CAR_Public/191216.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, December 16, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 250

                            Headlines

AO SMITH: Birmingham Retirement and Relief System's Suit Ongoing
ASSERTIO THERAPEUTICS: Dec. 18 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss
ASSERTIO THERAPEUTICS: Suits over Delay of Glumetza Ongoing
AVON PRODUCTS: Continues to Defend HoldCo Merger-Related Suits
AXOGEN INC: Bid to Dismiss Einhorn Class Suit Pending

BILL'S SUPER: Fails to Pay Store Workers' OT Wages, Treadway Says
CANADIAN COUNTY, OK: White Files Civil Rights Class Action
CAPITAL ONE: Bernstein Liebhard Noted of Dec. 2 Plaintiff Deadline
CDK GLOBAL: AutoLoop Class Action in Illinois Still Ongoing
CELLULAR CONNECTION: Weirbach Seeks Overtime Pay for Sales Reps

CHICAGO LIGHTHOUSE: Davis Seeks OT Wages for Customer Care Agents
CHW GROUP: Griffin Asks Court to Enforce TCPA Privacy Provisions
COLEMAN CO: Sells Useless Mosquito Repellent, Fishman-Palmer Says
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Gonzalez Alleges Violation under FDCPA
CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Voigt Class Action Ongoing in Del. Chancery

CREDIT BUREAU: Feggins Files Class Suit in Pennsylvania
CRYSTAL PRINT: Wildenberg Seeks OT Pay for Production Employees
CVS HEALTH: EpiPen ERISA Class Action Ongoing
CVS HEALTH: Trial in Consolidated Corcoran Suit Ongoing
DIEBOLD NIXDORF: Livonia Securities Suit Moved to S.D. New York

DISH NETWORK: Judgment in Krakauer Class Action Paid
DISH NETWORK: Still Defends Hallandale Police & Firefighters' Suit
E DIAMOND ELECTRIC: Flores Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ECONOMY FOOD: Bouchouk Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
EMPIRE RESORTS: Continues to Defend Hercules-Merger Related Suits

EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Aronow Files FCRA Class Suitt in New York
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Rosenbluh Files FCRA Suit in New York
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Tailford Suit Removed to C.D. California
FIRST NATIONAL: Kim Alleges Violation under FDCPA in New Jersey
FITBIT INC: Being Sold to Google for Too Little, Estes Alleges

FLOOR AND DECOR: Hammond Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
FRONTIER AIRLINES: Hodgkins Sues Over Pregnancy Discrimination
FRONTIER COMM: Motion for Leave to Amend Connecticut Suit Pending
GHIRARDELLI CHOCOLATE: Prescott Suit Removed to N.D. California
GLASS MOUNTAIN: Mumin Alleges Violation under FDCPA in New York

KUDULIS REISINGER: Luca Alleges Violation under FDCPA
MDL 2804: Columbiana County Opts to Remain in Opioid Class Action
MICROCHIP TECH: Bid to Dismiss Jackson Class Action Still Pending
MIDLAND CREDIT: Echols Files FDCPA Suit in Michigan
MIDLAND CREDIT: Gabriel Asserts Breach of FDCPA in California

MIDLAND CREDIT: Nash Files DFCPA Class Suit in Illinois
MOMENTA PHARMA: Dec. 19 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
MYER: King & Wood Mallesons Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling
MYRIAD GENETICS: Silverman Class Action Ongoing in Utah Court
OFFICE DEPOT: Stein Seeks Overtime Wages for Account Managers

PAPA JOHN'S: Bid to Dismiss Danker Class Suit Still Pending
PDL BIOPHARMA: City of Providence Class Action Ongoing
PERRIGO CO: Roofers' Pension Fund Suit Still Ongoing
PG&E CORP: Feb. 6 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Investors' Suit
PG&E CORP: Vataj Securities Class Action Ongoing

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Ehrnfeld Asserts Breach of FDCPA
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces Dayton Suit Over Violation of CFDBPA
PROFESSIONAL AVIATION: Modesti Files Suit in New York
PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Pieczonka Files FDCPA Suit in Ohio
QUALCOMM INC: Appeal in Consolidated Calif. Suit Pending

QUALCOMM INC: Bid for En Banc Review in 3226701 Canada Suit Denied
QUALCOMM INC: Bid to Dismiss Suit over Broadcom Merger Pending
QUALCOMM INC: Discovery in California Securities Suit Underway
QUALCOMM INC: Quebec Superior Court Certifies Consumer Class Suit
RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS: Taylor Sues Over Unwanted Telephone Calls

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Gordon Suit Removed to E.D. Washington
ROTEM AMFERT: Environmental Class Action Enters Final Stage
SADDLE CREEK: Seeks Removal of Biometric Data Class Action
SCOTT & ASSOCIATES: Faces Dawkins Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
SDS STAFFING: Martin Suit Transferred From W.D. to S.D. Texas

SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Walker Seeks Overtime Pay for Disability Reps
SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Dec. 20 Settlement Conference Set
SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Kaneshiro Class Action Ongoing
SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Vitale Suit v. D.R. Horton Still Ongoing
SOLARA MEDICAL SUPPLIES: Bickford Files Suit in California

SONIM TECHNOLOGIES: Bernstein Liebhard Noted of Dec. 6 Deadline
SPARK ENERGY: Appeal in Gillis Class Suit Still Pending
SPARK ENERGY: Discovery Still Ongoing in Rolland Class Action
SPARK ENERGY: Settlement Negotiations in Veilleux Suit Ongoing
STRESS ENGINEERING: Ford Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA

SURESCRIPTS LLC: Faces West Town Antitrust Suit in D. Colo.
TPT PATROL: Baker McKenzie Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Bernstein Liebhard Noted of Dec. 3 Deadline
UNDER ARMOUR: Kraft Seeks Damages Over Decline of Share Price
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Gonzalez Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing

VBI VACCINES: Trial in Israel Suit v. SciVac to Begin Dec. 19
VERDE ENERGY: $6MM Settlement Reached in Jurich Class Suit
VIKING RIVER: Illegally Diverts Tips & Gratuities, Rosenberg Says
VIVINT SOLAR: $7.25MM Accord in Wage and Hour Suit Pending
VIVINT SOLAR: $975,000 Settlement of TCPA Suit Wins Initial OK

VIVINT SOLAR: Facing Two Stockholder Class Suits in E.D.N.Y.
WABASH NATIONAL: Pre-Merger Class Suit Against Supreme Concluded
WENDY'S CO: Accord in Financial Firms' Suit Awaits Final Approval
WENDY'S CO: Says Torres Class Action Now Closed
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Post-Verdict Awards Under Appeal

WERNER ENTERPRISES: Still Faces Class Suits over Labor Matters
WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NY: Downes Files Suit in New York
WESTPAC BANKING: 2017 Australian Class Action Remains Stayed
WESTPAC BANKING: Class Suits over Aussie Home Loans Ongoing
WESTPAC BANKING: Faces BT Life Cash Investment Option Class Suit

WESTPAC BANKING: Suit over Bill Swap Reference Rate Underway in NY
WORK MANAGEMENT: Compton Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Tanenbaum Asserts Breach of FDCPA
[*] South African Companies May Face Class Action Under POPIA
[*] Study Shows Results of Class Settlement Claims Response Rates

[] AG Continues to Consider Australian Class Action Reforms

                            *********

AO SMITH: Birmingham Retirement and Relief System's Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
A. O. Smith 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, City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System v.
A. O. Smith Corporation, et al., is ongoing.

On May 28, 2019, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin against the Company and certain of its current or former
officers.

This action, now captioned as City of Birmingham Retirement and
Relief System v. A. O. Smith Corporation, et al., asserts
securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seeks damages and other relief
based upon the allegations in the complaint.

A shareholder derivative lawsuit, captioned as Pierce v. Rajendra,
et al. and based on similar allegations as the putative class
action, was filed on August 20, 2019, also in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

A. O. Smith Corporation, incorporated on July 9, 1986, operates
through two segments: North America and Rest of World. The
Company's Rest of World segment primarily consists of China, Europe
and India. Both segments manufacture and market comprehensive lines
of residential and commercial gas, gas tankless and electric water
heaters, as well as water treatment products. Both segments
primarily manufacture and market in their respective regions of the
world. The company is based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.


ASSERTIO THERAPEUTICS: Dec. 18 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss
--------------------------------------------------------
Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that a California
district court has set oral argument for December 18, 2019 on the
company's motion to dismiss the case, Huang v. Depomed et al., No.
4:17-cv-4830-JST.

On August 23, 2017, the Company, its current chief executive
officer and president, its former chief executive officer and
president, and its former chief financial officer were named as
defendants in a purported federal securities law class action filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The action (Huang v. Depomed et al., No. 4:17-cv-4830-JST, N.D.
Cal.) alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
relating to certain prior disclosures of the Company about its
business, compliance, and operational policies and practices
concerning the sales and marketing of its opioid products and
contends that the conduct supporting the alleged violations
affected the value of Company common stock and is seeking damages
and other relief. In an amended complaint filed on February 6,
2018, the lead plaintiff (referred to in its pleadings as the
Depomed Investor Group), which seeks to represent a class
consisting of all purchasers of Company common stock between July
29, 2015 and August 7, 2017, asserted the same claims arising out
of the same and similar disclosures against the Company and the
same individuals as were involved in the original complaint.

The Company and the individuals filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on April 9, 2018. The lead plaintiff filed an
opposition to the motion on June 8, 2018.

The Company and the individuals filed a reply in support of their
motion to dismiss on July 23, 2018. Oral arguments took place on
December 13, 2018. On March 18, 2019, the District Court granted
the Company's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended
complaint.

The dismissal was without prejudice, and the plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint on May 2, 2019.

The second amended complaint asserted the same claims arising out
of the same and similar disclosures against the Company and the
same individuals as were involved in the original complaint.

The Company and the individuals filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint on June 17, 2019. The lead plaintiff filed
an opposition to the motion on August 1, 2019. The Company and the
individuals filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss on
August 30, 2019.

The District Court has set oral argument for December 18, 2019.

The Company believes that the action is without merit and intends
to contest it vigorously.

Assertio Therapeutics, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
provides medicines in neurology, orphan, and specialty areas in the
United States. The company was formerly known as Depomed Inc. and
changed its name to Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. in August 2018.
Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is
headquartered in Lake Forest, Illinois.


ASSERTIO THERAPEUTICS: Suits over Delay of Glumetza Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suits related to Glumetza(R).

Several antitrust class actions have been recently filed in the
Northern District of California against the Company and other
defendants relating to Glumetza(R), a drug commercialized by
Santarus, Inc. (Santarus).

These actions include cases brought against the Company and other
defendants by FWK Holdings, LLC, Meijer, Inc. and Meijer
Distribution, Inc., Bi-Lo, LLC and Winn-Dixie Logistics, Inc., City
of Providence, UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund and KPH Healthcare
Services, Inc.

In February 2012, the Company, Santarus and Lupin Limited (Lupin)
entered into a Settlement and License Agreement with respect to a
patent infringement litigation filed by the Company against Lupin
regarding Lupin's Abbreviated New Drug Application for generic 500
mg and 1000 mg tablets of metformin.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Company and
other defendants engaged in anticompetitive actions to restrain
competition in the market for the drug Glumetza and its AB-related
generic equivalents, including by allegedly entering into a
so-called "reverse payment" that delayed the market entry of
certain generic versions of Glumetza.

Among other remedies, Plaintiffs are seeking past damages, punitive
and statutory treble damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

These lawsuits are in the earliest stages of proceedings, and the
Company intends to defend itself vigorously in these matters.

Assertio Therapeutics, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
provides medicines in neurology, orphan, and specialty areas in the
United States. The company was formerly known as Depomed Inc. and
changed its name to Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. in August 2018.
Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is
headquartered in Lake Forest, Illinois.


AVON PRODUCTS: Continues to Defend HoldCo Merger-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2019, that the
company continues to defend class action suits related to the
company's merger with Natura &Co Holding S.A.

On May 22, 2019, Avon Products, Inc., Natura Cosmeticos S.A., a
Brazilian corporation (sociedade anonima) ("Parent"), Natura &Co
Holding S.A., a Brazilian corporation (sociedade anonima)
("HoldCo"), Nectarine Merger Sub I, Inc., a Delaware corporation
and a wholly owned direct subsidiary of HoldCo ("Merger Sub I"),
and Nectarine Merger Sub II, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a
wholly owned direct subsidiary of Merger Sub I ("Merger Sub II")
entered into the Agreement and Plan of Mergers, as was amended by
Amendment Number One, dated as of October 3, 2019, by and among the
Company, Parent, HoldCo, Merger Sub I and Merger Sub II, and
Amendment Number Two, dated as of November 5, 2019, by and among
the Company, Parent, HoldCo, Merger Sub I and Merger Sub II.  

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, (i) HoldCo will,
after the completion of certain restructuring steps contemplated
thereby, hold all issued and outstanding shares of Parent, (ii)
Merger Sub II will merge with and into the Company, with the
Company surviving the merger and (iii) Merger Sub I will merge with
and into HoldCo, with HoldCo surviving the merger and as a result
of which each of the Company and Parent will become a wholly owned
direct subsidiary of HoldCo.

Since the May 22, 2019 announcement of the Merger Agreement, two
putative class action complaints and three individual complaints
have been filed against the Company and members of the board of
directors of the Company.  

The five complaints are captioned as follows:  Michael Kent,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Avon Products, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01959 (filed on
October 15, 2019 in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware, the "Kent Action"), Janet Russell v. Avon
Products, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-09544 (filed on October
16, 2019 in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, the "Russell Action"), Joel Rosenfeld IRA v.
Avon Products, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-09556 (filed on October 16,
2019 in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York, the "Rosenfeld Action"), Paul Berger, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. Jan Zijderveld et
al., Case No. 522658/2019 (filed on October 16, 2019 in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York Kings County, the "Berger Action"),
Adriane Reeder v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-05964 (filed on October 23, 2019 in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the "Reeder
Action").  

Each of the Kent Action, the Russell Action, the Rosenfeld Action
and the Reeder Action alleges that (i) the Company's definitive
proxy statement/prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 4, 2019 (the "Proxy Statement") omits
material information with respect to the Transactions, rendering it
false and misleading and, as a result, that the Company and the
members of the Board violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act,
and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and (ii) the members of the
Board, as alleged control persons of the Company, violated Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with the filing of the
allegedly materially deficient Proxy Statement.

The Berger Action alleges that the members of the Board breached
their fiduciary duties by (i) failing to disclose all material
facts in the Proxy Statement and (ii) structuring the Transactions
to serve the interests of certain shareholders at the expense of
other shareholders.  

The Merger Litigation seeks various remedies, including, among
other things, injunctive relief to prevent the consummation of the
Transactions unless certain allegedly material information is
disclosed, an order directing the Board to disseminate a proxy
statement that does not contain any allegedly untrue statements of
material fact and that states all allegedly material facts required
or necessary to make the statements contained therein not
misleading, an order rescinding the consummation of the
Transactions or an award of rescissory damages (in the event the
Transactions are consummated), a declaration that the defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as well
as Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, an order directing defendants
to account for all damages sustained, and an award of damages and
an award of attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in the Merger
Litigation are without merit and no supplemental disclosure is
required under applicable law. However, in order to avoid the risk
of the Merger Litigation delaying or adversely affecting the
Transactions and to minimize the costs, risks and uncertainties
inherent in litigation, and without admitting any liability or
wrongdoing, the Company has determined to voluntarily supplement
the Proxy Statement.  

These supplemental disclosures will not affect the merger
consideration to be paid to the Company's shareholders in
connection with the Transactions or the timing of the special
meeting of shareholders of Avon scheduled for November 13, 2019, at
10 a.m. New York Time, at 1 Avon Place, Suffern, NY 10901. The
Board continues to recommend that shareholders of Avon vote "FOR"
the proposal to adopt the Merger Agreement, as well as "FOR" the
other proposals to be considered at the Avon Special Meeting.

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is availabel at
https://bit.ly/2PmmSte.

                            *     *     *

On November 13, 2019, Avon Products said that, at a special meeting
held on the same day in Suffern, N.Y., its shareholders approved
the previously announced proposed acquisition of Avon by Natura &Co
Holding S.A., a new holding company for Natura Cosmeticos S.A. (B3:
NATU3). More than 75% of Avon's shares outstanding, on an
as-converted basis, were voted in favor of the proposal to adopt
the merger agreement.  The closing of the transaction is
anticipated to occur in early 2020, subject to the satisfaction of
customary closing conditions and regulatory approvals.

Avon Products, Inc. manufactures and markets beauty and related
products in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, south Latin America,
North Latin America, and the Asia Pacific. The company was founded
in 1886 and is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom.


AXOGEN INC: Bid to Dismiss Einhorn Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
AxoGen, 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 defendants are awaiting
the court's decision on their dismiss the class action suit
entitled, Einhorn v. Axogen, Inc., et al., No. 8:19-cv-00069 (M.D.
Fla.).

On January 9, 2019, Plaintiff Neil Einhorn, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, filed a putative class action
complaint in the United Stated District Court for the Middle
District of Florida alleging violations of the federal securities
laws against Axogen, Inc., certain of its directors and officers
("Individual Defendants"), and Axogen's 2017 Offering Underwriters
and 2018 Offering Underwriters (collectively, with the Individual
Defendants, the "Defendants"), captioned Einhorn v. Axogen, Inc.,
et al., No. 8:19-cv-00069 (M.D. Fla.).  

Plaintiff asserts that Defendants made false or misleading
statements in connection with the Company's November 2017
registration statement issued regarding its secondary public
offering in November 2017 and May 2018 registration statement
issued regarding its secondary public offering in May 2018, and
during a class period of August 7, 2017 to December 18, 2018.   

In particular, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants issued false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
the Company aggressively increased prices to mask lower sales; (2)
that the Company's pricing alienated customers and threatened the
Company's future growth; (3) that ambulatory surgery centers form a
significant part of the market for the Company's products; (4) that
such centers were especially sensitive to price increases; (5) that
the Company was dependent on a small number of surgeons whom the
Company paid to generate sales; (6) that the Company's consignment
model for inventory was reasonably likely to lead to channel
stuffing; (7) that the Company offered purchase incentives to sales
representatives to encourage channel stuffing; (8) that the
Company's sales representatives were encouraged to backdate revenue
to artificially inflate metrics; (9) that the Company lacked
adequate internal controls to prevent such channel stuffing and
backdating of revenue; (10) that the Company's key operating
metrics, such as number of active accounts, were overstated; and
(11) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.  

Plaintiff seeks an order (a) declaring the action a proper class
action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedures; (b) awarding Police and Fire Retirement System of the
City of Detroit ("Lead Plaintiff") and the prospective class
compensatory damages against all Defendants in an amount to be
proven at trial; (c) awarding Lead Plaintiff and the prospective
class extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive relief as permitted
by the law (including but not limited to rescission); (d) awarding
Lead Plaintiff and the prospective class their costs and expenses
incurred in the action, including reasonable attorneys' fees and
expert fees; (e) all such other relief that may be just and proper.


Axogen was served on January 15, 2019. On February 4, 2019, the
court granted the parties' stipulated motion which provided that
Axogen is not required to file a response to the complaint until
thirty days after Plaintiff files a consolidated amended complaint.
On June 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action
Complaint, and on July 22, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss.  

Plaintiff filed opposing papers on August 12, 2019.  

The Court held a status hearing on September 11, 2019 and stayed
all deadlines regarding the parties' obligations to file a case
management report.  The Court scheduled oral argument for the
motion to dismiss for December 4, 2019.  

The Company and Individual Defendants dispute the allegations and
intend to vigorously defend against the complaint.

AxoGen, Inc. provides surgical solutions for physical damage or
transection to peripheral nerves. The company provides its products
to hospitals, surgery centers, and military hospitals in the United
States, Canada, the United Kingdom and other European countries,
and internationally. AxoGen, Inc. is headquartered in Alachua,
Florida.


BILL'S SUPER: Fails to Pay Store Workers' OT Wages, Treadway Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HOLLY TREADWAY and CHRISTIAN MANNA, Each Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, PLAINTIFFS v. BILL'S SUPER FOODS
INC., and BILLY RAY ORR, DEFENDANTS, Case No. 3:19-cv-00321-DPM
(E.D. Ark., Nov. 12, 2019), arises from the Defendants' failure to
pay the Plaintiffs and other hourly employees lawful overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as Hourly Grocery
Store Workers within three years preceding the filing of the
original complaint.

Bills's Super Foods is a chain of grocery stores with eight
cost-plus food outlets across the state of Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Darel Ford, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: daniel@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


CANADIAN COUNTY, OK: White Files Civil Rights Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Canadian County
District Court. The case is styled as Misty White, Jermaine
Bradford, Janara Musgrave, Landon Proudfit, Bradley Barber, Jr,
Dakota Kappus, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated and Oklahoma State Conference NAACP, Plaintiffs v. Paul
Hesse, Jack McCurdy, Barbara Hatfield, Charles Gass, Khristan
Strubhar and Canadian County District Court 26th Judicial District,
Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01145-R (W.D., Okla., Dec. 10, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Civil Rights:
Other filed pursuant to the Other Civil Rights.

The Canadian County District Court is part of the 26th District of
Oklahoma..[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Clayburn T Curtis, Esq.
   Overman Legal Group
   809 NW 36th St
   Oklahoma City, OK 73118
   Tel: (405) 605-6718
   Fax: (405) 605-6719
   Email: claycurtis@overmanlegal.com

     - and -

   Justin R Williams, Esq.
   Pignato Cooper Kolker & Roberson PC
   119 N Robinson Ave, Suite 1120
   Oklahoma City, OK 73102
   Tel: (405) 606-3333
   Email: justinwilliams@overmanlegal.com

     - and -

   Michael C Redman, Esq.
   Neuens Mitchell Bonds PLLC
   2021 S Lewis Ave, Suite 660
   Tulsa, OK 74104
   Tel: (918) 749-9331
   Fax: (918) 749-9336
   Email: mredman@neuensmitchell.com

     - and -

   Tyler C Box, Esq.
   District Attorney's Ofc-NORMAN
   Cleveland County Courthouse
   201 S Jones Ave, Suite 300
   Norman, OK 73069
   Tel: (405) 321-8268
   Fax: (405) 360-7840


CAPITAL ONE: Bernstein Liebhard Noted of Dec. 2 Plaintiff Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP announces that class action complaints have
been filed on behalf of shareholders of SONM, UBER, and COF. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the court by the
lead plaintiff deadlines listed below. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you take no
action, you may remain an absent class member.

To discuss the cases below please contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll
free at (877) 779-1414.

