a2xlaw.com

               - and -

          Ben LeClercq, Esq.
          David Dale Ashley, Esq.
          LECLERCQ LAW FIRM
          708 S Shelmore, Suite 202
          Mt Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 722-3523
          E-mail: Ben@LeClercqLaw.com
                  david@leclercqlaw.com

               - and -

          Charles Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          Paul M Botros, Esq.
          MORGAN AND MORGAN PA (ORL)
          20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1600
          PO Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32802
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
          E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
                  pbotros@forthepeople.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Amy S. Tingley, Esq.
          Jennifer Elouise Belbeck, Esq.
          Matthew J. Pearce, Esq.
          Robert J. Stovash, Esq.
          STOVASH CASE AND TINGLEY PA
          220 North Rosalind Avenue
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 316-0393
          Facsimile: (407) 316-8969
          E-mail: atingley@sctlaw.com
                  jbelbeck@sctlaw.com
                  mpearce@sctlaw.com
                  rstovash@sctlaw.com

               - and -

          George Craig Johnson, Esq.
          JOHNSON TOAL AND BATTISTE
          PO Box 1431
          Columbia, SC 29202
          Telephone: (803) 252-9700
          Facsimile: (803) 252-9102
          E-mail: george@jtbpa.com

               - and -

          J Scott Hudson, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN KISER SUTCLIFFE
          315 East Robinson Street, Suite 600
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (704) 425-7010
          Facsimile: (407) 425-2747
          E-mail: shudson@zkslawfirm.com


WELLS FARGO: Faces Toggas Suit Over Violations of Consumer Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
KATHRYN TOGGAS and THOMAS TOGGAS, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY;
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS LEGAL
TITLE TRUSTEE FOR TRUMAN 2016 SC6 TITLE TRUST, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-03407-TNM (D. Colo., Nov. 12, 2019), arises from the
Defendants' violations of the Consumer Protection Procedures Act,
the Truth-in-Lending Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
and the Homeowners Protection Act.

The Defendants acquired residential home loans sold by or through
Wells Fargo Financial, Wells Fargo Funding, Inc. Wachovia Mortgage,
FSB, Wachovia Bank, N.A., Wachovia Mortgage Co., World Savings
Bank, FSB, American Mortgage Network, Inc., and Home Services
Leading LLC. Through these loan acquisition agreements and
arrangements, the Defendants acquired abilities associated with
these loans.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' use of inaccurate and
incomplete information to collect mortgage, tax, and insurance
payments, communicate with borrowers about loss mitigation issues,
proceed with foreclosures, and when selling the servicing rights of
the Plaintiffs' loans to new servicers has resulted in significant
harm to the Plaintiffs.

Wells Fargo is a national banking association chartered in South
Dakota. It maintains multiple offices in Washington D.C. for the
purposes of soliciting applications for and making residential
mortgage loans and engaging in other business activities.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.[BN]


WW INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated SDNY Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
WW International, 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 28, 2019, that the company is
seeking dismissal of the consolidated class action suit pending
before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

In March 2019, two substantially identical class action complaints
alleging violations of the federal securities laws were filed by
individual shareholders against the Company, certain of the
Company's current officers and the Company's former controlling
shareholder, Artal Group S.A., in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

The actions were consolidated and lead plaintiffs were appointed in
June 2019. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on July 29,
2019, naming as defendants the Company, certain of the Company's
current officers and directors, and Artal and certain of its
affiliates.

A second consolidated amended complaint was filed on September 27,
2019.  The operative complaint asserts claims on behalf of all
purchasers of the Company's common stock between May 4, 2018 and
February 26, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), including
purchasers of the Company's common stock traceable to the May 2018
secondary offering of the Company's common stock by certain of its
shareholders.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the defendants
disseminated materially false and misleading statements and/or
concealed or recklessly disregarded material adverse facts.

The complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, and with respect to the secondary offering, under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended. The plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified damages on
behalf of the class members.

The Company believes that the action is without merit and intends
to vigorously defend it.  

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on October 31,
2019.

WW International, Inc. provides weight control programs. The
Company offers subscriptions for commitment plans that give their
clients access to meetings and online subscriptions. WW
International also gives their members guidance and access to a
supportive community to help enable them for healthy habits.


WYNN RESORTS: Bid to Dismiss Ferris Securities Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wynn Resorts Limited 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 the securities class action suit initiated by John V.
Ferris and Joann M. Ferris remains pending.

On February 20, 2018, a putative securities class action was filed
against the Company and certain current and former officers of the
Company in the United States District Court, Southern District of
New York (which was subsequently transferred to the United States
District Court, District of Nevada) by John V. Ferris and Joann M.
Ferris on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common
stock between February 28, 2014 and January 25, 2018.