Sonim Technologies Inc. (SONM)
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: December 6, 2019

Defendants failed to disclose to investors: Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company's
XP8 was experiencing material software challenges; (2) that these
software issues adversely affected how the device's Qualcomm
chipset, which supported Band 14 access, connected to AT&T's
carrier network configuration; (3) that the Company's XP5 and XP3
devices were experiencing material software defects that adversely
affected their optimization with certain accessories; (4) that, as
a result, the Company was reasonably likely to delay the launch of
new products; (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
financial results would be materially and adversely impacted; and
(6) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

To get additional information about the Sonim Shareholder Class
Action contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

Uber Technologies Inc. (UBER)
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: December 3, 2019

Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) at the time of the
Offering, Uber was rapidly increasing subsidies for drivers and
customer's rides and meals in a bid for market share, which caused
the Company's sales and marketing expenses to swell; (2) Defendants
were cutting (or planned to cut) costs in key areas that undermined
the Company's central growth opportunities; and (3) as a result,
defendants statements about Ubers business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

To get additional information about the Uber Shareholder Class
Action contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

Capital One Financial Corporation (COF)
CLASS PERIOD: 02/02/2018 - 07/29/2019
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: December 2, 2019

Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose to investors: (1) the Company did not maintain robust
information security protections, and its protection did not shield
personal information against security breaches; (2) such
deficiencies heightened the Company's exposure to a cyber-attack;
and (3) as a result, Capital One's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

To get additional information about the Capital One Shareholder
Class Action  contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877)
779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

Contact:

         Matthew E. Guarnero, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         Website: http://www.bernlieb.com  
         Tel: (877) 779-1414
         Email: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
[GN]


CDK GLOBAL: AutoLoop Class Action in Illinois Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
CDK Global, 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, Loop LLC
d/b/a AutoLoop.

Loop LLC d/b/a AutoLoop brought suit against CDK Global, LLC on
April 9, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, but reserved its rights with respect to remand to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin at the
conclusion of the MDL proceedings.

On June 5, 2018, AutoLoop amended its complaint to sue on behalf of
itself and a putative class action of all other automotive software
vendors in the United States that purchased data integration
services from CDK Global, LLC or Reynolds. CDK Global, LLC moved to
compel arbitration of AutoLoop's claims, or in the alternative, to
dismiss those claims; that motion was denied on January 25, 2019.

CDK Global, LLC filed an answer to AutoLoop's complaint and
asserted counterclaims against AutoLoop on February 15, 2019.
AutoLoop filed an answer to CDK Global, LLC's counterclaims on
March 8, 2019.

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

CDK Global, Inc. provides software and technology solutions for
automotive retailers in the United States and internationally. The
company operates through Retail Solutions North America,
Advertising North America, and CDK International segments. CDK
Global, Inc. is headquartered in Hoffman Estates, Illinois.


CELLULAR CONNECTION: Weirbach Seeks Overtime Pay for Sales Reps
---------------------------------------------------------------
THERESA WEIRBACH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE CELLULAR CONNECTION, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 5:19-cv-05310-JDW (E.D. Pa., Nov. 12, 2019), alleges that
the Defendant willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 by failing to pay its non-exempt hourly Sales Representatives
and Technical Advisors, including the Plaintiff, for all of their
overtime hours worked based upon its unlawful policies and
practices.

While the Defendant required Sales Representatives and Technical
Advisors to work overtime hours, it did not pay them for all hours
worked outside of the store, including for mandatory work utilizing
group messaging applications, such as GroupMe, participating in
regularly scheduled conference calls, and otherwise communicating
with other employees about work matters, the lawsuit says.

Cellular Connection is an Indiana corporation with its principal
place of business located in Carmel, Indiana. The Company operates
approximately 873 stores in the United States that offer cellular
phones and services to customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter A. Muhic, Esq.
          LEVAN LAW GROUP LLC
          One Logan Square, 27th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103 6933
          Telephone: 215 561 1500
          Facsimile: 215 827 5390
          E-mail: pmuhic@levanlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          800 3rd Avenue, Suite 2800
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (800) 616-4000
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com

               - and -

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


CHICAGO LIGHTHOUSE: Davis Seeks OT Wages for Customer Care Agents
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TANEESHA DAVIS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE CHICAGO LIGHTHOUSE FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE
BLIND OR VISUALLY IMPAIRED, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07485 (S.D.
Ohio, Nov. 12, 2019), arises from the Defendant's practices and
policies of not paying its non-exempt employees, including the
Plaintiff, for all hours worked, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Cook County
Minimum Wage Ordinance, and the Municipal Code of Chicago Minimum
Wage Ordinance.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees overtime wages for
hours worked more than 40 hours in a week.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant CL as a customer care agent
in Chicago, Illinois, from May 28, 2019, through August 28, 2019.
The Plaintiff and other similarly-situated customer care agents
were employed by the Defendant to engage in customer care,
primarily over the phone.

CL operates customer care centers in and around Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
          8401 Crawford Ave., Suite 104
          Skokie, IL 60076
          Telephone: 847-986-5889
          Facsimile: 847-673-1228
          E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com


CHW GROUP: Griffin Asks Court to Enforce TCPA Privacy Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yvette Griffin, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. CHW GROUP, INC. d/b/a CHOICE HOME WARRANTY, Case No.
1:19-cv-05561-AT (N.D. Ga., Dec. 10, 2019), is brought to enforce
the consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Defendant made pre-recorded telemarketing calls to the
Plaintiff and other putative class members without their consent,
according to the complaint. Because automated dialing campaigns
generally place calls to hundreds of thousands or even millions of
potential customers en masse, the Plaintiff brings this action on
behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons, who
received illegal robocalls from or on behalf of the Defendant.

A class action is the best means of obtaining redress for the
Defendant's wide-scale illegal telemarketing and is consistent both
with the private right of action afforded by the TCPA, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Yvette Griffin resides in this District.

CHW Group offers service contracts to consumers nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven H. Koval, Esq.
          3575 Piedmont Road
          Building 15, Suite 120
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Phone: (404) 513-6651
          Facsimile: (404) 549-4654
          Email: shkoval@aol.com

               - and -

          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Phone: (508) 4221-1510
          Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com


COLEMAN CO: Sells Useless Mosquito Repellent, Fishman-Palmer Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Fishman-Palmer, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. THE COLEMAN COMPANY, INC., Case No.
7:19-cv-11301 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2019), is brought on behalf of
purchasers of Coleman Bands against the Defendants for violations
of the consumer protection laws of New York, breach of express
warranty, unjust enrichment and fraud.

The Defendant represents that Coleman Bands are an "insect
repellent" that "repel mosquitoes." Coleman Bands contain active
ingredients of 40.2% citronella oil and 17.8% geraniol, in addition
to small quantities of other ingredients, such as geranium oil and
peppermint oil.

However, the Plaintiff asserts, Coleman Bands do not live up to
their label representations. Coleman Bands are ineffective to repel
mosquitos. Further, a peer-reviewed study published in the journal
of General and Applied Entomology found that mosquito repellent
wristbands with peppermint oil--another ingredient in Coleman
Bands--"do not prevent mosquito landings." The Defendant has sold
millions of Coleman Bands by promising consumers an effective
mosquito repellent, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Fishman-Palmer purchased three Coleman Bands from a
Wal-Mart store located in Monticello, New York, in the summer of
2018 for $10 each.

Coleman distributes Coleman Bands throughout the United States, and
specifically in the State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          Email: ykopel@bursor.com
                 aleslie@bursor.com


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Gonzalez Alleges Violation under FDCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc. The case is styled as Kristle Gonzalez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. and John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05801-PBT (E.D., Pen., Dec. 10,
2019).

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

Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Robert P. Cocco, Esq.
   Law Offices OF Robert P. Cocco PC
   1500 Walnut ST., STE 900
   Philadelphia, PA 19102
   Tel: (215) 351-0200
   Fax: (215) 922-3874
   Email: rcocco@rcn.com


CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Voigt Class Action Ongoing in Del. Chancery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cornerstone Building Brands, 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 Gary
D. Voigt.

On November 14, 2018, an individual stockholder, Gary D. Voigt,
filed a putative class action complaint in the Delaware Court of
Chancery against CD&R, CD&R Fund VIII, and certain directors of the
Company.

Voigt purports to assert claims on behalf of himself, on behalf of
a class of other similarly situated stockholders of the Company,
and derivatively on behalf of the Company, the nominal defendant.

An amended complaint was filed on April 11, 2019. The amended
complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment against CD&R Fund VIII and CD&R, and for breach of
fiduciary duty against the director defendants in connection with
the Merger. Voigt seeks damages in an amount to be determined at
trial.

The Company intends to vigorously defend the litigation.

Cornerstone Building Brands, Inc., formerly NCI Building Systems,
Inc., incorporated on December 23, 1991, is a manufacturer and
marketer of metal products in North America. The Company's
operating segments include Engineered building systems, Metal
components, Insulated Metal Panels and Metal coil coating. The
company is based in Cary, North Carolina.


CREDIT BUREAU: Feggins Files Class Suit in Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Bureau
Collection Services, Inc. The case is styled as William Feggins,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Credit Bureau Collection Services, Inc. doing business
as: CBCS and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05801-PBT
(E.D. Pa., Dec. 10, 2019).

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

Credit Bureau Collection Services, Inc. ( CBCS ) is a third-party
collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Robert P. Cocco, Esq.
   Law Offices OF Robert P. Cocco PC
   1500 Walnut ST., STE 900
   Philadelphia, PA 19102
   Tel: (215) 351-0200
   Fax: (215) 922-3874
   Email: rcocco@rcn.com


CRYSTAL PRINT: Wildenberg Seeks OT Pay for Production Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
SETH WILDENBERG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CRYSTAL PRINT, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01660-WCG (E.D. Wisc., Nov. 12, 2019), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated
damages, costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and
Collection Laws.

According to the complaint, the Defendant operated (and continues
to operate) an unlawful compensation system that deprived and
failed to compensate the Plaintiff and all other current and former
hourly-paid, non-exempt Production employees for all hours worked
and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of
pay.

Crystal Print is a commercial printing company headquartered in
Little Chute, Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          David M. Potteiger, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          15850 W. Bluemound Road, Suite 304
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Telephone: (262) 780-1953
          Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
          E-mail: ywalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                  sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                  dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com


CVS HEALTH: EpiPen ERISA Class Action Ongoing
---------------------------------------------
CVS Health 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, Klein, et al. v. Prime Therapeutics, et al. (U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota), has been
consolidated in In re EpiPen ERISA Litigation, and is ongoing.

This putative class action was filed against the Company and other
pharmacy benefits managers (PBMs) in June 2017 on behalf of ERISA
plan members who purchased and paid for EpiPen or EpiPen Jr.

Plaintiffs allege that the PBMs are ERISA fiduciaries to plan
members and have violated ERISA by allegedly causing higher
inflated prices for EpiPens through the process of negotiating
increased rebates from EpiPen manufacturer Mylan.

This case has been consolidated with a similar matter and is now
proceeding as In re EpiPen ERISA Litigation. The Company is
defending itself against these claims.

CVS Health Corporation, incorporated on August 22, 1996, together
with its subsidiaries, is an integrated pharmacy healthcare
company. The Company provides pharmacy care for the senior
community through Omnicare, Inc. (Omnicare) and Omnicare's
long-term care (LTC) operations, which include distribution of
pharmaceuticals, related pharmacy consulting and other ancillary
services to chronic care facilities and other care settings. It
operates through three segments: Pharmacy Services, Retail/LTC and
Corporate. The company is based in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.


CVS HEALTH: Trial in Consolidated Corcoran Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health 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 trial in the
consolidated class action suit entitled, Corcoran et al. v. CVS
Health Corporation (filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California) and Podgorny et al. v. CVS Health
Corporation (initially filed in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois), is ongoing.

These putative class actions were filed against the Company in July
and September 2015. The cases were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under the consumer
protection statutes and common laws of certain states on behalf of
a class of consumers who purchased certain prescription drugs.

Several third-party payors filed similar putative class actions on
behalf of payors captioned Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 20 Welfare
and Benefit Fund v. CVS Health Corp. and Plumbers Welfare Fund,
Local 130 v. CVS Health Corporation (both pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Rhode Island) in February and
August 2016.

In all of these cases the plaintiffs allege the Company overcharged
for certain prescription drugs by not submitting the price
available to members of the CVS Health Savings Pass program as the
pharmacy's usual and customary price.

In the Corcoran case, the U.S. District Court granted summary
judgment to CVS on plaintiffs' claims in their entirety and
certified certain subclasses in September 2017.

In June 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed the District Court's grant of summary judgment and
reversed the District Court’s narrowing of the requested class.
The Corcoran case is now proceeding to a trial on a class basis.

The Sheet Metal Workers plaintiffs have amended their complaint to
assert a claim under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO") premised on an alleged conspiracy
between the Company and other PBMs.

The Company is defending itself against these claims.

CVS Health Corporation, incorporated on August 22, 1996, together
with its subsidiaries, is an integrated pharmacy healthcare
company. The Company provides pharmacy care for the senior
community through Omnicare, Inc. (Omnicare) and Omnicare's
long-term care (LTC) operations, which include distribution of
pharmaceuticals, related pharmacy consulting and other ancillary
services to chronic care facilities and other care settings. It
operates through three segments: Pharmacy Services, Retail/LTC and
Corporate. The company is based in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.


DIEBOLD NIXDORF: Livonia Securities Suit Moved to S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as City of Livonia Retiree Health
and Disability Benefits Plan, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, and Manoj Arora; Indiana
Laborers Pension and Welfare Funds; Neelam Arora; University of
Puerto Rico Retirement System, and General Retirement System of the
City of Detroit, Movants v. Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated; Andreas
W. Mattes; Christopher A. Chapman; and Juergen Wunram, Defendants,
Case No. 5:19-cv-01887 (Filed Aug. 20, 2019), was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square) on Nov. 13, 2019.

The Southern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-10528-UA to the proceeding.

The case is a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers
of Diebold common stock between February 14, 2017, and August 1,
2018, inclusive, against Diebold and certain of the Company's
former executive officers seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Diebold Nixdorf is an American multinational financial and retail
technology company that specializes in the sale, manufacture,
installation and service of self-service transaction systems (such
as ATMs and currency processing systems), point-of-sale terminals,
physical security products, and software.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas C. Michaud, Esq.
          VANOVERBEKE MICHAUD & TIMMONY
          79 Alfred Street
          Detroit, MI 48201
          Telephone: (313) 578-1200
          Facsimile: (313) 578-1201
          E-mail: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph F. Murray,Esq.
          MURRAY, MURPHY, MOUL & BASIL
          1114 Dublin Road
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 488-0400
          Facsimile: (614) 488-0401
          E-mail: murray@mmmb.com

The Movants are represented by:

          Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL R. KARON
          700 St. Clair Avenue, W, Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 622-1851
          Facsimile: (216) 241-8175
          E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com

               - and -

          Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq.
          BRAGAR, EAGEL & SQUIRE P.C.
          885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 308-5858
          Facsimile: (212) 486-0462
          E-mail: eagel@bespc.com

               - and -

          Danielle S. Myers, Esq.
          Michael Albert, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: dmyers@rgrdlaw.com
                  malbert@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          PROVOST UMPHREY LAW FIRM, LLP
          3232 Mckinney Avenue, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (214) 744-3000
          Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
          E-mail: administrator@kendalllawgroup.com

               - and -

          Damion M Clifford, Esq.
          JAMES E. ARNOLD & ASSOCIATES, LPA
          115 W. Main Street, 4th Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 460-1635
          Facsimile: (614) 469-1093
          E-mail: dclifford@arnlaw.com

               - and -

          James E. Arnold, Esq.
          JAMES E. ARNOLD & ASSOCIATES, LPA
          115 W. Main Street, Ste 400
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 460-1610
          Facsimile: (614) 469-1066
          E-mail: jarnold@arnlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Geoffrey J. Ritts, Esq.
          Marjorie P. Duffy, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          901 Lakeside Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 586-3939
          Facsimile: (216) 579-0212
          E-mail: gjritts@jonesday.com
                  mpduffy@jonesday.com


DISH NETWORK: Judgment in Krakauer Class Action Paid
----------------------------------------------------
DISH Network Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the judgment in the
"Krakauer Action" was paid to the court during the three months
ended September 30, 2019.

A portion of the alleged telemarketing violations by an independent
third-party retailer at issue in the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
Action are also the subject of a certified class action filed
against DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of North Carolina (the "Krakauer Action").  

Following a five-day trial, on January 19, 2017, a jury in that
case found that the independent third-party retailer was acting as
DISH Network L.L.C.'s agent when it made the 51,119 calls at issue
in that case, and that class members are eligible to recover $400
in damages for each call made in violation of the TCPA.  

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

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

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


On October 15, 2019, DISH Network L.L.C. filed a petition for writ
of certiorari, requesting that the United States Supreme Court
agree to hear a further appeal.  

During the second quarter 2017, the company recorded $41 million of
"Litigation expense" related to the Krakauer Action on the
company's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and
Comprehensive Income (Loss).  

The company recorded $20 million of "Litigation expense" related to
the Krakauer Action during the fourth quarter 2016. The company's
total accrual related to the Krakauer Action at December 31, 2018
was $61 million and was included in "Other accrued expenses" on the
company's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.  During the three
months ended September 30, 2019, the judgment was paid to the
court.

DISH Network said, "We intend to vigorously defend these cases.  We
cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of these
suits."

DISH Network Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides
pay-TV services in the United States. The company operates in two
segments, Pay-TV and Wireless. DISH Network Corporation was founded
in 1980 and is headquartered in Englewood, Colorado.


DISH NETWORK: Still Defends Hallandale Police & Firefighters' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
DISH Network Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, City of
Hallandale Beach Police Officers' and Firefighters' Personnel
Retirement Trust v. Ergen, et al., Case No. A-19-797799-B.

On July 2, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by a
purported EchoStar stockholder in the District Court of Clark
County, Nevada under the caption City of Hallandale Beach Police
Officers' and Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Trust v. Ergen, et
al., Case No. A-19-797799-B.  

The lawsuit named as defendants Charles Ergen, the other members of
the EchoStar Board, as well as EchoStar, certain of its officers,
DISH Network and certain of DISH Network's and EchoStar's
affiliates.  

Plaintiff alleges, among other things, breach of fiduciary duties
in approving the transactions contemplated under the Master
Transaction Agreement for inadequate consideration and pursuant to
an unfair and conflicted process, and that EchoStar, DISH Network
and certain other defendants aided and abetted such breaches.  

In the operative First Amended Complaint, filed on October 11,
2019, the plaintiff dropped as defendants the EchoStar board
members other than Mr. Ergen.  

Plaintiff seeks equitable relief, including the issuance of
additional DISH Network Class A Common Stock, monetary relief and
other costs and disbursements, including attorneys' fees.

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

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

DISH Network Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides
pay-TV services in the United States. The company operates in two
segments, Pay-TV and Wireless. DISH Network Corporation was founded
in 1980 and is headquartered in Englewood, Colorado.


E DIAMOND ELECTRIC: Flores Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eliazar A. Flores and Rafael Ramirez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. E DIAMOND ELECTRIC, INC., Case No.
4:19-cv-04791 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 10, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, lost wages, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendant as Electricians,
who that traveled throughout Houston on behalf of its
client-customers, also seek to correct the Defendant's unlawful
employment practices, including its failure to abide by wage and
hour laws.

The Plaintiffs are paid wages for 40 hours a week, even though they
consistently worked 60-72 hours per week, according to the
complaint. The Plaintiffs were not compensated for working more
than 40 hours a week, which equated to one and one-half their
regular rate of pay, as required by overtime compensation laws. The
Defendant has violated the rights of all undocumented immigrant
electricians under the FLSA by failing to pay them overtime
compensation for work performed in excess of 40 hours per week,
says the complaint.

E Diamond Electric, Inc. is a service company that provides
residential and commercial electrical contractor services,
including: main line wiring, breaker boxes, new construction,
hook-ups, repairs, troubleshooting and security.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alfonso Kennard, Jr., Esq.
          KENNARD LAW P.C.
          2603 Augusta Drive, 14th Floor
          Houston, TX 77057
          Telephone: (713) 742-0900
          Email: Alfonso.Kennard@KennardLaw.com


ECONOMY FOOD: Bouchouk Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abdellah Bouchouk, and other similarly situated individuals v.
ECONOMY FOOD STORE, INC. d/b/a TRUE VALUE FOOD STORES, INC. a/k/a
SHOP SMART FOOD MARKET, INC a/k/a SAVER'S CHOICE FOOD STORES INC.
d/b/a Economy Food Store, RASHEED ALMASARWEH, GHADA ALMASARWEH, and
IBRAHIM ALMASAR WEH, Case No. 1:19-cv-25090-FAM (S.D. Fla., Dec.
10, 2019), is brought to recover money damages for unpaid overtime
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked an average of 98 hours per week (14 hour
shifts, 7 days per week) without being compensated at the rate of
not less than one and one half times the regular rate at which he
was employed, says the complaint. The Defendant did not properly
compensate the Plaintiff for hours that he worked in excess of 40
per week.

The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendants as a Cashier,
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages accumulated from the date of
hire and/or from 3 years back from the date of the filing of this
Complaint.

The Defendants operate as an organization, which sells and/or
markets its services and/or goods to customers throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiff, of Miramar, Florida, appears pro se.[BN]


EMPIRE RESORTS: Continues to Defend Hercules-Merger Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Empire Resorts, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on November 6, 2019, that
the company continues to defend Hercules Topco LLC merger-related
class action suits.

On August 18, 2019, Empire Resorts, Inc. entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), by and among Hercules
Topco LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Parent"),
Hercules Merger Subsidiary Inc., a Delaware corporation and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), and the Company.
Parent and Merger Sub are affiliates of Kien Huat Realty III
Limited ("Kien Huat") and Genting Malaysia Berhard ("GenM").

Kien Huat, GenM and their respective affiliates are currently the
holders of approximately 86% of the voting power of the Company's
outstanding capital stock.

The Merger Agreement provides for, upon the terms and subject to
the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, the merger of
Merger Sub with and into the Company, with the Company surviving as
a subsidiary of Parent (the "Merger").

On October 8, 2019 and October 28, 2019, respectively, two putative
class action complaints challenging the Merger were filed in New
York State Supreme Court, Sullivan County.

The first Sullivan County case is captioned David Mullen v. Empire
Resorts, Inc. et al., Index No. E2019-2085 (the "Mullen State Court
Litigation").

The second Sullivan County case is captioned Julie Milano v. Empire
Resorts, Inc. et al., Index No. E2019-2207 (the "Milano
Litigation," and, collectively with the Mullen State Court
Litigation, the "Sullivan County Litigations").

The Sullivan County Litigations allege that the members of the
Company's Board of Directors (the "Board") breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the negotiation and approval of the
Merger Agreement, as well as in authorizing the disclosures made in
the Company's preliminary proxy statement filed with the SEC on
September 24, 2019 (the "Preliminary Proxy").

The Sullivan County Litigations further allege that each of the
Company, Parent, Merger Sub, Kien Huat, and GenM aided and abetted
the Board’s alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. On October 28,
2019, the plaintiff in the Mullen State Court Litigation
voluntarily dismissed the Mullen State Court Litigation.

On October 15, 2019, October 18, 2019 and October 29, 2019,
respectively, three federal complaints challenging the Merger were
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware and the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The Delaware federal case is captioned Adam
Franchi v. Empire Resorts, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01947-RGA
(the "Franchi Litigation") and the two New York federal cases are
captioned David Mullen v. Empire Resorts, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-09632-LAK (the "Mullen Federal Litigation") and Harold
Litwin v. Empire Resorts, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-10026 (the
"Litwin Litigation," and, collectively with the Franchi Litigation,
the Milano Litigation, and the Mullen Federal Litigation, the
"Merger Litigations").