The complaint alleges, among other things, certain violations of
federal securities laws and seeks to recover unspecified damages as
well as attorneys' fees, costs and related expenses for the
plaintiffs.

The defendants have filed motions to dismiss, which are currently
pending before the court.

Wynn Resorts said, "The defendants in these actions will vigorously
defend against the claims pleaded against them. These actions are
in preliminary stages and management has determined that based on
proceedings to date, it is currently unable to determine the
probability of the outcome of these actions or the range of
reasonably possible loss, if any."

Wynn Resorts Limited, owns and operates destination casino resorts.
The company was founded in 2002 and is based in Las Vegas, Nevada.


XEROX CORP: Certification Bid and Approval of Settlement Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Xerox 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 plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and settlement approval have been
denied.

In February 2018, five complaints, including four putative class
actions (which have been consolidated), were filed by Xerox
shareholders in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County
of New York in connection with the proposed transaction to combine
Xerox and Fuji Xerox.

All of the complaints name as defendants Xerox, its directors, and
FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation. The complaint in one of the actions
also names as a defendant Ursula M. Burns, the former Chief
Executive Officer of Xerox.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Xerox's directors
breached their fiduciary duties in negotiating, approving, and
purportedly making false and misleading disclosures about the Fuji
Transaction, and that Fujifilm aided and abetted those breaches.

The complaint in one of the actions further alleges that Xerox and
the director defendants engaged in common law fraud by purportedly
failing to disclose information about the joint venture agreements
between Xerox and Fujifilm.

The Fuji Transaction Shareholder Lawsuits seek injunctive relief
preventing the previously proposed transactions, and/or additional
disclosures by Xerox's directors, unspecified damages from Xerox's
directors, costs and attorneys’ fees, as well as other relief.

One of the Fuji Transaction Shareholder Lawsuits was brought by
Darwin Deason, a Xerox shareholder ("Deason I"). Another complaint
was filed by Mr. Deason against Xerox and its directors in the same
Court on March 2, 2018 ("Deason II") alleging that defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by refusing Mr. Deason's request
for a waiver of the deadline for nomination of a new slate of Xerox
directors.

In Deason II, Mr. Deason sought to enjoin Xerox and its directors
from enforcing Xerox's advance notice by-laws, thereby allowing Mr.
Deason to proceed with the nominations, as well as costs, fees, and
other relief.

On April 27, 2018, the Court issued decisions and orders granting
plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motions, which (i) enjoined
Xerox from "taking any further action to consummate the change of
control transaction between Xerox and Fuji that was announced on
January 31, 2018 pending a final determination of the claims
asserted in the underlying action;" (ii) enjoined Xerox from
enforcing its advance notice bylaw provision requiring shareholders
to nominate directors for election at the 2018 annual shareholder
meeting by December 11, 2017; and (iii) required Xerox to waive
such advance notice bylaw provision to permit the noticing of a
slate of director nominees for election at the 2018 annual
shareholder meeting, and denying defendants' motions to dismiss.

On May 1, 2018, Xerox entered into a Director Appointment,
Nomination and Settlement Agreement (the "Initial Settlement
Agreement") with Mr. Deason and Carl C. Icahn and certain of his
affiliates who were also Xerox shareholders (the "Icahn Group"),
among others, that would have resolved Deason I, Deason II and the
pending proxy contest in connection with Xerox’s 2018 Annual
Meeting of Shareholders. The Initial Settlement Agreement expired
by its terms on May 3, 2018 without becoming effective.

On May 7, 2018, defendants filed with the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department,
notices of appeal of, and motions to stay pending appeal, the lower
Court's decision and order. Defendants also moved the appellate
court for interim relief ordering that the appeal be heard on an
expedited basis.

At a hearing before the appellate court on May 7, 2018, the
appellate court ruled that the appeals would be heard on an
expedited basis and granted a partial interim stay allowing Xerox
and Fujifilm to take steps to seek regulatory approvals related to
the Fuji Transaction pending a ruling from the appellate court on
defendants' motions to stay pending appeal.

On May 13, 2018, a second Director Appointment, Nomination and
Settlement Agreement (the "Final Settlement Agreement") with
respect to Deason I, Deason II and the pending proxy contest in
connection with Xerox's 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareholders that
was initiated by the Icahn Group was signed on behalf of Mr.
Deason, the Icahn Group and all defendants except Fujifilm, and a
memorandum of understanding regarding settlement of the putative
class case was signed by all defendants except Fujifilm.

Pursuant to the settlements, the settling defendants withdrew their
appeal and motion to stay in Deason I and Deason II. The settling
defendants also withdrew their motion to stay in the putative class
case. The Court entered a stipulation of discontinuance as to the
settling parties in Deason II on May 14, 2018, and agreed on June
22, 2018 to do the same in Deason I.

On June 14, 2018, Fujifilm filed answers in Deason I and the
putative class case, along with cross-claims against the members of
the Xerox Board (as constituted before May 13, 2018) and a
third-party complaint against Xerox director Jonathan Christodoro,
seeking contribution for any potential award against Fujifilm for
aiding and abetting purported breaches of fiduciary duties.

On June 19, 2018, the putative class plaintiffs filed a motion for
preliminary approval of a stipulation of settlement that would
resolve the claims asserted by the plaintiffs in the putative class
case against all defendants, other than Fujifilm. Carmen Ribbe, the
plaintiff in the below derivative action, and Fujifilm filed
oppositions to the motion on July 10, 2018.

On June 22, 2018, the Court entered an order denying a joint motion
by the putative class plaintiffs and the settling defendants to
dissolve the injunction in the putative class case as against the
settling defendants, and entered an order denying Fujifilm's motion
to dissolve the injunctions in the putative class case and Deason I
in their entirety.

On July 16, 2018, the Court held a hearing concerning the putative
class plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement
in the putative class case. The Court indicated that it was not
inclined to consider motions for approval of the settlement prior
to considering whether the putative class should be certified.

On August 2, 2018, the Appellate Division entered orders
recognizing the Xerox defendants' withdrawal of their appeal in the
Deason cases and denying all appellants' motions to stay pending
determination of appeals in the Deason and putative class cases.

On August 2, 2018, the Appellate Division entered orders (i) at
their request, deeming withdrawn the Xerox defendants' appeal and
motion to stay in the Deason cases; (ii) upon their request,
deeming withdrawn the Xerox defendants' motion to stay, pending
determination of appeal, the putative class case; and (iii) denying
Fujifilm's motion to stay pending determination of its appeals in
the Deason and putative case cases.

On September 21, 2018, putative class plaintiffs filed a motion for
certification of a settlement class and a motion to transmit notice
of the proposed settlement to the proposed class. On October 17,
2018, derivative plaintiff Carmen Ribbe and Fujifilm filed
oppositions to the putative class plaintiffs’ motion to transmit
notice to the proposed class. The class has not yet been certified,
and preliminary approval has not been granted.

The Appellate Division heard oral argument on September 25, 2018 on
Fujifilm's appeal of the Court's decision. On October 16, 2018, the
Appellate Division entered a decision and order reversing the
Court's rulings, ordering that the claims brought against Fujifilm
in the cases by Mr. Deason and the purported class be dismissed,
and further ordering that the preliminary injunction of the
proposed Fuji Transaction be dissolved (the "Appellate Decision and
Order").

On November 15, 2018, the putative class plaintiffs filed with the
Appellate Division a motion seeking the opportunity to reargue
Fujifilm's appeal or, in the alternative, for leave to appeal the
Appellate Decision and Order to the New York State Court of
Appeals.

On December 6, 2018, pursuant to the Appellate Decision and Order,
the Court entered a judgment dismissing the complaints against
Fujifilm in Deason I and the putative class case. The Court further
issued orders denying the putative class plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, without prejudice to renewing the motion after
the outcome of any appeals of the Appellate Decision and Order.

On January 8, 2019, the Court entered an order staying all further
proceedings in Deason I and the putative class case until thirty
days after exhaustion of appeals, including any appeals to the New
York State Court of Appeals, of the Appellate Decision and Order.

On January 9, 2019, the Court entered an order denying the putative
class plaintiffs' motion to transmit notice to the proposed class,
without prejudice to renewal of their motion at a later time.

On October 31, 2018 and January 3, 2019, respectively, Xerox and
the Xerox director defendants in the putative class case filed with
the Appellate Division a request and motion seeking an extension,
until after any decision regarding approval of settlement of the
putative class action, of the deadline by which to perfect their
appeal of the Court's April 27, 2018 decision and order. On May 16,
2019, the Appellate Division entered an order granting the motion
and extended the deadline until the October 2019 Term.

On February 21, 2019, the Appellate Division issued an order
denying the putative class plaintiffs' motion seeking to reargue
Fujifilm's appeal or, in the alternative, for leave to appeal the
Appellate Decision and Order to the New York State Court of
Appeals. No further notice of appeal was filed, and the Appellate
Decision and Order became final and unappealable on March 26,
2019.