In the Franchi Litigation, Mullen Federal Litigation, and Litwin
Litigation, each plaintiff asserts claims against the Company and
certain members of the Board under Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, as well
as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Each plaintiff alleges that the Company's definitive proxy
statement filed with the SEC on October 11, 2019 was misleading and
omitted certain information with respect to the Merger.

Each of the Merger Litigations seeks, among other things, to enjoin
the Merger and recover damages, as well as an award of the
plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs of the litigation.

The defendants deny all such allegations and believe the Merger
Litigations are without merit. Furthermore, the defendants believe
that the disclosures in the Preliminary Proxy and the Proxy
Statement are adequate under the law. However, to alleviate the
costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation and provide
additional information to its stockholders, the Company has
determined to voluntarily supplement the Proxy Statement.

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://bit.ly/2YtEUho.

Empire Resorts, Inc. operates as a casino. The Company offers
gaming, raceway, poker room, bars, restaurants, and lounges. Empire
Resorts serves customers in the United States. The company is based
in Monticello, New York.


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Aronow Files FCRA Class Suitt in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Experian Information
Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Rise Aronow, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Experian
Information Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06952
(E.D.N.Y., Dec. 11, 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, also known as Experian Americas, is
the US-based arm of global credit reporting agency Experian plc .
The unit provides credit reporting and lead generation services by
tapping its database of 235 million US consumers and some 25
million US businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
   Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
   735 Central Avenue
   Woodmere, NY 11598
   Tel: (516) 668-6945
   Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Rosenbluh Files FCRA Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Experian Information
Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Chanie Rosenbluh,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-06925 (E.D. N.Y., Dec. 10, 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, also known as Experian Americas, is
the US-based arm of global credit reporting agency Experian plc.
The unit provides credit reporting and lead generation services by
tapping its database of 235 million US consumers and some 25
million US businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
   Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
   735 Central Avenue
   Woodmere, NY 11598
   Tel: (516) 668-6945
   Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com



EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Tailford Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Theresa Tailford, Sanford
Buckles, Jeffrey C. Ruderman, and all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 30-2019-01102976, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Orange to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Santa
Ana) on Nov. 12, 2019.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:19-cv-02191 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Experian operates as an information services company. The company
offers credit information, analytical tools, and marketing
services.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Richard Joseph Grabowski, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800
          Irvine, CA 92612-4408
          Telephone: (949) 851-3939
          Facsimile: (949) 553-7539
          E-mail: rgrabowski@jonesday.com


FIRST NATIONAL: Kim Alleges Violation under FDCPA in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against First National
Collection Bureau, Inc. The case is styled as Heung Kim,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. First National Collection Bureau, Inc. and LVNV
Funding, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-21236-WJM-MF (D.N.J.,
Dec. 10, 2019).

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

First National Collection Bureau, Inc is a Debt collection
agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   CRAIG B. SANDERS, Esq.
   BARSHAY SANDERS PLLC
   100 GARDEN CITY PLAZA, SUITE 500
   GARDEN CITY, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com


FITBIT INC: Being Sold to Google for Too Little, Estes Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Estes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. FITBIT, INC., JAMES PARK, ERIC N. FRIEDMAN, LAURA
ALBER, MATTHEW BROMBER, GLENDA FLANAGAN, BRADLEY M. FLUEGEL, STEVEN
MURRAY and CHRISTOPHER PAISLEY, Case No. 3:19-cv-08059 (N.D. Cal.,
Dec. 10, 2019), is brought against Fitbit and its Board of
Directors for violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934.

Mr. Estes alleges that the Defendants breach their fiduciary duties
in connection with their efforts to sell the Company to Google,
LLC, and Magnoliophyta, Inc., as a result of an unfair process for
an unfair price.  He seeks to enjoin an upcoming stockholder vote
on the proposed all cash transaction valued at approximately $2.1
billion.

The terms of the Proposed Transaction were memorialized in a
November 1, 2019, filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Form 8-K attaching the definitive Agreement and Plan
of Merger. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Fitbit will
become an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Google, and Fitbit
stockholders will receive only $7.35 in cash for each share of
Fitbit common stock they own. As a result of the Proposed
Transaction, the Plaintiff and other Fitbit stockholders will be
frozen out of any future ownership interest in the Company.

In approving the Proposed Transaction, the Individual Defendants
have breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, due
care and disclosure by, inter alia, (i) agreeing to sell Fitbit
without first taking steps to ensure that Plaintiff and Class
members would obtain adequate, fair and maximum consideration under
the circumstances; and (ii) engineering the Proposed Transaction to
benefit themselves and/or Google without regard for Fitbit public
stockholders.

Accordingly, this action seeks to enjoin the Proposed Transaction
and compel the Individual Defendants to properly exercise their
fiduciary duties to Fitbit stockholders.

The Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's
shareholders by agreeing to the Proposed Transaction, which
undervalues Fitbit and is the result of a flawed sales process, the
Plaintiff contends. Post-closure, Fitbit shareholders will be
frozen out of seeing the return on their investment of any and all
future profitability of Fitbit.

In violation of the Exchange Act and their fiduciary duties, the
Defendants caused to be filed the materially deficient Preliminary
Proxy on November 26, 2019, with the SEC in an effort to solicit
stockholders to vote their Fitbit shares in favor of the Proposed
Transaction, Mr. Estes also alleges. He contends that the
Preliminary Proxy is materially deficient and deprives Fitibit
stockholders of the information they need to make an intelligent,
informed and rational decision of whether to tender their shares in
favor of the Proposed Transaction. The Preliminary Proxy omits
and/or misrepresents material information concerning, among other
things: (a) the Company's financial projections; (b) the sales
process of the Company; and (b) the data and inputs underlying the
financial valuation analyses that purport to support the fairness
opinions provided by the Company's financial advisor, Qatalyst
Partners LLP, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has been a Fitbit stockholder.

Fitbit provides health solutions in the United States and
internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Ryan P. Cardona, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Phone: (877) 534-2590
          Facsimile: (310) 247-0160
          Email: esmith@brodskysmith.com
                 rcardona@brodskysmith.com


FLOOR AND DECOR: Hammond Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Germma Hammond, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated employees v. FLOOR AND DECOR OUTLETS OF AMERICA, INC.,
Case No. 3:19-cv-01099 (M.D. Tenn., Dec. 10, 2019), is brought to
recover unpaid overtime compensation and to remedy violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Plaintiff alleges that he regularly works more than 40 hours
per week without receiving overtime compensation for all hours
worked over 40 at one- and one-half times their regular rates of
pay. In order to avoid paying the Plaintiff overtime compensation
for all hours worked over 40 per workweek, the Defendant
systematically and willfully deleted time from the recorded hours
for the Plaintiff and other Hourly Workers. The Defendant enforced
a uniform policy or practice nationwide to deprive Hourly Workers
of earned overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Hammond began working at the Nashville Store as a
Warehouse Associate in October 2016.

F&D is a hard-surface flooring company operating 103
warehouse-format stores in 28 states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq.
          N. Chase Teeples, Esq.
          YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC
          2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-200
          Nashville, TN 37215
          Phone: (615) 250-2000
          Fax: (615) 250-2020
          Email: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com
                 teeples@yezbaklaw.com

               - and -

          Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq.
          Diana J. Nobile, Esq.
          MCGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP
          1101 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: (202) 833-8855
          Facsimile: (202) 452-1090
          Email: gkm@mselaborlaw.com
                 djn@mselaborlaw.com


FRONTIER AIRLINES: Hodgkins Sues Over Pregnancy Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Hodgkins, Stacy Rewitzer, Renee Schwartzkopf, and Heather
Crowe, on behalf of themselves, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC., Case No.
1:19-cv-03469 (D. Colo., Dec. 10, 2019), accuses the Defendant of
discriminating against its pregnant or nursing flight attendants.

The Plaintiffs allege that Frontier's treatment of flight
attendants, who are pregnant or breastfeeding, has violated and
continues to violate state and federal law, including Title VII of
the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the
Colorado Law on Reasonable Accommodations for Pregnancy,
Childbirth, and Related Conditions, the Colorado Workplace
Accommodations for Nursing Mothers Act, and the Colorado
Anti-discrimination Act.

The Plaintiffs were dedicated to the careers they loved and assumed
they would be able to continue working while raising their
children--after all, the right to keep your job during pregnancy
and after having a baby has been the law for more than 40 years,
since the enactment of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Yet the
Plaintiffs found themselves faced with mounting obstacles once they
became pregnant that forced them to make impossible choices between
their families and their livelihood--precisely the type of choices
that the PDA was intended to prevent, according to the complaint.

Frontier's failure to account for their needs related to pregnancy
and breastfeeding caused them to suffer serious penalties, both at
and outside of work, simply because they had children, the
Plaintiffs contend. The Plaintiffs say they faced discipline for
absences related to pregnancy, and were eventually forced onto
unpaid leave weeks or months before their due dates with no
alternatives, depriving them of critical income when they needed it
the most, says the complaint.

With no paid parental leave and only the short unpaid leave
required by federal law under the FMLA--if any remained to
them--the Plaintiffs were all still breastfeeding their newborns
when it came time for them to return to work. Yet Frontier refused
to make it possible for them to pump breast milk on the job, which
they needed to do to be able to continue nursing. This left the
Plaintiffs with the Hobson's choice of continuing to breastfeed or
earning a paycheck.

The Plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of themselves and a class of
all similarly situated workers that Frontier has systematically
discriminated against--pregnant and breastfeeding flight
attendants--by penalizing them for pregnancy-related absences
protected under the FMLA, singling out pregnancy and breastfeeding
for worse treatment than other conditions, and failing to comply
with Colorado laws that require employers to accommodate pregnancy
and related medical conditions.

The Plaintiffs are female flight attendants at Frontier Airlines.

Frontier Airlines is a corporation registered in and with a
principle place of business located in Denver, Colorado.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sara R. Neel, Esq.
          Mark Silverstein, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF COLORADO
          303 East 17thAvenue, Suite 350
          Denver, CO 80203
          Phone: 720-402-3107
          Fax: 303-777-1773
          Email: sneel@aclu-co.org
                 msilverstein@aclu-co.org

               - and -

          Galen Sherwin, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          WOMEN'S RIGHTS PROJECT
          125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
          New York, New York 10004
          Phone: 212-519-7819
          Email: gsherwin@aclu.org

               - and -

          Vincent Levy, Esq.
          Jayme Jonat, Esq.
          Lani Perlman, Esq.
          HOLWELL SHUSTER & GOLDBERG LLP
          IN COOPERATION WITH THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          425 Lexington Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 646-837-5151
          Fax: 646-837-5150
          Email: vlevy@hsgllp.com
                 jjonat@hsgllp.com
                 lperlman@hsgllp.com

               - and -

          Juno Turner, Esq.
          David H. Seligman, Esq.
          TOWARDS JUSTICE
          1410 High Street, Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80219
          Phone: 720.239.2060
          Email: juno@towardsjustice.org
                 david@towardsjustice.org


FRONTIER COMM: Motion for Leave to Amend Connecticut Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Frontier Communications 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 a
motion for leave to amend a consolidated class action suit in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut remains
pending.

On April 30, 2018, an amended consolidated class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut on behalf of certain purported stockholders against
Frontier, certain of its current and former directors and officers
and the underwriters of certain Frontier securities offerings.

The complaint was brought on behalf of all persons who (1) acquired
Frontier common stock between February 6, 2015 and February 28,
2018, inclusive, and/or (2) acquired Frontier common stock or
Mandatory Convertible Preferred Stock either in or traceable to
Frontier's offerings of common and preferred stock conducted on or
about June 2, 2015 and June 8, 2015.

The complaint asserted, among other things, violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule
10b-5 thereunder, Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Sections 11
and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection
with certain disclosures relating to the CTF Acquisition. The
complaint sought, among other things, damages and equitable and
injunctive relief.

On March 8, 2019, the District Court granted in its entirety
Frontier's motion to dismiss the complaint. The District Court
dismissed with prejudice a number of claims and with respect to
certain other claims that were not dismissed with prejudice,
Plaintiffs were permitted to seek the court’s permission to
refile.

On May 10, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend along
with a proposed amended complaint that is narrower in scope than
the dismissed complaint.  

Frontier filed an opposition to the motion for leave to amend, and
the motion remains pending.

Frontier said, "We continue to dispute the allegations and intend
to vigorously defend against such claims."

Frontier Communications Corporation provides communications
services to consumer, commercial, and wholesale customers in the
United States. It offers broadband, video, voice, and other
services and products through a combination of fiber and copper
based networks to consumer customers. The company was formerly
known as Citizens Communications Company and changed its name to
Frontier Communications Corporation in July 2008. Frontier
Communications Corporation was founded in 1927 and is based in
Norwalk, Connecticut.


GHIRARDELLI CHOCOLATE: Prescott Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Steven Prescott and Linda
Cheslow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Company, Defendant,
Case No. SCV-265203, was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of Sonoma, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Nov. 13, 2019.

The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-07467 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Dale Joseph Giali, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
          Telephone: (213) 229-9509
          Facsimile: (213) 625-0248
          E-mail: dgiali@mayerbrown.com


GLASS MOUNTAIN: Mumin Alleges Violation under FDCPA in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Glass Mountain
Capital, LLC. The case is styled as Ayana Mumin, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Glass
Mountain Capital, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11293 (S.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 10, 2019).

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

Glass Mountain Capital LLC is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David Michael Barshay, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza
   Ste 5th Floor
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 706-5055
   Email: dbarshay@bakersanders.com




KUDULIS REISINGER: Luca Alleges Violation under FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kudulis, Reisinger,
and Price, LLC. The case is styled as John Luca, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kudulis,
Reisinger, and Price, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-63035-RS
(S.D., Fla., Dec. 10, 2019).

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

Kudulis Reisinger Price is a law firm in Birmingham, Alabama
focusing on various areas of law.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   JibraelJarallah Said Hindi, Esq.
   The Law Offices of Jibrael S. Hindi
   110 SE 6th St.
   17th Floor
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 907-1136
   Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com


MDL 2804: Columbiana County Opts to Remain in Opioid Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Giambroni, writing for Morning Journal, reports that Columbiana
County commissioners have opted to remain in the federal class
action lawsuit they joined in 2017 against opioid manufacturers and
distributors.

The issue came up at the Oct. 30 board meeting when commissioners
acted on a resolution drafted by their attorney saying the county
intends to remain in the lawsuit they became part of more than two
years ago.

Local governments across Ohio joined in the class action lawsuit
filed against major drug wholesalers and manufacturers responsible
for 85 percent of all prescription opioid painkillers distributed
to pharmacies and doctors over a number of years. The lawsuit
alleges these companies, by engaging in business practices that
violated federal regulations, created and perpetuated the opioid
crisis, thereby creating a public health and safety crisis.

All counties and municipalities were automatically added to the
lawsuit, regardless of whether they voted like commissioners to
formally become a plaintiff. The resolution is in response to a
federal court notice from September advising plaintiffs this was
likely their last opportunity to be dropped from the lawsuit if
they so choose. Commission Chairman Mike Halleck said they are
being asked to reaffirm their intention to remain part of the class
action lawsuit as a precaution.

"Basically, we haven't done anything except to stay where we are
at," he said.

In recent weeks, Ohio Attorney General David Yost filed a lawsuit
saying there should be a single state lawsuit so any settlement can
be distributed evenly across Ohio, and four other state attorneys
general are pushing for a single nationwide settlement of all
opioid lawsuits.

In other action, Commissioner Tim Weigle took a moment to recognize
county Emergency Management Agency Director Peggy Clark, who was
recently certified as an EMA manager by the Ohio EMA. To achieve
this distinction, the applicant has to meet seven criteria, which
includes passing two full-scale disaster response exercises,
undergo more than 300 hours of related training and serve at least
three years as EMA director or deputy director.

The count investment advisory board, which consists of
commissioners, the county treasurer and clerk of courts, met during
the board meeting. Treasurer Linda Bolon said the county has earned
$1 million in investment income so far this year, but she said some
of the key indicators followed by economists show a recession may
be on the way.

"We are doing well but we should still watch those indicators and
be conservative with our investments," she told commissioners.
[GN]


MICROCHIP TECH: Bid to Dismiss Jackson Class Action Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Microchip Technology 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 class action suit entitled, Jackson v.
Microchip Technology Inc., et al., is still pending.

Beginning on September 14, 2018, the Company and certain of its
officers were named in two putative shareholder class action
lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Arizona, captioned Jackson v. Microchip Technology Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:18-cv-02914-JJT and Maknissian v. Microchip Technology
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02924-JJT. On November 13, 2018, the
Maknissian complaint was voluntarily dismissed.  

The Jackson complaint is allegedly brought on behalf of a putative
class of purchasers of Microchip common stock between March 2, 2018
and August 9, 2018.  

The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws and generally alleges that the defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects during the putative class period.  

The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and
attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative class.  

On December 11, 2018, the Court issued an order appointing the lead
plaintiff.  An amended complaint was filed on February 22, 2019.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on April
1, 2019.

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

Microchip Technology Inc. develops and manufactures semiconductor
products for various embedded control applications worldwide. The
company, which was incorporated in 1989, is based in Chandler,
Arizona.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Echols Files FDCPA Suit in Michigan
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Deline Echols, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland Funding, LLC and John Does
1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-13629-AJT-RSW (E.D., Mich., Dec.
10, 2019).

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

Midland Credit Management, Inc. (MCM), a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Encore Capital Group, Inc., is a specialty finance company
providing debt recovery solutions for consumers across a broad
range of assets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Yaakov Saks, Esq.
   Stein Saks, PLLC
   285 Passaic Street
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500
   Fax: (201) 282-6501
   Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Gabriel Asserts Breach of FDCPA in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Christina Gabriel,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-10426 (C.D., Cal., Dec. 10, 2019).

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

Midland Credit Management, Inc. (MCM), a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Encore Capital Group, Inc., is a specialty finance company
providing debt recovery solutions for consumers across a broad
range of assets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Nicholas M Wajda, Esq.
   Wajda Law Group APC
   6167 Bristol Parkway Suite 200
   Culver City, CA 90230
   Tel: (310) 997-0471
   Fax: (866) 286-8433
   Email: nick@wajdalawgroup.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Nash Files DFCPA Class Suit in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Robert Nash, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-08077
(N.D., Ill., Dec. 10, 2019).

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

Midland Credit Management, Inc. (MCM), a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Encore Capital Group, Inc., is a specialty finance company
providing debt recovery solutions for consumers across a broad
range of assets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
   Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
   2500 S. Highland Avenue. Suite 200
   Lombard, IL 60148
   Tel: (630) 575-8181
   Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com


MOMENTA PHARMA: Dec. 19 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP issued a press release
relating to Lovenox(R), stating that:

Hospitals, third-party payors, and people could be affected by a
class action lawsuit against Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
Sandoz Inc. ("Defendants") over prices of anticoagulant medications
Lovenox(R) and generic enoxaparin. The Court has approved the
lawsuit as class actions on behalf of a "class," or group of people
and businesses. There is no money available now and no guarantee
that there will be.

The lawsuit claims that the Defendants kept the prices of
Lovenox(R) and generic enoxaparin higher than they otherwise would
have been. The Court has not determined who is right or whether
either side won. The lawyers for Plaintiffs will have to prove
their claims in Court. No one is claiming that Lovenox(R) or
generic enoxaparin are unsafe or ineffective.

This is a class action lawsuit. The Class includes:

   * Hospitals, third-party payors, and people without insurance
who indirectly purchased, paid for, and/or reimbursed some or all
of the purchase price for, Lovenox(R) or generic enoxaparin,

   * In Arizona, Arkansas, California, District of Columbia,
Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West
Virginia, and Wisconsin,

   * From September 21, 2011 through September 30, 2015,

   * For the purpose of personal consumption by themselves, their
families, or their members, employees, insureds, participants,
patients, beneficiaries or anyone else.

In addition to hospitals, the Class only includes third-party
payors and people without insurance  who purchased, paid for,
and/or reimbursed some or all of the purchase price for, Lovenox(R)
or generic enoxaparin from a pharmacy. This means that third-party
payors and people without insurance will only be able to recover
damages, if at all, for Lovenox(R) or generic enoxaparin dispensed
from a pharmacy.

Class Members may be impacted by the outcome of this lawsuit.  The
Plaintiffs are asking for money from the Defendants for the Class.

The Court has appointed a group of attorneys to represent the Class
as "Class Counsel." Class Members don't have to pay Class Counsel
or anyone else to participate. Instead, if they get money for the
Class, they may ask for attorneys' fees and costs. Any fees and
costs would be deducted from any money obtained or paid separately
by the Defendants. Class Members may hire their own lawyer to
appear in Court for them at their own expense.

Class Members have two options:

Stay in the Class: To stay in the Class, Class Members do not have
to do anything. If money is obtained, they will be notified about
how to ask for a share.

Get out of the Class: If they want to keep their right to sue
Defendants on their own or if they simply do not want to be
included, they need to exclude themselves. If they exclude
themselves, they cannot get money or benefits from this lawsuit if
any are awarded. Class Members must exclude themselves by December
19, 2019.

For More Information and a Detailed Notice, please visit
www.DVTmedslawsuit.com or call 1-866-411-6987.

           About Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP is a ninety-plus attorney
law firm with offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville.
The firm represents clients in individual, group, and class action
lawsuits in federal courts nationwide. Lieff Cabraser has litigated
and resolved hundreds of class action lawsuits and thousands of
individual cases. [GN]


MYER: King & Wood Mallesons Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moira Saville, Esq. -- moira.saville@au.kwm.com -- Alexander
Morris, Esq. -- alexander.morris@au.kwm.com -- and David Kennelly,
Esq., of King & Wood Mallesons, in an article for Lexology, report
that listed companies are subject to continuous disclosure
obligations under the Corporations Act 2001 (the Act) and the ASX
Listing Rules.  Some of the principles underpinning those
continuous disclosure obligations remain contested or unclear.  Two
recent Federal Court of Australia decisions have offered some 500
pages of valuable judicial discussion regarding a company's
continuous disclosure obligations, what constitutes disclosable
information, and what losses may flow from a breach established by
indirect, market-based causation.

On Thursday, Oct. 24, 2019, Justice Beach handed down his decision
in Myer, a securities class action about alleged misleading and
deceptive conduct by Myer in the course of profit and earnings
guidance statements.  His Honour found that Myer failed to correct
earnings guidance that it knew was unachievable but that there was
no loss created by that failure because the market was sceptical
about the correctness of the guidance.

On Friday, Oct. 18, 2019, Justice Foster handed down his decision
in Babcock & Brown, a case with some similarities to Myer but with
contesting views on market-based causation.

The Myer decision

On Sept. 11, 2014, Myer released its Preliminary Financial Report,
accompanied by media and ASX releases, for its financial year
ending July 26, 2014.  Within those releases, Myer said nothing
about whether it would achieve profit growth or Net Profit After
Tax (NPAT) for the financial year ending July 26, 2015.  On the
same date, on its earnings call, Myer's then CEO Bernie Brookes
said that "we will therefore not only have anticipated sales
growth, but anticipated profit growth this year".

Myer wound back its guidance on 19 March 2015 when it released an
ASX and media release disclosing that its expected NPAT would be in
the range of $75 to $80 million.  Subsequent to this there was an
immediate drop in Myer's share price on the ASX, totalling
approximately $114 million of its market capitalisation.

On Dec. 29, 2016, TPT Patrol Pty Limited, as trustee for Amies
Superannuation Fund (the Applicant), filed 'representative
proceedings' (commonly known as a class action) in the Federal
Court of Australia.  The Applicant claimed that:

1. Myer made the 11 September 2014 disclosures without reasonable
basis which were representations about a future matter and
therefore misleading and deceptive, contravening section 1041H of
the Act;

2. Myer's failure to correct its guidance during the period between
the 11 September 2014 disclosures and the 19 March 2015 disclosure,
particularly after it became aware of certain information no later
than 11 November 2014, constituted a breach of its continuous
disclosure obligations contained within section 674 of the Act and
rule 3.1 of the ASX Listing Rules, which also contravened section
1041H;

3. Myer's publications on 21 October, 11 November and 21 November
2014, and 2 and 3 March 2015 constituted misleading conduct because
those publications did not disclose the specific information in
claim 2 above; and

4. Mr Brookes' statement on the earnings call was a continuing
representation without reasonable basis, contravening section 769C
of the Act.

The Applicant was not successful in the first, third or fourth
claim, but was on the second.  Justice Beach found that adjusted
guidance that Myer failed to disclose on the five separate dates
outlined in claim 3 above was in the range of $89-92 million, not
as low as $75-$80 million as the applicant claimed.  However,
Justice Beach was not convinced there was subsequent loss or damage
flowing from the failure to update the ASX and the market.  His
Honour found that 'the hard-edged scepticism of market analysts and
market markers at the time of the contraventions had already
deflated Mr Brookes' inflated views'.

The Babcock & Brown decision

The Babcock & Brown decision does not concern a class action; it
consisted of roughly 1,200 claims by separate plaintiffs across
three proceedings that were heard together.  That procedural
difference aside, the plaintiffs pleaded similar facts to the Myer
case, though sought relief based upon the alleged breach by Babcock
& Brown of section 674 of the Act pursuant to section 1317HA which
permits recovery of compensation for damage resulting from a breach
of a financial services civil penalty provision.

In its 2007 Annual Report, published on April 17, 2008, Babcock &
Brown announced its expected group NPAT for the 2008 financial year
to be at least $750 million, a year on year improvement in excess
of 15%.  That guidance was reaffirmed at its AGM on 30 May 2008.

On Aug. 11, 2008, Babcock & Brown announced that its interim
results in terms of NPAT were expected to be 25%-40% lower than the
previous year's interim result, explaining the discrepancy by
reference to the emerging global financial crisis (as it is now
known) and subsequently downgrading its expected annual NPAT to
less than $643 million.  It made further announcements on 18 and 21
August detailing the reasoning for such a significant downgrade.

Several further announcements followed during the following months,
leading up to its Jan. 7, 2009 release to the ASX which stated that
it would be in a 'substantial negative net asset position at Dec.
31, 2008, which led to an immediate trading halt and ultimately its
entry into liquidation.

The plaintiffs alleged that five separate non-disclosures outlined
in "Ramification for securities litigation in Australia" below.
Justice Foster found that the alleged breaches were either not made
out, subject to listing rule exemptions, or did not pass the test
for 'materiality' in the Act.

This proceeding is not the first to have tested Babcock & Brown's
disclosures against the continuous disclosure regime, following the
2015 Federal Court proceedings before Justice Perram and the
subsequent appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court.

Ramifications for securities litigation in Australia

Market-based causation

In order to successfully establish a misleading or deceptive
conduct claim, a plaintiff must establish that the conduct caused
loss or damage.  In shareholder class actions, there are various
causation possibilities including: (a) establishing direct
reliance; (b) satisfying a form of indirect causation; or (c)
invoking the US-style "fraud on the market" causation theory. The
legal causation test relevant to misleading or deceptive conduct is
found in section 1041I of the Act which requires establishing "loss
or damage by conduct of another person".

Market-based causation in Myer

In Myer, Justice Beach held that the applicant had made out a
cogent argument that market-based causation applied to the
misleading and deceptive conduct claim, but that it resulted in no
loss.

In order to establish a breach of section 674 of the Act, there are
hurdle requirements in section 676 (when information is generally
available) and relevantly section 677 (material effect on price or
value), which says:

. . . a reasonable person would be taken to expect information to
have a material effect on the price or value of ED securities of a
disclosing entity if the information would, or would be likely to,
influence persons who commonly invest in securities in deciding
whether to acquire or dispose of the ED securities.

The applicant's expert Mr Houston used Bloomberg consensus
estimates as a proxy for the opinion of the 'persons who commonly
invest in securities'.  At paragraph 1512, his Honour explains his
reasoning as to why Mr Houston stated the market-based causation
hypothesis in such a way that it presents no loss or damage:

As I have previously indicated, Mr Houston has used the wrong
hypothesised counterfactual disclosure. Further, when one uses the
correct counterfactual disclosure it would seem, given how the
event study analysis has been carried out and using the inflation
based measure of loss, that there is no meaningful share price
inflation and accordingly no loss. This is because Mr Houston used
Bloomberg consensus estimates as a proxy for market expectations as
to NPAT which he said was factored into the price of MYR ED
securities. But the correct counterfactual disclosure concerning
FY15 NPAT would have disclosed, in essence, similar figures to that
of the Bloomberg consensus save with two qualifications. First, the
disclosure required by Myer on 21 November 2014 would not have
mirrored that consensus. Second, Myer's disclosure would have
reflected its own opinions as to NPAT which, as I have said, were
of a different quality to the Bloomberg consensus.

Later at paragraph 1714 his Honour confirms that:

Mr Houston's evidence establishes that his inflation figures would
only represent loss if the case against Myer was that it was under
an obligation to disclose, earlier than it did, that it expected
its FY15 NPAT to be below consensus. But such a case has not been
established.

There is an implication that, if the case were stated in that way,
then his Honour would find market-based causation to be a valid
means of establishing loss and damage.  His Honour agreed (at
[629]) with Myer's argument that the drop on 19 March 2015 was
attributable to the market being informed that Myer expected its
NPAT to be below analyst consensus. There was no evidence to
suggest the share price would have fallen if the market had merely
been informed that Myer expected its NPAT to be below its guidance
statement.

Market-based causation in Babcock & Brown
In Babcock & Brown, Justice Foster considered that the authorities
are conflicting.  His Honour undertakes a review of the authorities
before him from paragraphs [364] to [381] before noting at [387]
that:

It is not a self-evident proposition that, in all circumstances and
in respect of all listed companies, the downgrading of earnings
forecasts, even to a substantial degree, necessarily leads to a
reduction in the price of the shares in the entity.

While it was not required to be ruled upon in this case, his Honour
concedes at [376] that market-based causation could be invoked by
leading extensive economic expert evidence, though caution should
be taken about the appropriateness of its application.  His Honour
expressed some disquiet that there is 'a serious problem with the
theory' in that it 'allows compensation to people who actually
suffered no loss' (at [392]–[393]).

Authorities prior to Myer and Babcock & Brown

In the mid-2000s two NSW Court of Appeal cases Digi-Tech and Ingot
Capital Investments found 'that an indirect causation case will not
be available where the relevant security holder's investment
decision is part of the causal chain, without proof of his or her
individual reliance on the misrepresentation'.

This was not the first time that, strictly in obiter, a judge has
accepted that market-based causation could be a viable way to
examine loss if liability were established in the context of the
liquidation of Babcock & Brown; see KWM's note on the 2015 first
instance decision of Justice Perram.  That judgment was upheld
(without considering market-based causation) in the 2016 Full Court
appeal in Grant-Taylor v Babcock & Brown.

Outside of the context of securities class actions, Justice
Brereton in HIH Insurance accepted that market-based causation
could be used to establish that a transaction would have taken
place at a different price but for the contravening conduct.
However, his Honour did not accept that market-based causation
could establish whether a transaction would or would not have
otherwise proceeded.

These somewhat conflicting decisions mean that the concept of
market-based causation is still very much contested by divergent
lines of authority.  It may well continue to be so until an
appellate court firmly rules on its validity.

However, the Myer decision strikes a blow to its efficacy as a form
of relief in class action proceedings; the solicitor for the
applicant in Myer  has already indicated that "he would now ask for
access to the Myer share register so that he could write to
shareholders and invite them to individually prove their loss".[8]
Nonetheless, companies should continue to consider the impact that
guidance statements and other disclosures (or their absence) will
have upon the market, but bear in mind that the listing rule
exemptions offer a level of protection as outlined below.

What kind of 'information' is disclosable?

In each of these cases, there were 5 pieces of information that
were assessed by the court for determination as to whether they
should have been disclosed.

Babcock & Brown

A memorandum from the CFO of B&B Mr Larkin to its Board dated 13
August 2008 containing information that FY08 earnings were expected
to be 'materially lower' than as was stated in the 11 August 2008
guidance.  However, Mr Larkin recommended to the Board that it
retain its most recent guidance due to the lack of clarity around
his figures, which were presented with a potential variance of $100
million.  Justice Foster found this uncertainty to mean this
information was both subject to a listing rule 3.1A.1 exemption and
was not material.

An email dated 20 August 2008 sent on behalf of Mr Larkin to
Elizabeth Nosworthy and others proposing new guidance of full-year
NPAT of $400 million and a related memorandum from Mr Larkin to the
Board noting 'significant limitations and qualifications' to the
$400 million estimate. Justice Foster found this non-disclosure to
be uncertain information and thus subject to the listing rule
exemption.

A draft revised earnings guidance dated on or about 8 October 2008,
the existence of which the plaintiffs had deduced from the mention
of that figure and date in a report provided by the plaintiff's
expert witness.  The plaintiffs also referred to this combination
of date and figure in reference to a different profit and loss
forecast document entitled "FLASH" presented to the Board.  His
Honour found this alleged non-disclosure to be insufficiently
made-out, due to the inappropriate inference about the first
document and the lack of weight the second document provided.

Another "FLASH" document presented to the board dated 8 November
2008.  His Honour found this allegation to be better made-out but
nonetheless subject to the listing rule exemption on the basis that
it was a document prepared for the purposes of internal
management.

Two documents purportedly prepared for an audit committee meeting
that was to be held on 19 December 2008 but never took place which
the plaintiffs allege were prepared as early as October 2008.  The
documents were a Finance Report prepared by the CFO and a draft
forecast for review and discussion.  His Honour found that the
information contained within these documents that the plaintiffs
sought to rely on was both subject to a listing rule 3.1A.1
exemption and was not material.

His Honour notes at paragraphs [300] to [302] the arguments put
forward by the parties about the interpretation of the term
'information' before finding 'that the wider interpretation of
"information" was the correct interpretation'.

Myer

Myer's 2014 Annual Report dated 21 October 2014.  Justice Beach
held that Myer did not yet know that its guidance was not supported
by a reasonable basis and thus this allegation was not proven.

A Q1 2015 Myer Holdings Ltd Corporate Sales Call on 11 November
2014.  Justice Beach held that Myer did not yet know that its
guidance was not supported by a reasonable basis and thus this
allegation was not proven.

Myer Holdings Limited Annual General Meeting Chairman's Address on
21 November 2014.  His Honour accepted the applicant's misleading
and deceptive conduct claim in respect of this announcement. His
Honour found that the officer of Myer by this date held the opinion
that the NPAT guidance statement would not be met.

A Myer Holdings Ltd Strategic Review Conference Call on 2 March
2015 and ASX & Media Release of 2 March 2015 entitled "Myer
announces CEO succession and update on strategic review to
transform business for future growth.  His Honour accepted the
applicant's misleading and deceptive conduct claim in respect of
this announcement.

A letter to shareholders on 3 March 2015.  His Honour accepted the
applicant's misleading and deceptive conduct claim in respect of
this document.

His Honour undertakes an extensive review of the listing rule
exemptions and precisely why these documents are not caught by them
which is discussed in "Key takeaways for companies" below.

Continuing representations
Justice Beach found that Myer's non-disclosures were misleading
not only by way of the discrete pieces of information above but
also due to the continuing representation argument made by the
plaintiffs.

After the substantive hearing had concluded, the applicant sought
leave to amend its Statement of Claim to include the pleading that
Mr Brookes' comments on the earnings call was a continuous
representation which caused Myer's conduct, in failing to correct
his comments, to be misleading or deceptive.  This argument allowed
his Honour to find that Myer should have corrected the disclosure
and therefore concluded on that basis, as well as the discrete
bases in paragraphs 3-5 in 3.2 above, that Myer's non-disclosures
were misleading or deceptive.

Statements as to future matters

Myer admitted that their Sept. 11, 2014 releases constituted
statements as to future matters but denied that they had no
reasonable basis for making them.  No argument about the
construction of such statements was heard and so his Honour's
references to these types of representations are in passing.  There
was also no substantive discussion about statements as to future
matters in Babcock & Brown.

Key takeaways for companies

Listing rule exemptions

Paragraph 1 of ASX Listing Rule 3.1A allows for exemptions to
continuous disclosure obligations for information if:

1. It would be a breach of a law to disclose the information;
2. The information concerns an incomplete proposal or negotiation;
3. The information comprises matters of supposition or is
insufficiently definite to warrant disclosure;
4. The information is generated for the internal management
purposes of the entity; or
5. The information is a trade secret.

Paragraphs 2 and 3 require that these types of information must
also be confidential (and ASX must not have formed the view that it
is not confidential) and it must pass a 'reasonable person' test,
who would not expect the information to be disclosed.

The Myer judgment discussed rule 3.1A in depth from paragraphs
[1293] to [1315].  At [1309] his Honour refers to page 38 ASX
Guidance Note 8 which:

. . . goes on to say (p 38) that the reasonable person test also
reinforces that listing rule 3.1A does not operate to protect
information from disclosure if that information is required to be
released in order to correct or prevent a false market. This is
because a reasonable person would expect a listed entity, acting
responsibly, to immediately disclose any information necessary to
correct or prevent a false market in its securities.

His Honour accepted Myer's argument that the information in
question (e.g. draft internal forecasts from October and November
2014) was caught by paragraphs 1 and 2 (i.e. that it is
insufficiently certain and that it is confidential) but that, in
light of Mr Brookes public forecast on 11 September 2014, a
reasonable person would have expected the information to be
disclosed. His Honour accepted Myer's reasons for why the
information was insufficiently certain (which are set out at
[1297]), including that the documents in question were draft
working documents that were subject to further work and did not
reflect the views of management let alone senior management or any
officer, and that they were never presented to, let alone approved
by, the board.

In Babcock & Brown Justice Foster did not need to consider the
effect of the reasonable person test which at the relevant time was
in paragraph 1 of rule 3.1A in identical terms, because he found
that the information did not satisfy the materiality test due to
its uncertainty and is therefore not caught by the Act.

So what does all of this mean for companies presented with
information that may need to be disclosed?  The exception to
Listing Rule 3.1 should still be available in appropriate factual
circumstances.

Future of class action claims depending on market-based causation
Despite the headline-grabbing finding that Myer contravened its
continuous disclosure obligations and was thereby found to have
breached misleading and deceptive conduct provisions, the Myer
decision can be seen as a dagger to the heart of future class
action claims relying on market-based causation.  Both the Myer and
Babcock & Brown decisions found that there was no market-based
causation on the facts of these cases.

It is clear that the courts will not lightly find that such
causation exists and even if it does there will need to be a clear
evidentiary basis that market inflation was caused by the
defendant's misconduct.  As intimated by the applicant in Myer, it
is likely that future actions will attempt to establish what was
previously seen as the more difficult form of causation, being
direct reliance. [GN]


MYRIAD GENETICS: Silverman Class Action Ongoing in Utah Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Myriad Genetics, 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 Ethan
Silverman.

On September 27, 2019, Ethan Silverman, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, filed a purported class action
complaint in the United States District Court, District of Utah,
No. 2:19-cv-00707-PMW, against the company, its President and Chief
Executive Officer, Mark C. Capone, and its Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer, R. Bryan Riggsbee.

This action is premised upon allegations that the Defendants made
false and misleading statements regarding the company's business,
operations, and acquisitions.  

The plaintiff seeks certification as the purported class
representative and the payment of damages allegedly sustained by
plaintiff and the purported class by reason of the allegations set
forth in the complaint, plus interest, and legal and other costs
and fees.  

The Company intends to vigorously defend against this action.  

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

Myriad Genetics, Inc., a molecular diagnostic company, focuses on
developing and marketing novel predictive medicine, personalized
medicine, and prognostic medicine tests worldwide. Myriad Genetics,
Inc. was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Salt Lake City,
Utah.


OFFICE DEPOT: Stein Seeks Overtime Wages for Account Managers
-------------------------------------------------------------
RON STEIN, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OFFICE
DEPOT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01100 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 12,
2019), seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated
damages, and reasonable attorney's fee and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from May 2016 until
September 16, 2019, as an Inside Enterprise Account Manager, whose
primary duties were to manage large commercial enterprise sales
accounts for the Defendant.

Office Depot is an American office supply retailing company
headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Megan E. Evans, Esq.
          ROSS & SCALISE LAW GROUP
          1104 San Antonio Street
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 474-7677
          Facsimile: (512) 474-5306
          E-mail: Megan@rosslawgroup.com


PAPA JOHN'S: Bid to Dismiss Danker Class Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Papa John's 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 29, 2019, that the motion
to dismiss the class action suit entitled, Danker v. Papa John's
International, Inc. et al., is still pending.

On August 30, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court, Southern District of New York on behalf of a
class of investors who purchased or acquired stock in Papa John's
through a period up to and including July 19, 2018.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections l0(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The District Court has appointed the Oklahoma Law Enforcement
Retirement System to lead the case and has also issued a scheduling
order for the case to proceed.  

An amended complaint was filed on February 13, 2019, which the
Company has moved to dismiss.

The Company believes that it has valid and meritorious defenses to
these suits and intends to vigorously defend against them.  

The Company has not recorded any liability related to these
lawsuits as of September 29, 2019 as it does not believe a loss is
probable or reasonably estimable.

Papa John's International, Inc. operates and franchises pizza
delivery and carryout restaurants under the Papa John's trademark
in the United States and internationally. It operates through four
segments: Domestic Company-Owned Restaurants, North America
Commissaries, North America Franchising, and International
Operations. The company was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in
Louisville, Kentucky.


PDL BIOPHARMA: City of Providence Class Action Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
PDL BioPharma, 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 is
defending against a class action lawsuit initiated by the City of
Providence.

On September 18, 2019, the City of Providence filed a civil
antitrust suit on behalf of a putative class of payors in the
Northern District of California against Bausch Health Companies,
Inc., Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Santarus, Inc., Assertio
Therapeutics, Inc., Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and the Company,
inter alia, alleging that a patent settlement agreement between
Assertio and Lupin unlawfully restrained competition in an alleged
market for Glumetza and its AB-rated generic equivalents sold in
the United States. The plaintiffs claim that the settlement
agreement violated the federal Sherman Act and various state
antitrust laws.

The Company appears to be a named defendant due to its purchase
from Assertio in 2013 of a royalty asset based on sales of
Glumetza.

PDL BioPharma said, "To the extent that the Company is required to
remain in the lawsuit, the Company intends to vigorously defend
this matter."

PDL BioPharma, Inc. manages a portfolio of patents and royalty
assets, consisting primarily of its Queen et al. antibody
humanization patents and license agreements with various
biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. The Company is focused
on intellectual property asset management and acquiring new income
generating assets. The company is based is Incline Village,
Nevada.


PERRIGO CO: Roofers' Pension Fund Suit Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 28, 2019, that the company
continues to defend the consolidated securities class action suit
entitled, Roofers' Pension Fund v. Papa, et al.

On May 18, 2016, a shareholder filed a securities case against the
company and its former CEO, Joseph Papa, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey (Roofers' Pension Fund v. Papa, et
al.).

The plaintiff purported to represent a class of shareholders for
the period from April 21, 2015 through May 11, 2016, inclusive. The
original complaint alleged violations of Securities Exchange Act
sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b‑5) and 14(e) against both defendants
and 20(a) control person liability against Mr. Papa.

In general, the allegations concerned the actions taken by the
company and the former executive to defend against the unsolicited
takeover bid by Mylan in the period from April 21, 2015 through
November 13, 2015. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendants
provided inadequate disclosure concerning alleged integration
problems related to the Omega acquisition in the period from April
21, 2015 through May 11, 2016.

On July 19, 2016, a different shareholder filed a securities class
action against the company and its former CEO, Joseph Papa, also in
the District of New Jersey (Wilson v. Papa, et al.). The plaintiff
purported to represent a class of persons who sold put options on
our shares between April 21, 2015 and May 11, 2016.

In general, the allegations and the claims were the same as those
made in the original complaint filed in the Roofers' Pension Fund
case described above. On December 8, 2016, the court consolidated
the Roofers' Pension Fund case and the Wilson case under the
Roofers' Pension Fund case number. In February 2017, the court
selected the lead plaintiffs for the consolidated case and the lead
counsel to the putative class. In March 2017, the court entered a
scheduling order.

On June 21, 2017, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint that superseded the original complaints in the
Roofers' Pension Fund case and the Wilson case. In the amended
complaint, the lead plaintiffs seek to represent three classes of
shareholders - shareholders who purchased shares during the period
April 21, 2015 through May 3, 2017 on the U.S. exchanges;
shareholders who purchased shares during the same period on the Tel
Aviv exchange; and shareholders who owned shares on November 12,
2015 and held such stock through at least 8:00 a.m. on November 13,
2015 (the final day of the Mylan tender offer) regardless of
whether the shareholders tendered their shares.

The amended complaint names as defendants the company and 11
current or former directors and officers of Perrigo (Mses. Judy
Brown, Laurie Brlas, Jacqualyn Fouse, Ellen Hoffing, and Messrs.
Joe Papa, Marc Coucke, Gary Cohen, Michael Jandernoa, Gerald
Kunkle, Herman Morris, and Donal O'Connor).

The amended complaint alleges violations of Securities Exchange Act
sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b‑5) and 14(e) against all defendants
and 20(a) control person liability against the 11 individuals.

In general, the allegations concern the actions taken by the
company and the former executives to defend against the unsolicited
takeover bid by Mylan in the period from April 21, 2015 through
November 13, 2015 and the allegedly inadequate disclosure
throughout the entire class period related to purported integration
problems related to the Omega acquisition, alleges incorrect
reporting of organic growth at the Company and at Omega, alleges
price fixing activities with respect to six generic prescription
pharmaceuticals, and alleges improper accounting for the Tysabri(R)
royalty stream. The amended complaint does not include an estimate
of damages.