On May 3, 2019, putative class plaintiffs filed a renewed motion
for approval of the form of a notice to putative class members. On
May 6, 2019, putative class plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for
class certification and notice of motion to approve class
settlement and proposed final approval order.  On May 24, 2019, the
Court entered an order approving the form notice and proposed
manner of its dissemination.

On June 6, 2019, the Court entered an order pursuant to which
plaintiffs submitted their motion to approve attorneys' fees and
expenses on July 19, 2019; requiring filing of any objections to or
opt-outs from the proposed putative class settlement by August 9,
2019; and setting September 6, 2019 for its hearing on putative
class plaintiffs' motion for class certification and settlement
approval. The hearing took place, and on September 12, 2019, the
Court entered a decision and order denying both motions.

Xerox will vigorously defend these lawsuits to the extent that the
proceedings continue as to Xerox. At this time, however, it is
premature to make any conclusion regarding the probability of
incurring material losses in these lawsuits. Should developments
cause a change in the company's determination as to an unfavorable
outcome, or result in a final adverse judgment or settlement, there
could be a material adverse effect on the company's results of
operations, cash flows and financial position in the period in
which such change in determination, judgment, or settlement
occurs.

Xerox Corporation designs, develops, and sells document management
systems and solutions worldwide. It offers intelligent workplace
services, including managed print services; digitization services;
and digital solutions, such as workflow automation, personalization
and communication software, and content management. Xerox
Corporation was founded in 1906 and is headquartered in Norwalk,
Connecticut.


XEROX CORP: Ribbe Suit over Fuji Transaction Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Xerox 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 a putative derivative and class action
stockholder complaint initiated by Carmen Ribbe.

On April 11, 2019, Carmen Ribbe filed a putative derivative and
class action stockholder complaint in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York for New York County, naming as defendants Xerox,
current Board members Gregory Q. Brown, Joseph J. Echevarria,
Cheryl Gordon Krongard, Sara Martinez Tucker, Keith Cozza, Giovanni
G. Visentin, Jonathan Christodoro, Nicholas Graziano, and A. Scott
Letier, and former Board members Jeffrey Jacobson, William Curt
Hunter, Robert J. Keegan, Charles Prince, Ann N. Reese, and Stephen
H. Rusckowski.

Plaintiff previously filed a putative shareholder derivative
lawsuit on May 24, 2018 against certain of these defendants, as
well as others, in the same court; that lawsuit was dismissed
without prejudice on December 6, 2018.

The new complaint includes putative derivative claims on behalf of
Xerox for breach of fiduciary duty against the members of the Xerox
Board who approved Xerox’s entry into agreements to settle the
Deason and In re Xerox Corporation Consolidated Shareholder
Litigation ("XCCSL") actions.

Plaintiff alleges that the settlements ceded control of the Board
and the Company to Darwin Deason and Carl C. Icahn without a vote
by, or compensation to, other Xerox stockholders; improperly
provided certain benefits and releases to the resigning and
continuing directors; and subjected Xerox to potential breach of
contract damages in an action by Fuji relating to Xerox's
termination of the proposed Fuji Transaction.

Plaintiff also alleges that the current Board members breached
their fiduciary duties by allegedly rejecting plaintiff's January
14, 2019 shareholder demand on the Board to remedy harms arising
from entry into the Deason and XCCSL settlements.

The new complaint further includes direct claims for breach of
fiduciary duty on behalf of a putative class of current Xerox
stockholders other than Mr. Deason, Mr. Icahn, and their affiliated
entities (the "Ribbe Class") against the defendants for causing
Xerox to enter into the Deason and XCCSL settlements, which
plaintiff alleges perpetuated control of Xerox by Mr. Icahn and Mr.
Deason and denied the voting franchise of Xerox shareholders.

Among other things, plaintiff seeks damages in an unspecified
amount for the alleged fiduciary breaches in favor of Xerox against
defendants jointly and severally; rescission or reformation of the
Deason and XCCSL settlements; restitution of funds paid to the
resigning directors under the Deason settlement; an injunction
against defendants' engaging in the alleged wrongful practices and
equitable relief affording the putative Ribbe Class the ability to
determine the composition of the Board; costs and attorneys' fees;
and other further relief as the Court may deem proper.
Defendants accepted service of the complaint as of May 16, 2019.  

On June 4, 2019, the Court entered an order setting a briefing
schedule for defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. On July
12, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to preclude defendants from
referencing in their motions to dismiss the formation of, or work
by, the committee of the Board established to investigate
plaintiff's shareholder demand.  