During 2017, the defendants filed motions to dismiss, which the
plaintiffs opposed. On July 27, 2018, the court issued an opinion
and order granting the defendants' motions to dismiss in part and
denying the motions to dismiss in part. The court dismissed without
prejudice defendants Laurie Brlas, Jacqualyn Fouse, Ellen Hoffing,
Gary Cohen, Michael Jandernoa, Gerald Kunkle, Herman Morris, Donal
O'Connor, and Marc Coucke. The court also dismissed without
prejudice claims arising from the Tysabri(R) accounting issue
described above and claims alleging incorrect disclosure of organic
growth described above. The defendants who were not dismissed are
Perrigo Company plc, Joe Papa, and Judy Brown.

The claims that were not dismissed relate to the integration issues
regarding the Omega acquisition, the defense against the Mylan
tender offer, and the alleged price fixing activities with respect
to six generic prescription pharmaceuticals.

The defendants who remain in the case (the Company, Mr. Papa, and
Ms. Brown) have filed answers denying liability, and the discovery
stage of litigation has begun. We intend to defend the lawsuit
vigorously.

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

Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and
supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant
formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical
products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare
Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription
Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887
and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


PG&E CORP: Feb. 6 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Investors' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
PG&E Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the requests of the
company's officers, directors, and underwriters seeking dismissal
of a consolidated securities class action lawsuit are set to be
heard February 6, 2020.

In June 2018, two purported securities class actions were filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, naming PG&E Corporation and certain of its current and
former officers as defendants, entitled David C. Weston v. PG&E
Corporation, et al. and Jon Paul Moretti v. PG&E Corporation, et
al., respectively.  

The complaints alleged material misrepresentations and omissions
related to, among other things, vegetation management and
transmission line safety in various PG&E Corporation public
disclosures.

The complaints asserted claims under Section 10(b) and Section
20(a) of the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and sought unspecified monetary relief,
interest, attorneys' fees and other costs.

Both complaints identified a proposed class period of April 29,
2015 to June 8, 2018. On September 10, 2018, the court consolidated
both cases and the litigation is now denominated In re PG&E
Corporation Securities Litigation.

The court also appointed the Public Employees Retirement
Association of New Mexico as lead plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint on November 9, 2018.

After the plaintiff requested leave to amend their complaint to add
allegations regarding the 2018 Camp fire, the plaintiff filed a
second amended consolidated complaint on December 14, 2018.

Due to the commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases, PG&E Corporation
and the Utility filed a notice on February 1, 2019, reflecting that
the proceedings are automatically stayed pursuant to Section 362(a)
of the Bankruptcy Code.

On February 15, 2019, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a
complaint in Bankruptcy Court against the plaintiff seeking
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to extend the stay to
the claims alleged against the individual officer defendants.

On February 22, 2019, a purported securities class action was filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, entitled York County on behalf of the York County
Retirement Fund, et al. v. Rambo, et al. (the "York County
Action").

The complaint names as defendants certain current and former
officers and directors, as well as the underwriters of four public
offerings of notes from 2016 to 2018. Neither PG&E Corporation nor
the Utility is named as a defendant. The complaint alleges material
misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the note
offerings related to, among other things, PG&E Corporation's and
the Utility's vegetation management and wildfire safety measures.

The complaint asserts claims under Section 11 and Section 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, and seeks unspecified monetary relief,
attorneys' fees and other costs, and injunctive relief. On May 7,
2019, the York County Action was consolidated with In re PG&E
Corporation Securities Litigation.

On May 28, 2019, the plaintiffs in the consolidated securities
actions filed a third amended consolidated class action complaint,
which includes the claims asserted in the previously-filed actions
and names as defendants PG&E Corporation, the Utility, certain
current and former officers and directors, and the underwriters.
The action remains stayed as to PG&E Corporation and the Utility.

On August 28, 2019, the Bankruptcy Court denied PG&E Corporation's
and the Utility's request to extend the stay to the claims against
the officer, director, and underwriter defendants.

On October 4, 2019, the officer, director, and underwriter
defendants filed motions to dismiss the third amended complaint,
which motions are currently set to be heard by the District Court
on February 6, 2020.

PG&E Corporation, through its subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, engages in the sale and delivery of electricity and
natural gas to residential, commercial, industrial, and
agricultural customers in northern and central California, the
United States. On January 29, 2019, PG&E Corporation Inc. filed a
voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California.


PG&E CORP: Vataj Securities Class Action Ongoing
------------------------------------------------
PG&E Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company's
current director and certain current and former officers  continues
to defend a purported securities class action suit entitled, Vataj
v. Johnson et al.

On October 25, 2019, a purported securities class action was filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, entitled Vataj v. Johnson et al. The complaint names as
defendants a current director and certain current and former
officers of PG&E Corporation.

Neither PG&E Corporation nor the Utility is named as a defendant.

The complaint alleges materially false and misleading statements
regarding PG&E Corporation's wildfire prevention and safety
protocols and policies, including regarding the Utility's public
safety power shutoffs, that allegedly resulted in losses and
damages to holders of PG&E Corporation’s securities. The
complaint asserts claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under, the Exchange Act of 1934, and
seeks unspecified monetary relief, attorneys’ fees and other
costs.

Given the early stages of the litigations, including but not
limited to the fact that defendants' motions to dismiss have not
yet been heard and no discovery has occurred in the consolidated
class action litigation, and that the de-energization class action
was recently filed, PG&E Corporation and the Utility are unable to
reasonably estimate the amount of any potential loss.

PG&E Corporation, through its subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, engages in the sale and delivery of electricity and
natural gas to residential, commercial, industrial, and
agricultural customers in northern and central California, the
United States. On January 29, 2019, PG&E Corporation Inc. filed a
voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Ehrnfeld Asserts Breach of FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Aaron Ehrnfeld, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-06918 (E.D., N.Y., Dec. 10, 2019).

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

Portfolio Recovery Associates is a large collection agent.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David Michael Barshay, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza
   Ste 5th Floor
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 706-5055
   Email: dbarshay@bakersanders.com



PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces Dayton Suit Over Violation of CFDBPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Janice Ashley Dayton, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 19CV359842 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Dec.
10, 2019), is brought under the California Fair Debt Buying
Practices Act, which prohibits debt buyers from engaging in
abusive, deceptive, and unfair practices.

The Plaintiff is alleged to have incurred a financial obligation in
the form of a consumer credit account issued by SYNCHRONY BANK. The
Plaintiff generally denies that any debt is owed. Thereafter, on a
date unknown to the Plaintiff, but after January 1, 2014, SYNCHRONY
BANK removed the alleged debt from its books as an asset and
treated the alleged debt as a loss or expense. As a result, the
alleged debt was, thereafter, a "charged-off consumer debt."

On December 20, 2018, the alleged debt was sold by SYNCHRONY BANK
to PORTFOLIO for collection purposes. Because the alleged debt was
sold or resold after January 1, 2014, PORTFOLIO's collection of the
alleged debt is subject to the CFDBPA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person residing in Santa Clara,
California.

The Defendant is engaged in the business of purchasing and
collecting charged-off consumer debts in this states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Fred W. Schwinn, Esq.
          Raeon R. Roulston, Esq.
          Mathew C. Salmonsen, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC.
          1435 Koll Circle, Suite 104
          San Jose, CA 95112-4610
          Phone: (408) 294-6100
          Facsimile: (408) 294-6190
          Email: fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com


PROFESSIONAL AVIATION: Modesti Files Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Aviation
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Sherleen Modesti,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Professional Aviation Management, Inc. and New
Concept, Defendants, Case No. 31193/2018 (N.Y. Sup., Dec. 10,
2019).

The case type of the lawsuit stated as E-Files Contract.

Professional Aviation Management, Inc. is an Employment agency in
Doral, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Addul Hassan Law Group, PLLC
   215-28 Hillside Ave
   Queens Village, NY 11427
   Tel: (718) 740-1000

The Defendant is represented by:

   Fordharrison, LLP
   100 Park Ave. Ste. 2500
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel: (212) 453-5900


PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Pieczonka Files FDCPA Suit in Ohio
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progressive Select
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Thomas J. Pieczonka,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Progressive Select Insurance Company, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-02855 (N.D. Ohio, Dec. 10, 2019).

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

The Company offers auto, trailers, motorcycles, boats, renters,
condos, flood, life, and health insurance services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Marc E. Dann, Esq.
   Dann Law
   P.O. Box 6031040
   Cleveland, OH 44103
   Tel: (216) 373-0539
   Fax: (216) 373-0536
   Email: mdann@dannlaw.com



QUALCOMM INC: Appeal in Consolidated Calif. Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM Incorporated  said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended September 29, 2019, that the appeal in the
consolidated class action suit is pending.

Since January 18, 2017, a number of consumer class action
complaints have been filed against the company in the United States
District Courts for the Southern and Northern Districts of
California, each on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of
cellular phones and other cellular devices.

At September 29, 2019, twenty-two such cases remain outstanding.

In April 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred the cases that had been filed in the Southern District
of California to the Northern District of California.

On May 15, 2017, the court entered an order appointing the
plaintiffs' co-lead counsel. On July 11, 2017, the plaintiffs filed
a consolidated amended complaint alleging that the company violated
California and federal antitrust and unfair competition laws by,
among other things, refusing to license standard-essential patents
to the company's competitors, conditioning the supply of certain of
the company's baseband chipsets on the purchaser first agreeing to
license the company's entire patent portfolio, entering into
exclusive deals with companies, including Apple Inc., and charging
unreasonably high royalties that do not comply with the company's
commitments to standard setting organizations.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and disgorgement and/or
restitution, as well as an order that we be enjoined from further
unlawful conduct.

On August 11, 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. On November 10, 2017, the court
denied the company's motion, except to the extent that certain
claims seek damages under the Sherman Antitrust Act.

On July 5, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, and the court granted that motion on September 27,
2018. On January 23, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) granted the company's permission
to appeal the court's class certification order.

On January 24, 2019, the court stayed the case pending the
company's appeal.

A hearing on the company's appeal of the class certification order
is scheduled for December 2, 2019 before the Ninth Circuit.

QUALCOMM said, "We believe the plaintiffs’ claims are without
merit."

QUALCOMM Incorporated designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
digital communication products worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Qualcomm CDMA Technologies (QCT); Qualcomm Technology
Licensing (QTL); and Qualcomm Strategic Initiatives (QSI). QUALCOMM
Incorporated was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.

QUALCOMM INC: Bid for En Banc Review in 3226701 Canada Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM Incorporated  said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended September 29, 2019, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has denied investors' request for en
banc review of a ruling in the class action suit entitled 3226701
Canada, Inc. v. QUALCOMM Incorporated et al.

On November 30, 2015, a securities class action complaint was filed
by purported stockholders of the company in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California against the
company and certain of its current and former officers.

On April 29, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On
January 27, 2017, the court dismissed the amended complaint in its
entirety, granting leave to amend.

On March 17, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
alleging that the company and certain of its current and former
officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by making false and misleading
statements regarding its business outlook and product development
between November 19, 2014 and July 22, 2015. The second amended
complaint sought unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
other costs.

On May 8, 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint. On October 20, 2017, the court entered an order
granting in part the company's motion to dismiss, and on November
29, 2017, the court entered an order granting the remaining
portions of the company's motion to dismiss.

On December 28, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit).

A hearing was held on July 11, 2019, and on July 23, 2019, the
Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the second
amended complaint in its entirety.

On August 29, 2019, the Ninth Circuit denied the plaintiffs'
request for en banc review. The plaintiffs have until November 27,
2019 to file a petition for certiorari to request that the United
States Supreme Court hear the matter or the dismissal becomes
final.

QUALCOMM said, "We believe the plaintiffs' claims are without
merit."

QUALCOMM Incorporated designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
digital communication products worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Qualcomm CDMA Technologies (QCT); Qualcomm Technology
Licensing (QTL); and Qualcomm Strategic Initiatives (QSI). QUALCOMM
Incorporated was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.


QUALCOMM INC: Bid to Dismiss Suit over Broadcom Merger Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM Incorporated  said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended September 29, 2019, that the motion to
dismiss the class action suit entitled, In re Qualcomm/Broadcom
Merger Securities Litigation (formerly Camp v. Qualcomm
Incorporated et al), is pending.

On June 8, 2018 and June 26, 2018, securities class action
complaints were filed by purported stockholders of the company in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California against the company and two of its  current officers.

The complaints alleged, among other things, that the company
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by failing to disclose that we had
submitted a notice to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the
United States (CFIUS) in January 2018.

The complaints sought unspecified damages, interest, fees and
costs.

On January 22, 2019, the Court appointed the lead plaintiff in the
action and designated that the case be captioned "In re
Qualcomm/Broadcom Merger Securities Litigation."

On March 18, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
asserting the same basic theories of liability and requesting the
same basic relief.

On May 10, 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint. The court has not yet ruled on the
company's motion.

QUALCOMM said, "We believe the plaintiffs' claims are without
merit."

QUALCOMM Incorporated designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
digital communication products worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Qualcomm CDMA Technologies (QCT); Qualcomm Technology
Licensing (QTL); and Qualcomm Strategic Initiatives (QSI). QUALCOMM
Incorporated was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.


QUALCOMM INC: Discovery in California Securities Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM Incorporated  said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended September 29, 2019, that discovery has
commenced in the consolidated class action suit pending before the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, and is
scheduled to be completed by March 3, 2020.

On January 23, 2017 and January 26, 2017, securities class action
complaints were filed by purported stockholders of the company in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California against the company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors.

The complaints alleged, among other things, that the company
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making false and misleading
statements and omissions of material fact in connection with
certain allegations that we are or were engaged in anticompetitive
conduct.

The complaints sought unspecified damages, interest, fees and
costs.

On May 4, 2017, the court consolidated the two actions and
appointed lead plaintiffs. On July 3, 2017, the lead plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint asserting the same basic
theories of liability and requesting the same basic relief. On
September 1, 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.

On March 18, 2019, the court denied the company's motion to dismiss
the complaint.

Discovery has commenced and is scheduled to be completed by March
3, 2020.

QUALCOMM said, "We believe the plaintiffs' claims are without
merit."

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

QUALCOMM Incorporated designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
digital communication products worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Qualcomm CDMA Technologies (QCT); Qualcomm Technology
Licensing (QTL); and Qualcomm Strategic Initiatives (QSI). QUALCOMM
Incorporated was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.


QUALCOMM INC: Quebec Superior Court Certifies Consumer Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM Incorporated  said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended September 29, 2019, that the Quebec Superior
Court court has issued an order certifying a class.

Since November 9, 2017, eight consumer class action complaints have
been filed against the company in Canada (in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice, the Supreme Court of British Columbia and the
Quebec Superior Court), each on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of cellular phones and other cellular devices, alleging
various violations of Canadian competition and consumer protection
laws. The claims are similar to those in the U.S. consumer class
action complaint.

The complaints seek unspecified damages. One of the complaints in
the Supreme Court of British Columbia has since been discontinued
by the plaintiffs.

The company have not yet answered the complaints. The company
expects the Ontario and British Columbia complaints will be
consolidated into one proceeding in British Columbia with a class
certification hearing no earlier than late 2020.

Once the certification hearing is scheduled, the company expects
the court to set a timetable for the exchange of evidence and
briefing.

As to the complaint filed in Quebec, on April 15, 2019, the Quebec
Superior Court held a class certification hearing, and on April 30,
2019, the court issued an order certifying a class.

QUALCOMM said, "Before the end of calendar 2019, we expect the
court to set a timetable for pre-trial steps, including discovery
as well as the exchange of expert evidence. We do not expect the
trial to occur before 2022. We believe the plaintiffs’ claims are
without merit."

QUALCOMM Incorporated designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
digital communication products worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Qualcomm CDMA Technologies (QCT); Qualcomm Technology
Licensing (QTL); and Qualcomm Strategic Initiatives (QSI). QUALCOMM
Incorporated was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.


RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS: Taylor Sues Over Unwanted Telephone Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND TAYLOR, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS, INC., DOES,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-02155-JLS-MSB (S.D. Cal., Nov. 12,
2019), alleges that the Company promotes and markets its
merchandise, in part, by placing telephone calls to wireless phone
users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the
illegal actions of the Defendants in negligently and/or
intentionally contacting him on his cellular telephone, thereby,
invading his privacy.

Residential is contracted by nonprofit and charitable organizations
(including the National Police Support Fund) to raise money on
their behalf through various fundraising and telemarketing
campaigns.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex S. Madar, Esq.
          MADAR LAW CORPORATION
          14410 Via Venezia No. 1404
          San Diego, CA 92129-1666
          Telephone: (858) 299-5879
          Facsimile: (619) 354-7281
          E-mail: alex@madarlaw.net


ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Gordon Suit Removed to E.D. Washington
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Isaac Gordon, an individual, and
all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Robinhood Financial LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
19-00002-04574-32, was removed from the Spokane County Superior
Court to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington (Spokane) on Nov. 13, 2019.

The Eastern District of Washington Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-00390 to the proceeding. The suit demands $1.5 million in
damages.

Robinhood Financial operates as an institutional brokerage company.
The Company provides online and mobile application-based discount
stock brokerage solutions that allows users to invests in
publicly-traded companies and exchange-traded funds.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian Cameron, Esq.
          Shayne Sutherland, Esq.
          CAMERON SUTHERLAND PLLC
          421 W Riverside Avenue, Suite 660
          Spokane, WA 99201
          Telephone: (509) 315-4507
          Facsimile: (509) 315-4584
          E-mail: bcameron@cameronsutherland.com
                  ssutherland@cameronsutherland.com

               - and -

          Kirk D. Miller, Esq.
          KIRK D MILLER PS
          421 West Riverside Avenue, Suite 660
          Spokane, WA 99201
          Telephone: (509) 413-1494
          Facsimile:: (509) 413-1724
          E-mail: kmiller@millerlawspokane.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Benjamin J. Robbins, Esq.
          Kenneth E. Payson, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98104-1610
          Telephone: (206) 757-8352
          E-mail: benrobbins@dwt.com
                  kenpayson@dwt.com


ROTEM AMFERT: Environmental Class Action Enters Final Stage
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sue Surkes, writing for Times of Israel, reports that the biggest
environmental class action suit in Israeli history, which demands
that two chemical factories in southern Israel pay NIS 1.4 billion
(US$400 million) in damages for polluting groundwater and a popular
spring and stream at a nature reserve near the Dead Sea, entered
its final stage at the Beersheba District Court on Oct. 28.

The original petition was presented in March last year. Counsel for
the companies responded in July 2019, denying any connection to the
pollution, and on Oct. 28, the petitioners responded to the
companies with new affidavits.

The petition, which is aimed at raising cash to clean up
contamination, claims that Rotem Amfert Negev Ltd and Dead Sea
Periclase Ltd allowed tens of millions of cubic meters of
industrial effluents -- including radioactive ones -- to pollute
public property.

In one new affidavit, an American water chemist, Dr. Amanda
Loundsbury, said she read with "great concern" letters from the
Health Ministry that dismissed the possible implications for public
health of radiation in the Bokek stream.

Together with Dead Sea Works, which extracts minerals from the Dead
Sea, the two companies at the center of the case form part of
Israel Chemicals Ltd, which, in turn, is controlled by the Ofer
family's Israel Corporation, the country's largest holding
company.

The judge must now decide whether there is a legitimate case and
whether the petitioners have a legitimate claim to represent the
public. If he decides in the petitioners' favor, the two sides will
probably negotiate a financial settlement.

Rotem Amfert and Dead Sea Periclase are located on the Rotem plain,
a center for phosphate mining in the Negev desert southwest of the
Dead Sea.

The suit, filed on behalf of Tel Aviv University's Alon Tal and Bar
Ilan University's Noah Efron, along with tour guide and writer Bill
Slott and teenage environmental activist Rotem Sirkovitch, charges
that the release of toxic industrial waste from the 1970s until
around 20 years ago wrought environmental havoc, with current
pollution levels that are hundreds of times higher than what is
allowed.

Evaporation ponds

The factories concerned use large evaporation pools, or ponds, to
reduce liquid waste materials to sludge.

The petition accuses them of allowing, or doing nothing to prevent,
the seepage of toxic liquids into the soil which, according to the
suit, subsequently entered the subterranean groundwater system, or
aquifer. Groundwater can flow slowly for miles over long periods
before bursting into the open air as springs, which in turn, supply
above-ground streams. Groundwater contamination can emerge years
after the original pollution event took place. The petition
directly connects pollution in the aquifer, spring and 15-kilometer
(nine-mile) stream with the activities of the factories, even
though they are located some 50 kilometers (30 miles) away. (The
YouTube video below shows the Ein Bokek reserve and the Dead Sea
into which its stream waters flow).

In an affidavit to the court, Tel Aviv University hydrology
professor Gedeon Dagan, an Israel Prize winner, criticized the
plants for employing scientists -- Duke University professor Avner
Vangosh and Hebrew University professor Ovadia Lev -- who were not
hydrologists, and produced the results of water samples taken in
recent months that showed rising salinity.

He dismissed attempts to pin the blame for the increased salinity
on brine from the Dead Sea. Salinity is an indicator of increasing
amounts of chemicals connected, for example, to fertilizers and
urban wastewater.

The only reasonable possibility for the pollution, he said, was
wastewater from the factories that had started to flow out decades
ago,

Dagan expressed surprise that the respondents had ignored an
internationally peer reviewed scientific article published earlier
this year by Dr. Avi Burg, a senior hydrologist at the Geological
Survey of Israel, and Dr. Yossi Guttman, until recently the chief
hydrologist of the Mekorot national water company, in the
prestigious Science of the Total Environment journal. That article
concluded that most of the contaminants were still making their way
down underground from the point at which they had seeped out of the
factory pools.

Prof. Alon Tal -- a veteran environmental activist who chairs Tel
Aviv University's Department of Public Policy -- wrote that a
freshwater pipe had recently been installed by the Mekorot water
company to dilute contaminants in the stream. Factory staff had
likely hidden this fact from the scientists, he said, who took
water samples from the diluted section downstream from the pipe.

Also misleading the scientists, he went on, was the testing done on
the factories' evaporation pools: Because wastewater treatment
processes had been overhauled, the current quality of the water in
the pools was naturally far cleaner than it would have been during
the period covered by the petition, which ended two decades ago --
and thus the results of the testing were irrelevant to the
complaint.

Water chemist Dr. Amanda Lounsbury, who came to Israel recently
from Yale University and is carrying out research at Tel Aviv
University, said in her affidavit that the pollution matched data
collected from the factory's effluent ponds in the 1990s which then
showed barium, heavy metals such as cadmium, and materials that
could be radioactive such as uranium, all of which could endanger
public health.

"I read with great concern the letters from the Ministry of Health
to Professor Tal, that summarily dismiss any potential for health
implications from the radiation measured in 2018 in the stream,
without any interest in exploring the reasons behind the
significant increases measured and their source," Lounsbury wrote.
"The letters from the Ministry of Health contain absolutely no
attempt to confront and explain the changes in these parameters."

Both factories use phosphate rock from the Negev as a raw material,
which is known to contain radioactive substances such as uranium.

She continued, "Given the public health implications . . . it is
critical that a monitoring program be immediately implemented,
including sampling and measurements in a certified laboratory and
that radioactive presence in the water sources of the area be
followed closely . . . there is a possibility that the level of
radiation will increase. This is particularly true in the [section
of the] Bokek Stream that is accessible to the public and near a
major highway and hotel district — and has come to constitute a
popular tourist destination for the general public including
children, pregnant women and sensitive populations."