On July 18, 2019, the Court denied plaintiff's motion and adjourned
sine die the deadline by which defendants must file any motions to
dismiss the complaint.

Xerox will vigorously defend against this matter.

Xerox said, "At this time, it is premature to make any conclusion
regarding the probability of incurring material losses in this
litigation. Should developments cause a change in our determination
as to an unfavorable outcome, or result in a final adverse judgment
or settlement, there could be a material adverse effect on our
results of operations, cash flows and financial position in the
period in which such change in determination, judgment, or
settlement occurs."

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

Xerox Corporation designs, develops, and sells document management
systems and solutions worldwide. It offers intelligent workplace
services, including managed print services; digitization services;
and digital solutions, such as workflow automation, personalization
and communication software, and content management. Xerox
Corporation was founded in 1906 and is headquartered in Norwalk,
Connecticut.


XEROX CORP: Time to Seek Review of 2nd Circuit Decision Expires
---------------------------------------------------------------
Xerox 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 time to request
the U.S. Supreme Court to review the order of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit affirming the district court's
judgment dismissing the complaint, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension
and Retirement System v. Xerox Corporation, Ursula M. Burns, Luca
Maestri, Kathryn A. Mikells, Lynn R. Blodgett, Robert K. Zapfel,
David H. Bywater and Mary Scanlon, has expired and no such request
was filed.

On June 6, 2019, the Second Circuit entered a summary order
affirming the district court's judgment dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiff's time in which to request review by the U.S. Supreme
Court expired on September 4, 2019; no such request was filed.


Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Xerox
Corporation, Ursula M. Burns, Luca Maestri, Kathryn A. Mikells,
Lynn R. Blodgett, Robert K. Zapfel, David H. Bywater and Mary
Scanlon

On October 21, 2016, the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and
Retirement System ("plaintiff") filed a purported securities class
action complaint against Xerox Corporation, Ursula Burns, Luca
Maestri, Kathryn Mikells, Lynn Blodgett and Robert Zapfel in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of the plaintiff and certain purchasers or acquirers of Xerox
common stock.

The complaint alleged that defendants made false and misleading
statements, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, relating to the
operations and prospects of Xerox's Health Enterprise business.

Plaintiff sought, among other things, unspecified monetary damages
and attorneys' fees. Other, similar lawsuits may follow.

On December 28, 2016, the Court entered a stipulated order setting
out a schedule for amendment of the complaint and for defendants'
response to that complaint following the Court's appointment of
lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.
On February 28, 2017, the Court issued an opinion and order
appointing the Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System
("APERS") as lead plaintiff.

On May 1, 2017, APERS filed an amended complaint, alleging
substantially similar claims and seeking substantially similar
relief, but adding David Bywater and Mary Scanlon as defendants.

On June 30, 2017, defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint, and the motions were fully briefed on October 13, 2017.
On March 20, 2018, the Court entered an opinion and order granting
the motions, and on March 23, 2018, the Court entered a judgment of
dismissal and closed the case.

On April 20, 2018, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the appeal was fully
briefed as of November 28, 2018. The Second Circuit heard oral
argument on May 31, 2019.

On June 6, 2019, the Second Circuit entered a summary order
affirming the district court's judgment dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiff's time in which to request review by the U.S. Supreme
Court expired on September 4, 2019; no such request was filed.

Xerox Corporation designs, develops, and sells document management
systems and solutions worldwide. It offers intelligent workplace
services, including managed print services; digitization services;
and digital solutions, such as workflow automation, personalization
and communication software, and content management. Xerox
Corporation was founded in 1906 and is headquartered in Norwalk,
Connecticut.


ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Trial in Bid to Dismiss Gregory Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
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 has filed a motion to dismiss the class
action suit entitled, Gregory, et. al. v. Zions Bancorporation, but
the trial has not been scheduled.

A civil class action lawsuit, Gregory, et al. v. Zions
Bancorporation, brought against us in the United States District
Court in Utah in January 2019.

This case was filed on behalf of investors in Rust Rare Coin, Inc.
alleging that the company aided and abetted a Ponzi scheme fraud
perpetrated by Rust Rare Coin, a Zions Bank customer.

The case follows civil actions and the establishment of a
receivership for Rust Rare Coin by The Commodities Futures Trading
Commission and the Utah Division of Securities in November 2018, as
well as a separate suit brought by the Securities and Exchange
Commission against Rust Rare Coin and its principal, Gaylen Rust.

The matter is in the early motion practice state and initial phase
discovery has commenced.

During the second quarter of 2019, the company filed a motion to
dismiss. Trial has not been scheduled.

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.



                            *********

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 ***