She added that drinking water with high levels of active
radioactive materials could seriously harm wildlife.

Quoting the Burg and Guttman article, Loundsbury warned that "the
implications of this steady pollution process is that if urgent
steps are not taken to manage the aquifer and the pollution
dispersion, future contamination will increase and reach an
irreversible level, leaving its mark on the Bokek stream for
hundreds of years.

"In my opinion . . . the most reasonable explanation for the
increase in parameters that are liable to have radioactive
implications (like uranium) in the Ein Bokek stream water is the
flow of the factory's effluents."

In an affidavit submitted in the first stage of the petition last
March, stream ecology expert Prof Avital Gasith of Tel Aviv
University said that the freshwater habitats of the Bokek nature
reserve had once allowed extraordinary and rare communities of
flora and fauna to thrive in an otherwise dry and salty
environment. But salt quantities had jumped from 500 to 600
milligrams per liter in the stream during the 1990s -- at that time
the upper level permitted for drinking -- to 4,550 mg per liter
recorded in the aquifer by the end of 2017. He described the
wastewater as a "silent polluter" which did not affect the stream
water's clarity but tasted "disgusting" if one dared to drink it.

Evidence suggested that the richness of invertebrate species in the
stream had declined by 60 percent between 2004 and 2017 --
invertebrates play a key role in the foodchain and ecology of
freshwater habitats and their depletion can cause significant
knock-on effects -- and that serious damage had also been caused to
water and stream bank plants, two out of seven of which were facing
extinction, Gasith wrote. These could all be signs of the start of
the stream's complete ecological collapse.

Decision makers were responsible for ensuring immediate stream
rehabilitation, he added, and for implementing one of the most
important principles of environmental law -- that "the polluter
pays."

The companies respond

In July, lawyers for the companies asked the court not to approve
the request for a class action suit. They charged that the alleged
link between the factories and the pollution was based on
"assumptions at best" and partial and outdated information, that
new water samples from the evaporation ponds disproved the
petitioners' case, and that the suit was aimed at blackening the
companies' reputation.

They also asserted that the petitioners had no property claims over
the water sources, that "one-off" instances of pollution in the
distant past could not be brought to court because of the statute
of limitations, that the Health Ministry had found radioactivity
levels in the Bokek stream to be safe for both drinking and
bathing, and that in all events, the radioactive levels there were
lower than elsewhere in the area, and were phenomena of nature.

"The respondents (the factories) do not deny -- and didn't hide in
the past -- that before the 1990s, when the company was under the
control of the state [Israel Corporation was privatized in 1995 and
acquired by the Ofers in 1999], effluents leaked from their
evaporation pools." They thus implied that the current owners could
not be punished for seepage that took place before they were in
control. At that time, they said, the technology did not exist to
ensure hermetically sealed pools.

They also cast doubt on any obligation not to harm animals or
plants.

The company's lawyers admitted that questions were raised about a
possible connection between the factories and a rise in salinity
discovered when drilling for aquifer water was carried out in the
mid 1990s. But, they said, scientists at that time were divided.

In all events, following that discovery, Rotem Amfert invested tens
of millions of dollars to prevent future risks of seepage and
rehabilitated suspected contaminated land, the lawyers wrote. From
1996 onward, Rotem Amfert used new evaporation pools doubly sealed
off from the soil. During the same period, Periclase started
treating its waste and sending some of its brine to the Dead Sea.

Alon Tal told The Times of Israel that "despite years of monitoring
by official bodies, reports by the Geological Survey of Israel, the
Water Authority and various other scientific bodies, no serious
efforts have been made to enforce the law against these factories.

"Here is a situation where the state is failing in its
responsibility to protect the public's natural resources and
abandons them to wealthy commercial interests."

Ashalim stream disaster

This is not the first time that Rotem Amfert has been in the
headlines in connection with pollution. In June 2017, the collapse
of an evaporation pond wall at the plant sent some 100,000 cubic
meters (more than 35,000 tons) of acidic water and other pollutants
rushing through the Ashalim stream, a popular hiking route.

At least eight ibexes -- a third of those living in the area -- and
numerous foxes and birds were found dead in the two weeks following
the spill, according to the Environmental Protection Ministry, with
concern that toxic pools would kill more wildlife desperate to
drink during the hot summer.

The Environmental Protection Ministry banned the plant from using
three evaporation ponds for gypsum flow that contained the highly
acidic wastewater and ordered Rotem Amfert to install additional
sensors, conduct frequent monitoring tests, and meet certain other
conditions. A month after the spill, the ministry launched a
criminal investigation into company managers and the parent
company, Israel Chemicals Ltd. But after filing a NIS 397 million
($112.5 million) class action lawsuit, the state later agreed to
out-of-court mediation. [GN]


SADDLE CREEK: Seeks Removal of Biometric Data Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
John Breslin, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reports that a
logistics company has asked a federal court to take over a class
action that claims employees' biometric data was unlawfully
collected and stored.

Saddle Creek Corporation filed Oct. 21 a notice of removal from
Madison County Circuit Court to the U.S. District for the Southern
District of Illinois in East St. Louis.

The company argued that the case be removed under diversity rules
because the defendant is headquartered in Florida while the
plaintiff is a resident of Illinois.

Further, the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million based on the
estimated 334 members of the class each seeking damages of up to
$5,000, the company argues.

Former employee Alonzo Hayes filed suit in Madison County Circuit
Court, claiming that while many companies still track time using
"conventional" methods such as clocks and identification badges,
Saddle Creek insisted on taking its workers' fingerprints.

The suit is one of dozens filed against companies following an
Illinois Supreme Court decision earlier this year which stated a
plaintiff does not have to prove actual harm to file court action.

This suit, like others, claims that biometric data is "unique and
permanent." It cites various cases where companies were hacked and
data information was breached, including Equifax, Uber, and
Facebook.

The suit claims violations of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act (BIPA). The law mandates that any employee must give
written approval for the taking of biometric information and for
them to be informed of any retention policy.

"BIPA protects employees like plaintiff and the putative class from
this precise conduct, and defendant had no right to secure this
data," the suit states, adding that "no amount of time and money
can compensate plaintiff if his biometric data is compromised by
the lax procedures through which the defendant captured, stored,
used, and disseminated" the data of the plaintiff and others.  

The defendant is represented by David Schenberg --
david.schenberg@ogletree.com -- of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
Stewart of St. Louis.

Hayes and the class are represented by Brandon M. Wise --
bwise@pwcklegal.com -- of Pfeiffer, Wolf, Carr & Kane of St. Louis.
[GN]


SCOTT & ASSOCIATES: Faces Dawkins Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Erica Dawkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Scott & Associates, PC, LVNV Funding, LLC John Does
1-25, Case No. 3:19-cv-02912-S (N.D. Tex., Dec. 10, 2019), is
brought against the Defendants for actual and statutory damages,
costs and attorney's fees arising from their violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

On November 5, 2019, Defendant SCOTT wrote and mailed the Plaintiff
a "Letter" writing "At this time, no attorney with this firm has
personally reviewed the particular circumstances of your account.
However, if you fail to contact this office, our client may
consider additional remedies to recover the balance due." and "This
letter is sent to: (2) Notify you that Scott & Associates
(Plaintiff) may invoke specified remedies which are ordinarily
invoked by Scott and & Associates (Plaintiff)."

According to the complaint, the Letter was a threat by SCOTT that
SCOTT or LVNV may sue or has already sued the Plaintiff for
non-payment of the Consumer Debt. SCOTT called itself a
"Plaintiff," which would cause a reasonable person and the least
sophisticated or unsophisticated consumer to believe that SCOTT had
already sued them. However, SCOTT was not a plaintiff as it claimed
in the Letter because SCOTT had not brought a case against the
Plaintiff in a court of law on or before November 5, 2019.

Defendants SCOTT and LVNV violated the FDCPA when SCOTT claimed it
was a plaintiff when it had not sued her in any court of law on or
before November 5, 2019, Ms. Dawkins alleges. The Defendant SCOTT's
Letter makes a false threat to take any action that cannot legally
be taken against the Plaintiff because SCOTT and LVNV cannot sue
the Plaintiff because the Consumer Debt and the parties are subject
to a binding arbitration agreement, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person allegedly obligated to pay a debt
to the Defendants.

SCOTT is a Dallas County, Texas-based collections and debt recovery
law firm that regularly collects or attempts to collect debts due
to third-parties, directly or indirectly from consumers in the
State of Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn Jaffer, Esq.
          SHAWN JAFFER LAW FIRM PLLC
          5301 Alpha Rd, Suite 80-1
          Dallas, TX 75240
          Phone: (214) 210-0730
          Email: Shawn@jafflaw.com


SDS STAFFING: Martin Suit Transferred From W.D. to S.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Tina Martin, Plaintiff v. SDS
Staffing, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-00198, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
(Victoria) on Nov. 13, 2019.

The Southern District of Texas Court Clerk assigned Case No.
6:19-cv-00096 to the proceeding.

The collective action seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages
and other damages owed to these workers under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Tina Martin and those similarly situated often worked even more
than that, sometimes as many as 85 hours in a single workweek, but
they were not paid overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a single workweek, the lawsuit says.

SDS provides staffing services to the oil and gas industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edmond S. Moreland, Jr.
          MORELAND VERRETT PC
          700 West Summit Drive
          Wimberley, TX 78676
          Telephone: (512) 782-0567
          Facsimile: (512) 782-0605
          E-mail: edmond@morelandlaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew Scott Parmet, Esq.
          PARMET PC
          800 Sawyer St.
          Houston, TX 77007
          Telephone: (713) 999-5228
          Facsimile: (713) 999-1187
          matt@parmet.law

The Defendant is represented by:

          G. Scott Williams, Esq.
          1811 Bering Drive, Suite 120
          Houston, TX 77057
          Telephone: (713) 553-3054
          E-mail: gswms@hotmail.com


SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Walker Seeks Overtime Pay for Disability Reps
--------------------------------------------------------------
JANET WALKER AND KIMBERLY HARRIS, on behalf of themselves, and all
other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs
v. SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., AN ILLINOIS
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07482 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 12,
2019), alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Chicago Minimum Wage
Ordinance by compensating the Plaintiffs on an improper salary
basis.

According to the complaint, the Defendant denied the Plaintiffs
overtime pay for hours worked over 40 per work week.

Plaintiff Walker is a former employee of the Defendant, who was
employed as a Disability Representative from August 2018 to
September 2019. Walker performed duties related to processing
paperwork submissions, contacting and communicating updates to the
client's claimants and other clerical duties.

Sedgwick Claims Management Services Inc. is a third-party claims
administration and management service that processes leave of
absence, accommodation and other related employee benefit claims
for large corporate clients that opt to outsource claims
administration functions.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John W. Billhorn, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 401
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 853-1450


SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Dec. 20 Settlement Conference Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Simpson Manufacturing Co., 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, Gentry Homes,
Ltd. v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., et al., Case No.
17-cv-00566.

In a December 11, 2019 order, the Court scheduled a Mandatory
Further Settlement Conference for December 20, 2019 at 9:00 a.m.
before Magistrate Judge Trader.  All parties and insurance carrier
representatives with full settlement authority are required to
attend in person. Full settlement authority means complete
authority to negotiate all terms without the need to consult with
any person or entity not otherwise physically present. Counsel
shall identify party representatives and insurance carrier
representatives attending the settlement conference and notify both
the Court and opposing counsel by no later than December 18 at
12:00 p.m. (HST). As the Court has set aside the entire day for
this conference and has asked Mediator Keith Hunter, if available,
to participate, counsel, parties and insurance carrier
representatives will be required to be present throughout the
duration of the conference or until otherwise excused by the
Court.

Gentry Homes, Ltd. v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 17-cv-00566, was filed in federal district court in Hawaii
against Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc. and Simpson Manufacturing,
Inc. on November 20, 2017.  

The Gentry case is a product of a previous state court class
action, Nishimura v. Gentry Homes, Ltd., et al. which is now
closed.  The Nishimura case concerned alleged corrosion of the
Company's galvanized strap-tie holdowns and mudsill anchor products
used in a residential project in Honolulu, Hawaii, Ewa by Gentry.


In the Nishimura case, the plaintiff homeowners and the developer,
Gentry, arbitrated their dispute and agreed on a settlement in the
amount of $90 million, with $54 million going to repair costs and
$36 million going to attorney's fees.  

In the Gentry case, Gentry alleges breach of warranty and negligent
misrepresentation related to the Company's strap-tie holdowns and
mudsill anchor products. Gentry is demanding general, special, and
consequential damages from the Company in an amount to be proven at
trial. Gentry also seeks pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,
attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief.

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

Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc., through its subsidiaries, designs,
engineers, manufactures, and sells building construction products.
Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. was founded in 1956 and is
headquartered in Pleasanton, California.


SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Kaneshiro Class Action Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Simpson Manufacturing Co., 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 Stephen
Kaneshiro.

Stephen Kaneshiro, et al. v. Stanford Carr Development, LLC et
al./Stanford Carr Development, LLC, et al. v. Simpson Strong-Tie
Company, Inc., Civil No. 18-1-1472-09 VLC, is a putative class
action lawsuit filed in the Hawaii First Circuit.  

The Company was added as a third-party defendant on December 28,
2018.  

The homeowner plaintiffs allege that all homes built by Stanford
Carr Development and its subsidiaries (collectively "Stanford
Carr") in the State of Hawaii have strap-tie holdowns and mudsill
anchors that are suffering premature corrosion. Stanford Carr has
asserted indemnity and contribution claims against the Company.

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

Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc., through its subsidiaries, designs,
engineers, manufactures, and sells building construction products.
Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. was founded in 1956 and is
headquartered in Pleasanton, California.


SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Vitale Suit v. D.R. Horton Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Simpson Manufacturing Co., 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 D.R.
Horton, Inc. continues to defend a class action suit initiated by
Charles Vitale.

Charles Vitale, et al. v. D.R. Horton, Inc. and D.R. Horton-Schuler
Homes, LLC, Civil No. 15-1-1347-07, was filed in the Hawaii First
Circuit on July 13, 2015, in which homeowner plaintiffs allege that
all homes built by D.R Horton/D.R. Horton-Schuler Homes in the
State of Hawaii have strap-tie holdowns that are suffering
premature corrosion.

The court has denied a motion for statewide class certification.  

The Company is not currently a party to the Vitale lawsuit.

If claims are asserted against the Company in the Vitale case, it
will vigorously defend any such claims, whether brought by the
plaintiff homeowners, or third party claims by Horton Homes.

Simpson said, "Based on facts currently known to the Company and
subject to future events and circumstances, the Company believes
that all or part of any claims that any party might seek to allege
against it related to the Vitale case may be covered by its
insurance policies."

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

Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc., through its subsidiaries, designs,
engineers, manufactures, and sells building construction products.
Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. was founded in 1956 and is
headquartered in Pleasanton, California.


SOLARA MEDICAL SUPPLIES: Bickford Files Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Solara Medical
Supplies, LLC. The case is styled as Adam William Bickford, Jeffrey
Halbstein-Harris, Alex Mercado and all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs v. Solara Medical Supplies, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:19-cv-02368-BAS-MDD (S.D., Cal., Dec. 10, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Personal
Property: Other filed as a Diversity Action.

Solara Medical Supplies offers home delivery of medical devices and
disposable medical products, serving individuals with
diabetes.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Robert S Green, Esq.
   Green & Noblin, P.C.
   2200 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 101
   Larkspur, CA 94939
   Tel: (415) 477-6700
   Fax: (415) 477-6710
   Email: gnecf@classcounsel.com


SONIM TECHNOLOGIES: Bernstein Liebhard Noted of Dec. 6 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP announced that class action complaints have
been filed on behalf of shareholders of SONM, UBER, and COF. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the court by the
lead plaintiff deadlines listed below. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you take no
action, you may remain an absent class member.

To discuss the cases below please contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll
free at (877) 779-1414.

Sonim Technologies Inc. (SONM)
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: December 6, 2019

Defendants failed to disclose to investors: Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company's
XP8 was experiencing material software challenges; (2) that these
software issues adversely affected how the device's Qualcomm
chipset, which supported Band 14 access, connected to AT&T's
carrier network configuration; (3) that the Company's XP5 and XP3
devices were experiencing material software defects that adversely
affected their optimization with certain accessories; (4) that, as
a result, the Company was reasonably likely to delay the launch of
new products; (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
financial results would be materially and adversely impacted; and
(6) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

To get additional information about the Sonim Shareholder Class
Action contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

Uber Technologies Inc. (UBER)
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: December 3, 2019

Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) at the time of the
Offering, Uber was rapidly increasing subsidies for drivers and
customer's rides and meals in a bid for market share, which caused
the Company's sales and marketing expenses to swell; (2) Defendants
were cutting (or planned to cut) costs in key areas that undermined
the Company's central growth opportunities; and (3) as a result,
defendants statements about Ubers business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

To get additional information about the Uber Shareholder Class
Action contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

Capital One Financial Corporation (COF)
CLASS PERIOD: 02/02/2018 - 07/29/2019
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: December 2, 2019

Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose to investors: (1) the Company did not maintain robust
information security protections, and its protection did not shield
personal information against security breaches; (2) such
deficiencies heightened the Company's exposure to a cyber-attack;
and (3) as a result, Capital One's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

To get additional information about the Capital One Shareholder
Class Action  contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877)
779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

Contact:

         Matthew E. Guarnero, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         Website: http://www.bernlieb.com  
         Tel: (877) 779-1414
         Email: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
[GN]


SPARK ENERGY: Appeal in Gillis Class Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Spark 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 U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit has not yet ruled on the appeal made
in the case, Gillis et al. v. Respond Power, LLC.  

Gillis et al. v. Respond Power, LLC is a purported class action
lawsuit that was originally filed on May 21, 2014 in the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas but was later removed to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

On September 15, 2014, Plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that the disclosure
statement contained in Respond Power, LLC's variable rate contracts
with Pennsylvania consumers limited the variable rate that could be
charged to no more than the monthly rate charged by the consumers'
local utility company and alleged claims of deceptive conduct in
violation of Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Act, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent
concealment, and breach of contract and of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing by charging rates above the utility. The
amount of damages sought is not specified.

By order dated August 31, 2015, the district court denied class
certification. Plaintiffs appealed the district court's denial of
class certification to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit and that court vacated the district court's denial of
class certification and remanded the matter to the district court
for further proceedings.

On July 16, 2018, the district court granted Respond Power LLC's
motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's class action claims. Plaintiffs
filed their notice of appeal to the Third Circuit Court on August
7, 2018.

The Third Circuit has declined to hear oral arguments on this
matter but has not yet ruled on this appeal.

The Company believes it has full indemnity coverage for any actual
exposure in this case at this time.

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

Spark Energy, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
independent retail energy services company in the United States. It
operates through two segments, Retail Electricity and Retail
Natural Gas. The company engages in the retail distribution of
electricity and natural gas to residential and commercial
customers. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in
Houston, Texas.


SPARK ENERGY: Discovery Still Ongoing in Rolland Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Spark 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 discovery is still
ongoing in the class action suit entitled, Janet Rolland, et al v.
Spark Energy, LLC.

Janet Rolland, et al v. Spark Energy, LLC is a purported class
action originally filed on April 19, 2017 in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that Spark
Energy, LLC charged a variable rate that was higher than permitted
by its terms of service, resulting in breach of contract and
violation of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.

Plaintiffs alleged claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act
and Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.
Two plaintiffs (one from New Jersey and one from Illinois) seek to
certify a putative nationwide class of all Spark variable rate
electricity customers from April 19, 2011 to the present.

The relief sought includes unspecified actual damages, refunds,
treble damages and punitive damages for the putative class,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs of suit.

Spark obtained dismissal with prejudice of the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act claim and will seek dismissal of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act claim and other
claim(s).

Discovery is ongoing in this matter. Spark denies the allegations
asserted by Plaintiffs and intends to vigorously defend this
matter.

Spark said, "Given the ongoing discovery and current stage of this
matter, we cannot predict the outcome or consequences of the case
at this time."

Spark Energy, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
independent retail energy services company in the United States. It
operates through two segments, Retail Electricity and Retail
Natural Gas. The company engages in the retail distribution of
electricity and natural gas to residential and commercial
customers. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in
Houston, Texas.


SPARK ENERGY: Settlement Negotiations in Veilleux Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spark 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 parties in the
class action suit entitled, Katherine Veilleux, et. al. v.
Electricity Maine LLC, Provider Power, LLC, Spark HoldCo, LLC,
Kevin Dean, and Emile Clavet, are currently in settlement
negotiations.

Katherine Veilleux, et. al. v. Electricity Maine LLC, Provider
Power, LLC, Spark HoldCo, LLC, Kevin Dean, and Emile Clavet is a
purported class action lawsuit filed on November 18, 2016 in the
United States District Court of Maine, alleging that Electricity
Maine, LLC, an entity acquired by Spark Holdco in mid-2016,
enrolled and re-enrolled customers through fraudulent and
misleading advertising, promotions, and other communications prior
to and following the acquisition.

Plaintiffs allege claims under RICO, the Maine Unfair Trade
Practice Act, civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs
seek damages for themselves and the purported class, injunctive
relief, restitution, and attorneys' fees.

Plaintiff's motion for class certification is currently pending
before the court, which Spark HoldCo and Electricity Maine
vigorously opposed, including by filing a motion to exclude
Plaintiffs' designated expert witnesses. Electricity Maine and
Spark HoldCo have also filed a motion to compel arbitration of
certain Plaintiffs' claims, which is still pending before the
court, on the grounds that some of the applicable Terms of Service
contain an arbitration provision and class action waiver.

The parties are currently in settlement negotiations.

In a parallel declaratory judgment action, the Company won a
favorable verdict against Zurich, one of Electricity Maine's
insurance carriers, and Zurich has been ordered to pay certain
costs associated with this claim that the Company believes will
offset any total losses to the Company.

The Company also believes indemnity offsets with the former sellers
of Electricity Maine will be applicable to any settlement, but the
Company may have additional liability beyond the existing indemnity
and insurance coverage to resolve this matter.

Spark said, "Given the preliminary stage of the settlement
discussions, the amount of additional liability of this case
remains uncertain at this time, but we do not believe that any
potential additional liability will have a material adverse effect
on our financial position."

Spark Energy, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
independent retail energy services company in the United States. It
operates through two segments, Retail Electricity and Retail
Natural Gas. The company engages in the retail distribution of
electricity and natural gas to residential and commercial
customers. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in
Houston, Texas.


STRESS ENGINEERING: Ford Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chester Ford, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. STRESS ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION, INC., Case No.
4:19-cv-04790 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 10, 2019), is brought against the
Defendant to recover unpaid overtime that is required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant has a business plan that includes paying non-exempt
hourly employees the same hourly rate for all hours worked, even
those hours over 40 per workweek, the Plaintiff alleges. The
Defendant's failure to pay the overtime premium required by law
allows it to gain an unfair advantage over competitors, who follow
the law in their employment practices. The Plaintiff is one of the
workers hired by the Defendant as an hourly employee and not paid
overtime pay for any of the hours he worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek. Instead, the Plaintiff was paid the same hourly rate for
all the hours he worked, says the complaint.

Chester Ford worked for the Defendant as an engineer, paid on an
hourly basis, from May 2019 until November 25, 2019.

The Defendant is a Texas corporation. The Defendant provides
engineering, procurement and construction services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          Vijay Pattisapu, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
          Houston, TX 77018
          Phone: 713-868-3388
          Facsimile: 713-683-9940
          Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
                 vijay@buenkerlaw.com


SURESCRIPTS LLC: Faces West Town Antitrust Suit in D. Colo.
-----------------------------------------------------------
WEST TOWN PHARMACY, Plaintiff v. SURESCRIPTS, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-03404 (D. Colo., Nov. 12, 2019), seeks damages for the
Plaintiff's injuries, and those suffered by members of the proposed
class, resulting from the Defendant's anticompetitive conduct that
inflated the price of e-prescription routing services to
pharmacies.

Surescripts was able to maintain its dominant market position not
through competition on the merits, but instead through a
multifaceted scheme to exclude competitors, the Plaintiff asserts.
Surescripts has taken several anticompetitive steps to ensure that
it--and it alone--controls routing service and pricing in the
United States. The goal and effect of Surescripts' overarching
scheme was to neutralize actual and nascent competitors before they
could undermine Surescripts' ability to charge monopoly prices in
the e-prescribing industry.

As a result of Surescripts' unlawfully maintained dominance,
pharmacies--such as the Plaintiff--have been forced to pay
considerably more for its routing services than they otherwise
would have paid in the presence of lawful competition, according to
the complaint.

The details of the scheme were first revealed to the public through
the investigations of the Federal Trade Commission, which filed a
lawsuit against Surescripts in the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia on May 3, 2019. According to that
complaint, Surescripts threatened boycotts against customers and
other stakeholders to ensure that competition remained foreclosed
in the routing and eligibility markets.

As one example, when Allscripts, a large EHR customer of
Surescripts, attempted to enter into a non-exclusive agreement with
Surescripts in 2014 so Allscripts could use aspiring routing
competitor Emdeon, Surescripts threatened to lock Allscripts out of
numerous imperative Surescripts services and retroactively charge
Allscripts millions in fees for what should have been a separate
free service.

When faced with imminent competitive risk from RelayHealth, a
subsidiary of McKesson Corporation, again in the routing market,
Surescripts made aggressive moves to implement an agreement with
RelayHealth that would allow the horizontal competitors to allocate
the market and split monopoly profits instead of competing with
each other.

Had Surescripts' 1.9 billion e-prescriptions in 2018 been routed at
competitive prices instead of monopoly prices, the Plaintiff and
the Class would have saved many millions of dollars in that year
alone; and this scheme has been underway for almost a decade, the
lawsuit says.

Surescripts is an Arlington, Virginia based information technology
company that supports e-prescription, the electronic transmission
of prescriptions between health care organizations and pharmacies,
as well as general health information exchange of medical
records.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa H. Maxman, Esq.
          Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
          William G. Caldes, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq.
          John Macoretta, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          E-mail: espector@Wsrkattorneys.com
                  bcaldes@srkattorneys.com
                  jkodroff@srkattorneys.com
                  jmacoretta@srkattorneys.com

               - and -

          Melissa H. Maxman, Esq.
          Ronald F. Wick, Esq.
          Erica C. Lai, Esq.
          Danielle C. Morello, Esq.
          COHEN & GRESSER LLP
          2001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 851-2070
          E-mail: mmaxman(@cohengresser.com
                  rwick@cohengresser.com
                  elai@cohengresser.com
                  dmorello@cohengresser.com


TPT PATROL: Baker McKenzie Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark D. Chapple, Esq., Jayme-Lyn Hendriks, Esq., Lucy Neighbour,
Esq., Georgie Farrant, Esq., Lynsey Edgar, Esq., Paul Forbes, Esq.,
Georgina Foster, Esq., Helen Joyce, Esq., David McCredie, Esq.,
Maria O'Brien, Esq., Andrew Salgo, Esq.,  David Walter and
Alexander (Alex) Wolff, Esq., of  Baker McKenzie, in an article for
Lexology, reported that the door is well and truly open: The
acceptance of "indirect market-based" causation in an Australian
securities class action confirms shareholders in listed companies
can recover damages for breach of continuous disclosure
obligations, and for misleading and deceptive conduct, without
needing to establish personal reliance

Overview

The landmark decision in TPT Patrol Pty Ltd as trustee for Amies
Superannuation Fund v Myer Holdings Limited1 (Myer) on 24 October
2019 has confirmed that shareholders in listed companies may be
entitled to recover damages for breaches of continuous disclosure
obligations, and for misleading and deceptive conduct, upon the
basis of "indirect market-based" causation, thereby avoiding the
need to establish direct, personal reliance by the affected
shareholder upon either the absence of appropriate disclosure or
that misleading and deceptive conduct.

Myer not only confirms support for the "indirect market-based"
causation thesis which has been developing in Australia over a
number of years2, it is a critical development as the first case in
which "indirect market-based" causation has been held to apply in
an Australian securities class action. Myer is also the first
securities class action to go to final judgment.

Despite the fact that the Court went on to conclude that the
applicant (TPT) had failed to prove the share price inflation
required to establish recoverable loss or damage in this particular
case (including because of fundamental problems with its expert
evidence), the acceptance of "indirect market-based" causation will
undoubtedly further embolden securities class action plaintiffs,
their solicitors and litigation funders.

The decision also provides useful reminders regarding the risks
associated with providing earnings or other guidance (particularly
forecasts) and to the limitations of written disclaimers.

Myer - the facts and decision

In Myer, the Court considered the issue of causation in the context
of claims for loss and damage said to have been caused by:

  -- the failure of the ASX listed Myer to make timely disclosure,
to the ASX, of price sensitive information concerning its ordinary
fully paid shares (Securities) in breach of its continuous
disclosure obligations; and/or

   -- Myer's alleged misleading or deceptive conduct, including by
making and/or failing to correct or modify earnings guidance
(specifically, a forecast as to expected future earnings).

In short3:

-- on 11 September 2014, Myer issued an ASX and media release
dealing with its full year results for FY14, which provided little
guidance concerning FY15, and no FY15 earning forecasts;

-- later on 11 September 2014, there was an equity analyst webcast,
which included a slide presentation. Once again, the slide
presentation provided little guidance concerning FY15, and no FY15
earning forecasts;

-- both the ASX release and the slide presentation included written
disclaimers (Myer Disclaimers), which were in reasonably standard
form and included that:

* indications of plans, sales and financial performance were
forward-looking statements;

* forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future
performance and involve known and unknown risks;

* actual results may vary;

* "readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on
forward-looking statements, which are current only as at the date
of …[ the] … release"; and

* subject to law, Myer assumes no obligation to update such
information;

* on Sept. 11, 2014, despite having a company policy of not
providing earnings guidance, Myer's then CEO (Mr Brookes) stated,
in the course of his presentation to the equity analysts, in Q&A
with the equity analysts and in a subsequent conference call with
financial journalists, that it was likely that Myer's net profit
after tax (NPAT) in FY15 would exceed Myer's NPAT in FY14 ($98.5
million);

* on March 19, 2015, Myer announced, to the ASX, that it expected
its FY15 NPAT to only be between $75 - $80 million (excluding
one-off costs); and

* immediately after that announcement on March 19, 2015, Myer's
share price and market capitalisation declined materially (by about
10%).

TPT subsequently brought proceedings, claiming damages both on its
own behalf and also on behalf of a class of persons who acquired
Securities on or after SEpt. 11, 2014, who were holders of any of
those Securities at the commencement of trading on March 19, 2015
and who had claims for loss and damage (Class Members).

TPT did not seek to prove that individual shareholders suffered
loss or damage by reason of their direct or specific reliance upon
Mr Brookes' statement (or, even, that that they were aware of it
having been made).

Instead, TPT:

* relied only on an "indirect or market-based" causation thesis,
that is, in essence, that the market for Myer's Securities had been
misled by Myer's conduct (both Mr Brookes' statement and what was
alleged to be Myer's failure to correct or modify that statement in
a timely manner), resulting in TPT and Class Members purchasing
their Securities at an inflated price; and

* the contraventions.but for that loss should be measured as the
difference between the (inflated) price at which TPT and Class
Members acquired their Securities and the market price that would
have prevailed at those times 4 ultimately argued

The Court found that, while Mr Brookes' statement (a forecast) was
not misleading when made because there was a reasonable basis for
it at the time (11 September 2014), Myer should have disclosed to
the market:

* by no later than Nov. 21, 2014, that it was no longer likely that
its FY15 NPAT would be materially above its FY14 NPAT; and

* by no later than  Dec. 9, 2014, that it was likely that its FY15
NPAT would be lower than its FY14 NPAT by reference to specific
amounts which (depending upon the date) were between $6.5 million
and $11.5 million less.

While the focus of this alert is on indirect market-based
causation, it is worthwhile also noting that:

* the Court also found that Myer had wrongly assumed that its
continuous disclosure obligations did not require it to correct or
modify Mr Brookes' 11 September 2014 statement because its
subsequent expectations of a likely lower FY15 NPAT, prior to its
eventual market disclosure on 19 March 2015, remained in line with
Bloomberg's average ("consensus") of key equity analysts' FY15 NPAT
expectations for Myer, which was approximately 10% lower than
Myer's FY14 NPAT; and

* the Court held that "not too much emphasis" should be put on the
fact that Mr Brookes' statement was made in the context of the Myer
Disclaimers because, while the sophisticated members of the equity
analyst and financial journalist audiences would have appreciated
the inherent uncertainties involved in forward-looking earnings
statement in any event, "a reasonable person would not regard a
standard form of disclaimer as gutting … [Mr Brooke's] …
forecast of meaningful content", with the result that "the prospect
that the printed disclaimers could effectively negate the
representations or relieve Myer from its obligations to have
reasonable grounds is problematic to say the least".

Although TPT's claim for damages was ultimately unsuccessful,
including because the Court found that "the hard-edge scepticism"
of market analysts and market makers at the time of the
contraventions (as reflected in the Bloomberg consensus
expectations) had already deflated Mr Brookes' inflated views so
that any corrective statement, at the time of the contraventions,
would not have had a material effect on the market price for Myer's
Securities, what is important is that the Court accepted that
"indirect market-based" causation (the unknowing acquisition of
shares, at a prevailing market price, during a period of share
price inflation induced by misconduct) was available as an
alternative to establishing reliance, both for breaches of
continuous disclosure obligations and for misleading or deceptive
conduct.

Potential issues with indirect marked based causation

In another recent decision of the Federal Court handed down on 18
October 2019 (Masters v Lombe (Liquidator); In the Matter of
Babcock & Brown Limited (In Liquidation) [2019] FCA 1720) (Babcock
& Brown), Foster J made observations directed at a number of
potential issues with the "indirect market-based" causation thesis,
including that it potentially leaves open the possibility of
recovery by a shareholder who either knew the true position or who
would not have acted differently if they had known the true
position.

While it was ultimately unnecessary for the Court to determine
those issues in Myer because of the problems with TPT's expert
evidence as to share price inflation, the Court did discuss
potential "antidotes" to those issues, including the possibility of
holding that the relevant misconduct could not ultimately cause the
loss claimed by a shareholder in those particular situations
because that knowledge or attitude amounted to an intervening,
disqualifying act. While Foster J plainly expressed some scepticism
regarding these potential "solutions", such an approach would be
consistent with the consideration previously given to the same
issues in HIH Insurance Limited.

What does this mean for ASX listed companies?

Apart from anything else, Myer reminds ASX listed companies and
their advisers of the critical importance of strict compliance with
continuous disclosure obligations and prohibitions on misleading
and deceptive conduct.

Myer also illustrates:

* the inherent dangers involved in giving earnings guidance or
making other forward-looking statements;

* that written disclaimers as to the (limited) effect of
forward-looking and other statements, and as to limitations upon
the reliance to be placed upon them, are rarely successful, without
more, in avoiding or limiting responsibility and liability; and

* the (obvious but overlooked) fact that proper disclosure, and the
avoidance of misleading and deceptive conduct, requires effective
clarification of all material prior statements, even where those
statements have already been "discounted" by the market (for
example, in analysts' or commentators' "consensus" forecasts).

More broadly, Myer will have important ramifications for ASX listed
companies because it makes it clear that:

* a shareholder can prove causation without the need to show that
they personally relied upon, or even read, or heard, a listed
company's misleading statement; and

* a court can apply an indirect causation test to breaches of the
continuous disclosure regime.

Finally, Myer will only further encourage shareholders and lawyers
to bring (and litigation funders to fund) shareholder class actions
given that application of the "indirect market-based" causation
thesis can overcome the significant evidentiary challenges, time
and cost associated with proving reliance by each group member in
securities class actions. [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Bernstein Liebhard Noted of Dec. 3 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP announced that class action complaints have
been filed on behalf of shareholders of SONM, UBER, and COF. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the court by the
lead plaintiff deadlines listed below. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you take no
action, you may remain an absent class member.

To discuss the cases below please contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll
free at (877) 779-1414.

Sonim Technologies Inc. (SONM)
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: December 6, 2019

Defendants failed to disclose to investors: Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company's
XP8 was experiencing material software challenges; (2) that these
software issues adversely affected how the device's Qualcomm
chipset, which supported Band 14 access, connected to AT&T's
carrier network configuration; (3) that the Company's XP5 and XP3
devices were experiencing material software defects that adversely
affected their optimization with certain accessories; (4) that, as
a result, the Company was reasonably likely to delay the launch of
new products; (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
financial results would be materially and adversely impacted; and
(6) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

To get additional information about the Sonim Shareholder Class
Action contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

Uber Technologies Inc. (UBER)
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: December 3, 2019

Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) at the time of the
Offering, Uber was rapidly increasing subsidies for drivers and
customer's rides and meals in a bid for market share, which caused
the Company's sales and marketing expenses to swell; (2) Defendants
were cutting (or planned to cut) costs in key areas that undermined
the Company's central growth opportunities; and (3) as a result,
defendants statements about Ubers business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

To get additional information about the Uber Shareholder Class
Action contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

Capital One Financial Corporation (COF)
CLASS PERIOD: 02/02/2018 - 07/29/2019
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: December 2, 2019

Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose to investors: (1) the Company did not maintain robust
information security protections, and its protection did not shield
personal information against security breaches; (2) such
deficiencies heightened the Company's exposure to a cyber-attack;
and (3) as a result, Capital One's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

To get additional information about the Capital One Shareholder
Class Action  contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877)
779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

Contact:

         Matthew E. Guarnero, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         Website: http://www.bernlieb.com  
         Tel: (877) 779-1414
         Email: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
[GN]


UNDER ARMOUR: Kraft Seeks Damages Over Decline of Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Kraft, Individually and on Behalf of all others similarly
situated v. UNDER ARMOUR, INC., KEVIN A. PLANK, PATRIK FRISK, DAVID
E. BERGMAN, and LAWRENCE "CHIP" MOLLOY, Case No. 1:19-cv-03502-RDB
(D. Md., Dec. 9, 2019), seeks to recover compensable damages caused
by the Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of persons or entities, who
purchased or otherwise acquired Under Armour securities between
August 3, 2016, and November 1, 2019, inclusive.

The Plaintiff purchased Under Armour securities during the Class
Period. The Plaintiff alleges that the financial statements issued
by the Defendants during the Class Period were materially false
and/or misleading because they misrepresented, and failed to
disclose, adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business,
operations and prospects, which were known to the Defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them.

Specifically, the Plaintiff contends, the Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
Under Armour shifted sales from quarter to quarter to appear
healthier, including to keep pace with their long-running
year-over-year 20% net revenue growth; (ii) undisclosed to the
investing public, the Company had been under investigation by and
cooperating with the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission since at least July 2017; and (iii) as a
result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On November 3, 2019, the Wall Street Journal reported on the DOJ
and SEC investigations into Under Armour's accounting practices and
related disclosures. The article, entitled "Under Armour Is Subject
of Federal Accounting Probes," noted that the investigations
concerned whether Under Armour shifted sales from quarter to
quarter to appear healthier. That same day, the Company confirmed
to the Wall Street Journal that it had been cooperating with the
DOJ and SEC since July 2017.

On this news, Class C shares of Under Armour (symbol: UA) fell
$3.47 per share, or 18.35%, to close at $15.44 per share, and Class
A shares of Under Armour (symbol: UAA) fell $4.00 per share, or
18.92%, to close at $17.14 per share, on November 4, 2019, damaging
investors.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.

Under Armour purports to develop, market, and distribute branded
performance apparel, footwear, and accessories for men, women, and
youth.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven J. Toll, Esq.
          Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
          S. Douglas Bunch, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W., 5th Floor
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: (202) 408-4600
          Fax: (202) 408-4699
          Email: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
                 dsommers@cohenmilstein.com
                 dbunch@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: (212) 697-6484
          Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
          Email: peretz@bgandg.com


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Gonzalez Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diane Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC., a foreign corporation, Case
No. 6:19-cv-00700 (W.D. Tex., Dec. 10, 2019), arises from the
Defendant's knowing and willful violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

As part of its business, the Defendant engages in unsolicited
telemarketing directed towards prospective customers with no regard
for consumers' privacy rights. The Defendant's telemarketing
consists of placing prerecorded calls to consumers soliciting them
to invest in its goods and/or services.

The Defendant caused thousands of prerecorded messages to be sent
to the cellular telephones of the Plaintiff and Class Members,
causing them injuries, including invasion of their privacy,
aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and
conversion, says the complaint. Through this action, the Plaintiff
seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's illegal conduct.

The Plaintiff is a natural person who was a resident of Coryell
County, Texas.

The Defendant is a for-profit managed healthcare company that
offers healthcare products and insurance services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Angelica M. Gentile, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone (305) 479-2299
          Email: agentile@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 954.400.4713
          Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

               - and -

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


VBI VACCINES: Trial in Israel Suit v. SciVac to Begin Dec. 19
-------------------------------------------------------------
VBI Vaccines 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 trial of a
civil action against SciVac Ltd., has been scheduled to begin
December 19, 2019.

On September 13, 2018, two actions were brought in the district
court of the central district in Israel naming the company's
subsidiary SciVac as a defendant.

In one claim, two minors, through their parents, allege among other
things, defects in certain batches of Sci-B-Vac discovered in July
2015; that Sci-B-Vac was approved for use in children and infants
in Israel without sufficient evidence establishing its safety; that
SciVac failed to provide accurate information about Sci-B-Vac to
consumers and that each child suffered side effects from the
vaccine.

The claim was filed together with a motion seeking approval of a
class action on behalf of 428,000 children vaccinated with
Sci-B-Vac in Israel from April, 2011 and seeking damages in a total
amount of NIS 1,879,500,000 (not in thousands) ($539,776).

The second claim is a civil action brought by two minors and their
parents against SciVac and the IMOH alleging, among other things,
that SciVac marketed an experimental, defective, hazardous or
harmful vaccine; that Sci-B-Vac was marketed in Israel without
sufficient evidence establishing its safety; and that Sci-B-Vac was
produced and marketed in Israel without approval of a western
regulatory body.

The claim seeks damages for past and future losses and expenses as
well as punitive damages.

SciVac believes these matters to be without merit and intends to
defend these claims vigorously.

The District Court has accepted SciVac's motion to suspend reaching
a decision on the approval of the class action pending the
determination of liability under the civil action.

The trial of the civil action has been scheduled to begin on
December 19, 2019.

VBI Vaccines Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, develops and sells
vaccines to address unmet needs in infectious disease and
immuno-oncology in Israel and internationally. The company was
formerly known as SciVac Therapeutics Inc. and changed its name to
VBI Vaccines Inc. in May 2016. The company is headquartered in
Cambridge, Massachusetts.


VERDE ENERGY: $6MM Settlement Reached in Jurich Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Spark 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 parties in
Jurich v. Verde Energy USA, Inc. have reached a class settlement in
this matter, in the amount of $6.0 million, which has received
preliminary court approval.

Jurich v. Verde Energy USA, Inc. is a class action originally filed
on March 3, 2015 in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut and subsequently re-filed on October 8,
2015 in the Superior Court of Judicial District of Hartford, State
of Connecticut.

The Amended Complaint asserts that the Verde Companies charged
rates in violation of its contracts with Connecticut customers and
alleges (i) violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. Sections 42-110a et seq., and (ii) breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified actual and punitive damages for
the class and injunctive relief.

As part of an agreement in connection with the acquisition of the
Verde Companies, the original owners of the Verde Companies are
handling this matter.

The parties have reached a class settlement in this matter, in the
amount of $6.0 million, which has received preliminary court
approval.

The Company believes it has full indemnity coverage, net of tax
benefit, for any actual exposure in this case at this time.

Spark Energy, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
independent retail energy services company in the United States. It
operates through two segments, Retail Electricity and Retail
Natural Gas. The company engages in the retail distribution of
electricity and natural gas to residential and commercial
customers. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in
Houston, Texas.


VIKING RIVER: Illegally Diverts Tips & Gratuities, Rosenberg Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MERCEDES ROSENBERG, BENNET G. FELDMAN, ANDRE VON HOYER, and OLGA
VON HOYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. VIKING RIVER CRUISES, INC. d/b/a VIKING CRUISES and
VIKING OCEAN CRUISES, a California corporation, Case No.
2:19-cv-09691 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 12, 2019), seeks to redress injuries
that the Plaintiffs and a class of consumers have suffered, and
will continue to suffer, as a result of the Defendants' deceptive
and fraudulent practices relating to tips and gratuities paid by
the Plaintiffs and class members to VRC, and related Viking Cruise
line entities, for purposes of distribution to crew members.

While it was represented to the Plaintiffs and class members that
the sums they paid as a gratuity would be given to crew members,
Viking fraudulently diverted 10 percent of all such payments to its
own "Viking Tip Account," the Plaintiffs allege.

The improper diversion and retention by Viking of sums intended as
gratuities for crew members constitutes fraud, violates
California's Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, resulted in Viking's unjust enrichment, and warrants
compensatory and exemplary damages and injunctive relief, the
lawsuit says.

VRC is engaged in the business of marketing and selling cruises
under the "Viking Cruises" trademark or tradename. The cruises are
booked with various "carriers" which include, but are not limited
to, Viking River Cruises AG; Viking River Tours Ltd.; Viking Ocean
Cruises Ltd.; Viking Ocean Cruises II Ltd.; Viking Cruises USA Ltd.
and Viking Cruises S.A. VRC 1s responsible for booking travel for
cruise passengers, sending cruise and travel information to the
passengers and collecting payments. Viking is one of the largest
and best-known cruise lines in the world, currently operating 66
vessels.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ray E. Gallo, Esq.
          GALLO LLP
          1604 Solano Ave., Suite B
          Berkeley, CA 94707
          Telephone: 415.257.8800
          E-mail: rgallo@gallo.law

               - and -

          Christopher J. Lynch, Esq.
          CHRISTOPHER J. LYNCH, P.A.
          6915 Red Road, Suite 208
          Coral Gables, FL 33143
          Telephone: 305 443 6200
          E-mail: clynch@hunterlynchlaw.com

               - and -

          Edmund Normand, Esq.
          Jacob Phillips, Esq.
          Normand PLLC
          McCrory Place, Suite 175
          Orlando, FL 32803
          Telephone: 407 603 6031
          E-mail: Ed@ednormand.com
                  jacob.phillips@normandpllc.com

               - and -

          David M. Shenkman, Esq.
          DAVID M. SHENKMAN, P.A.
          4551 Ponce de Leon Blvd.
          Coral Gables, FL 33146
          Telephone: (305) 859 7272
          E-mail: dshenkmanlaw@hotmail.com


VIVINT SOLAR: $7.25MM Accord in Wage and Hour Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the settlement
among the parties in a California wage-and-hour class suit is
awaiting court approval.  A hearing on the matter has held early
this month.

In February 2018, two former employees, on behalf of themselves and
other direct sellers, named the Company in a putative class and
Private Attorneys General Act action in San Diego County Superior
Court, California, alleging that the Company misclassified those
employees and violated other wage and hour laws.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and statutory penalties for
the alleged violations.

The Company disputes the allegations and has retained counsel to
defend it in the litigation.

On October 7, 2019, the Company entered into a class action
settlement agreement, pursuant to which the Company has agreed to
pay up to $7.25 million to settle the claims in the lawsuit, which
was accrued by the Company in general and administrative expense
for the current period ending September 30, 2019.

The settlement is subject to court approval, and a preliminary
approval hearing was scheduled for December 6, 2019. If the court
grants preliminary approval, the Company expects that the court
will schedule a final approval hearing in mid-2020.

Vivint Solar, Inc. provides distributed solar energy primarily to
residential customers in the United States. It owns and installs
solar energy systems through long-term customer contracts. The
company was formerly known as V Solar Holdings, Inc. and changed
its name to Vivint Solar, Inc. in April 2014. Vivint Solar, Inc.
was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in Lehi, Utah.


VIVINT SOLAR: $975,000 Settlement of TCPA Suit Wins Initial OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia has
entered a revised order granting preliminary approval of the
settlement reached in the case, Darrell Rogers, et al. v. Vivint
Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01567.

As part of the Settlement, Defendant has agreed to create a
Settlement Fund of $975,000.  The Settlement Fund will be used to
pay all valid claims, costs of administering the Settlement,
attorneys' fees and costs, and an incentive payment to the
Representative Plaintiff.

The preliminary approval order was first entered in November but
the Court issued an updated order on Dec. 2.  A copy of the revised
order is available at https://is.gd/A4Fb7h

Vivint Solar, 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 in July 2018, an
individual filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, purportedly on behalf
of himself and other persons who received certain telephone calls.


The lawsuit alleges that the Company violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and some of its implementing regulations.
The complaint seeks statutory penalties for each alleged violation.


The Company disputes the allegations in the complaint, has retained
counsel and intends to vigorously defend itself in the litigation.


In August 2019, the Company reached a settlement in principle to
resolve the class action on a nationwide basis for a payment of
approximately $1.0 million (including plaintiff's attorneys' fees),
which was accrued by the Company in general and administrative
expense for the current period ending September 30, 2019. In
November 2019, the parties filed a joint motion with the court
seeking preliminary approval of the settlement.

A final settlement fairness hearing is set for May 12, 2020.

Class counsel are:

     Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
     E-mail: shawn@sjlawcollective.com
     Social Justice Law Collective, PL
     974 Howard Ave.
     Dunedin, FL 34698
     Tel: (202) 709-5744

          - and -

     Richard Bennett, Esq.
     Bennett & Bennett
     1200 Anastasia Ave., Office #360
     Coral Gables, FL 33134
     Tel: (305) 444-5924
     E-mail: Richardbennett27@gmail.com

Vivint Solar, Inc. provides distributed solar energy primarily to
residential customers in the United States. It owns and installs
solar energy systems through long-term customer contracts. The
company was formerly known as V Solar Holdings, Inc. and changed
its name to Vivint Solar, Inc. in April 2014. Vivint Solar, Inc.
was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in Lehi, Utah.


VIVINT SOLAR: Facing Two Stockholder Class Suits in E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, 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 two separate putative class actions in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

In October 2019, two separate, purported stockholders filed
separate putative class actions in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York purportedly on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated.

The lawsuits allege violations of federal securities laws and seek
unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company has not yet been served with either complaint and
reserves all of its rights and objections with regard to service of
process, jurisdictional challenges, and venue as well as any other
objections and motions related to the complaints.

The Company disputes the allegations in the complaints and has
retained counsel to represent it in the litigation.

The Company is unable to estimate a range of loss, if any, at this
time. If an unfavorable outcome were to occur in either case, it is
possible that the impact could be material to the Company's results
of operations in the period(s) in which any such outcome becomes
probable and estimable.

Vivint Solar, Inc. provides distributed solar energy primarily to
residential customers in the United States. It owns and installs
solar energy systems through long-term customer contracts. The
company was formerly known as V Solar Holdings, Inc. and changed
its name to Vivint Solar, Inc. in April 2014. Vivint Solar, Inc.
was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in Lehi, Utah.



WABASH NATIONAL: Pre-Merger Class Suit Against Supreme Concluded
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wabash National 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 U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has dismissed the class action suit
against Supreme Corporation.

Prior to the Company's acquisition of Supreme, on November 4, 2016,
a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Supreme
Corporation, Mark D. Weber (Supreme's former Chief Executive
Officer) and Matthew W. Long (Supreme's former Chief Financial
Officer) in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California alleging the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 by making material, misleading statements in July 2016
regarding projected backlog.

The plaintiff seeks to recover unspecified damages. On February 14,
2017, the Court transferred the venue of the case to the Northern
District of Indiana upon the joint stipulation of the plaintiff and
the defendants. An amended complaint was filed on April 24, 2017
challenging statements made during a putative class period of
October 22, 2015, through October 21, 2016.

On May 24, 2018, the Court granted Supreme's motion to dismiss all
claims for failure to state a claim. On July 13, 2018, the
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. On August 24, 2018,
Supreme filed a second motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim, and requested dismissal with prejudice.

On March 29, 2019, the Court granted Supreme's motion and dismissed
plaintiffs' second amended complaint, with prejudice. Plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal on April 29, 2019, and following an Agreed
Stipulation of Dismissal filed jointly by the parties, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dismissed the case on
September 24, 2019.

On September 27, 2017, Wabash National said it has completed the
acquisition of Supreme Industries, Inc. (NYSE American:STS), a
manufacturer of truck bodies, following a cash tender offer by a
subsidiary of Wabash National for all outstanding shares of
Supreme's Class A and Class B common stock. The signing of the
definitive agreement was previously announced August 8, 2017.

Wabash National Corporation manufactures and sells semi-trailers,
truck bodies, specialized commercial vehicles, and liquid
transportation systems. The company is based in Lafayette,
Indiana.


WENDY'S CO: Accord in Financial Firms' Suit Awaits Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Wendy's 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 29, 2019, that the parties in the
litigation initiated by financial institutions are awaiting the
court's final approval of their settlement.

Certain financial institutions have filed class actions lawsuits in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania,
which sought to certify a nationwide class of financial
institutions that issued payment cards that were allegedly
impacted. Those cases were consolidated into a single case (the "FI
Case").

On February 13, 2019, the Company and the plaintiffs filed a
settlement agreement and a motion for preliminary approval of a
class-wide settlement of the FI Case with the court.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, if approved and
finalized, a settlement class of financial institutions will
receive $50,000, inclusive of attorneys' fees and costs. After
exhaustion of applicable insurance, the Company now expects to pay
approximately $25,000 of this amount.

In exchange, the Company and its franchisees will receive a full
release of all claims that have or could have been brought by
financial institutions who do not opt out of the settlement related
to the cybersecurity incidents described herein.

On February 26, 2019, the court preliminarily approved the
settlement agreement and scheduled a final approval hearing for
November 6, 2019.

The settlement agreement remains subject to a notice and objection
process and final court approval.

If approved, the Company anticipates that payment will occur in
early 2020.

The Company recorded a liability of $50,000 and insurance
receivables of $22,500 for the FI case during 2018.

Wendy's said, "As a result of cost savings related to the
settlement of the Torres Case in the three months ended September
29, 2019, the Company adjusted its insurance receivables for the FI
case to approximately $25,000."

The Wendy's Company operates fast-food restaurants. The Company
owns, operates, and franchises fast-food restaurants located
throughout countries that include the United States, Singapore, the
Middle East and North Africa, the Russian Federation, the Eastern
Caribbean, Argentina, the Philippines and Japan. The company is
based in Dublin, Ohio.


WENDY'S CO: Says Torres Class Action Now Closed
-----------------------------------------------
The Wendy's 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 29, 2019, that the class action
suit initiated by Jonathan Torres is now considered closed.

The Company was named as a defendant in putative class action
lawsuits alleging, among other things, that the Company failed to
safeguard customer credit card information and failed to provide
notice that credit card information had been compromised. Jonathan
Torres and other consumers filed an action in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida. On August 23, 2018, the
court preliminarily approved a class-wide settlement.

A final approval hearing of the settlement of the Torres Case was
held on February 26, 2019, and final approval was granted by the
court.

Wendy's said, "At this time, the action has been dismissed with
prejudice (with no appeal taken), all claims and other amounts
payable per the terms of the settlement agreement have been paid,
and the matter is considered closed."

The Wendy's Company operates fast-food restaurants. The Company
owns, operates, and franchises fast-food restaurants located
throughout countries that include the United States, Singapore, the
Middle East and North Africa, the Russian Federation, the Eastern
Caribbean, Argentina, the Philippines and Japan. The company is
based in Dublin, Ohio.



WERNER ENTERPRISES: Post-Verdict Awards Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------
Werner Enterprises, 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 a
class action suit in Nebraska have taken an appeal from the
post-verdict amounts awarded by the trial court for fees, costs and
liquidated damages.

The company is involved in class action litigation in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nebraska, in which the
plaintiffs allege that the company owes drivers for unpaid wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Nebraska Wage
Payment and Collection Act and that the company failed to pay
minimum wage per hour for drivers in its student driver training
program, related to short break time and sleeper berth time.

The period covered by this class action suit is August 2008 through
March 2014.

The case was tried to a jury in May 2017, resulting in a verdict of
$0.8 million in plaintiffs' favor on the short break matter and a
verdict in the company's favor on the sleeper berth matter.

As a result of various post-trial motions, the court has awarded
$0.5 million to the plaintiffs for attorney fees and costs.

Werner said, "As of September 30, 2019, we had accrued for the
jury's award, attorney fees and costs in the short break matter and
had not accrued for the sleeper berth matter."

Plaintiffs have appealed the post-verdict amounts awarded by the
trial court for fees, costs and liquidated damages.

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

Werner Enterprises, Inc., a transportation and logistics company,
engages in transporting truckload shipments of general commodities
in interstate and intrastate commerce in the United States, Mexico,
Canada, and China. It operates in two segments, Truckload
Transportation Services and Werner Logistics. Werner Enterprises,
Inc. was founded in 1956 and is headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska.


WERNER ENTERPRISES: Still Faces Class Suits over Labor Matters
--------------------------------------------------------------
Werner Enterprises, 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 itself against labor-related class action
lawsuits.

The company is involved in certain class action litigation in which
the plaintiffs allege claims for failure to provide meal and rest
breaks, unpaid wages, unauthorized deductions and other items.

Based on the knowledge of the facts, management does not currently
believe the outcome of these class actions is likely to have a
material adverse effect on the company's financial position or
results of operations.

However, the final disposition of these matters and the impact of
such final dispositions cannot be determined at this time.

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

Werner Enterprises, Inc., a transportation and logistics company,
engages in transporting truckload shipments of general commodities
in interstate and intrastate commerce in the United States, Mexico,
Canada, and China. It operates in two segments, Truckload
Transportation Services and Werner Logistics. Werner Enterprises,
Inc. was founded in 1956 and is headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska.


WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NY: Downes Files Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kevin M. McGuire. The
case is styled as Marion Downes by her attorney-in-fact Michael
Downes, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Kevin M. McGuire in his offical capacity as
Commissioner, Westchester County Department of Social Services,
Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-11281 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Personal
Property: Other filed as a Diversity Action.

Kevin M. McGuire is the Commissioner of the Westchester County
Department of Social Services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Aytan Yehoshua Bellin
   Bellin & Associates
   85 Miles Avenue
   White Plains, NY 10606
   Tel: (212) 358-5345
   Fax: (212) 571-0284
   Email: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com



WESTPAC BANKING: 2017 Australian Class Action Remains Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
Westpac Banking Corporation said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, that a 2017 customer
class action lawsuit initiated before the Federal Court of
Australia has been stayed.

On October 12, 2017, a class action was filed in the Federal Court
of Australia on behalf of customers who, since February 2011,
obtained insurance issued by Westpac Life Insurance Services
Limited (WLIS) on the recommendation of financial advisers employed
within the Westpac Group.

The plaintiffs have alleged that aspects of the financial advice
provided by those advisers breached fiduciary and statutory duties
owed to the advisers' clients, including the duty to act in the
best interests of the client, and that WLIS was knowingly involved
in those alleged breaches.

Westpac and WLIS are defending the proceedings.

Westpac Banking said, "These proceedings are currently stayed by
order of the Court, pending the outcome of an appeal concerning a
procedural issue unrelated to the substantive claims made in the
class action."

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

Westpac Banking Corporation provides various banking and financial
services in Australia, New Zealand, Asia, the Pacific region, and
internationally. It operates through five divisions: Consumer Bank,
Business Bank, BT Financial Group, Westpac Institutional Bank, and
Westpac New Zealand. The company was formerly known as Bank of New
South Wales and changed its name to Westpac Banking Corporation in
October 1982. The company was founded in 1817 and is headquartered
in Sydney, Australia.


WESTPAC BANKING: Class Suits over Aussie Home Loans Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Westpac Banking Corporation said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit in Australia related to
home loans.

On February 21, 2019, a class action against Westpac was filed in
the Federal Court of Australia.

As directed by the Court, the Plaintiffs filed a Statement of Claim
on May 22, 2019 and an amended statement of claim on October 18,
2019. The claims allege that Westpac did not comply with its
responsible lending obligations and entered into certain home loans
that it should otherwise have assessed as unsuitable.

The allegations include that, during the period from January 1,
2011 to February 17, 2018, Westpac failed to: conduct reasonable
inquiries about the customers' financial situation, requirements
and objectives; verify customer's financial situation; conduct
assessments of suitability; and act efficiently and fairly.

Westpac is defending the proceedings.

Westpac Banking Corporation provides various banking and financial
services in Australia, New Zealand, Asia, the Pacific region, and
internationally. It operates through five divisions: Consumer Bank,
Business Bank, BT Financial Group, Westpac Institutional Bank, and
Westpac New Zealand. The company was formerly known as Bank of New
South Wales and changed its name to Westpac Banking Corporation in
October 1982. The company was founded in 1817 and is headquartered
in Sydney, Australia.


WESTPAC BANKING: Faces BT Life Cash Investment Option Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Westpac Banking Corporation said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, that the company and
BT Funds Management Limited (BTFM) are defending against a class
action lawsuit related to the latter's BT Super for Life cash
investment option.

On September 5, 2019, a class action against BT Funds Management
Limited (BTFM) and Westpac Life Insurance Services Limited (WLIS)
was commenced in relation to aspects of BTFM's BT Super for Life
cash investment option. The claim follows other industry class
actions as part of Slater and Gordon's 'Get your super back'
campaign.

It is alleged in the proceedings that BTFM failed to adhere to a
number of obligations under the general law, the relevant trust
deed and the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth),
and that WLIS was knowingly concerned with BTFM's alleged
contraventions. The damages sought by the claim are unspecified.

BTFM and WLIS are defending the proceedings.

Westpac Banking Corporation provides various banking and financial
services in Australia, New Zealand, Asia, the Pacific region, and
internationally. It operates through five divisions: Consumer Bank,
Business Bank, BT Financial Group, Westpac Institutional Bank, and
Westpac New Zealand. The company was formerly known as Bank of New
South Wales and changed its name to Westpac Banking Corporation in
October 1982. The company was founded in 1817 and is headquartered
in Sydney, Australia.


WESTPAC BANKING: Suit over Bill Swap Reference Rate Underway in NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Westpac Banking Corporation said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, that the company's
motion to dismiss the class action suit related to bank bill swap
reference rate is pending.

In August 2016, a class action was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Westpac and large number of Australian and international banks
alleging misconduct in relation to the bank bill swap reference
rate.

In April 2019, an amended claim was filed by the Plaintiffs.

Westpac is defending the proceedings with a Motion to Dismiss filed
in May 2019.

No further updates were provided by the Company.

Westpac Banking Corporation provides various banking and financial
services in Australia, New Zealand, Asia, the Pacific region, and
internationally. It operates through five divisions: Consumer Bank,
Business Bank, BT Financial Group, Westpac Institutional Bank, and
Westpac New Zealand. The company was formerly known as Bank of New
South Wales and changed its name to Westpac Banking Corporation in
October 1982. The company was founded in 1817 and is headquartered
in Sydney, Australia.


WORK MANAGEMENT: Compton Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristina Compton, individually and for Others Similarly Situated v.
WORK MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 4:19-cv-04789 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 10,
2019), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages from the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff, and other workers like
her, overtime as required by the FLSA, says the complaint. Instead,
she asserts, the Defendant paid her the same hourly rate for all
hours worked, including those in excess of 40 in a work week.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Project Controls
Scheduler.

Work Management, Inc. provides the infrastructure to support the
management and implementation of many of the core standard nuclear
performance model processes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: 713-352-1100
          Facsimile: 713-352-3300
          Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                 adunlap@mybackwages.com
                 rschreiber@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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


ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Tanenbaum Asserts Breach of FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zwicker & Associates,
P.C. The case is styled as Benjamin Tanenbaum, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Zwicker &
Associates, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06924 (E.D.N.Y., Dec.
10, 2019).

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

Zwicker & Associates, P.C. is a law firm that represents credit
grantors within the financial services industry. The firm is
experienced in Bankruptcy, Commercial Collections, Consumer
Collections and Litigation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David Michael Barshay, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza
   Ste 5th Floor
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 706-5055
   Email: dbarshay@bakersanders.com



[*] South African Companies May Face Class Action Under POPIA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ahmore Burger-Smidt, Esq. -- aburgersmidt@werksmans.com -- of
Werksmans Attorneys, in an article for Mondaq, reports that
companies that fail to protect their customers' personal
information may face class action suits once the Protection of
Personal Information Act (POPIA) comes into force in South Africa.

With the growing threat of cybercrime, companies need to ensure
they take data leaks seriously.

Cybercrime is expected to be the most disruptive economic crime to
affect organisations over the next 24 months. This is according to
a quarter of SA respondents to a 2018 PwC survey.

Another survey, by Refinitiv in 2018, found that 20% of 2 373
global respondents (123 from SA), had suffered loss from
cybercrime. [GN]



[*] Study Shows Results of Class Settlement Claims Response Rates
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen J. Newman, Esq. -- snewman@stroock.com -- of Stroock &
Stroock & Lavan LLP, in an article for Bloomberg Law, reports that
the FTC studied responses by claimants in class action settlements
and found they are wary of some email subject lines, don't trust
legalese, and are more likely to respond to notices by mail. In
addition, a good number of claimants don't even cash their checks.

A recent data-driven study by the Federal Trade Commission sheds
new light on how class action notice and claims procedures might be
negotiated. Intriguingly, the study finds that actual class member
behavior differs from what practitioners might predict.

Many class action cases resolve with a settlement that requires
class members to submit a claim for payment. The rule governing
approval of most class action settlements (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e))
also requires that class members be given notice of the settlement
approval hearing, as well as the opportunity to either object to
the settlement or request to be excluded from the class (opt out).

Thus, when settlements are negotiated, a great deal of attention
often is paid to the manner and form of notice, as well as the
mechanics of the claims process. Amendments to the rule implemented
in 2018 expressly approve use of electronic communication (for
example, email or social media) for the notice process, and so the
details of electronic notice likewise are increasingly the subject
of detailed settlement negotiations. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(c)(2)(B).

Dollar Amounts in Email Subject Lines Aren't Trusted

A frequent concern is what percentage of class members claim
against the settlement fund. To that end, class counsel typically
request that settlement notices greatly emphasize the amount of
money that claimants may receive.

For example, they might want the subject line of a notice email to
include advertising-inspired language, such as, "Important
Settlement Notice—You Could Receive $100—Act Now!"
Surprisingly, the FTC data shows that this kind of urgent language
may cause consumers to be suspicious, and could result in lower
rates of consumers' opening the notice email and submitting a
claim.

Defense counsel take care to design programs that do not encourage
fraudulent claims. To that end, they often attempt to negotiate
that the claim form include language where the claimant verifies
"under penalty of perjury" that the information in the claim form
is true, in hopes that requiring this verification will discourage
fraudsters from submitting claims.

In settlement negotiations, however, class counsel often oppose
this language, on the theory that this legalese may scare
legitimate claimants away from making a claim. Surprisingly, the
FTC data suggests that neither side is correct, in that including
"under penalty of perjury" language probably discourages neither
valid claims nor fraudulent ones.

Including this language results in a very small, but statistically
insignificant, reduction in the claim filing rate. Similar but
softer language ("to the best of my knowledge") also has no
statistically significant impact on the claim filing rate.

Other factors also lacked any statistically-significant impact on
claim filing rates, such as the amount of consumer personal
identifying information required to be submitted on the claim form
or the length of the claim form. Thus, to the extent defendants
require this information to verify claims and prevent fraud, this
can be justified on the grounds that requiring the information will
not materially suppress legitimate claims.

Many Settlement Checks Never Get Cashed

Another surprising result was the rate at which settlement checks
were cashed. In cases where payments were sent directly to class
members, without any requirement to file a claim form, only 55% of
checks were cashed. Even in settlements where claims were required,
only 77% of checks were cashed. The FTC noted, however, that the
amount of the check was the most important factor on check-cashing
rates. For payments in the $50-$100 range, 90% of checks were
cashed.

Still, the low check-cashing rate in direct-payment cases supports
the rationales for requiring class members to submit claims: to
ensure that appropriate individuals receive relief; to prevent
fraudulent claims; and to avoid the administrative expense of
multiple distribution attempts to non-responding class members.

Regarding manner of notice, mailed notice in this study performed
better than emailed notice. Likewise sending out multiple rounds of
notice obtained a higher response than sending out one round of
notice.

One factor that had a very strong, statistically-significant impact
on claim filing rates was the use of plain English drafting
techniques when preparing the class notice and the claim form.

The FTC found that claims filing rates could be increased by more
than 10%, just by using precise, simple language to explain the
claims process and what a class member could receive by submitting
a claim. The impact of plain English drafting greatly outweighed
all other factors.

Accordingly, the study tends to vindicate the Federal Judicial
Center's longstanding policy of encouraging plain English drafting
by distributing sample forms for various kinds of cases.

The FTC emphasized that its findings were based on a small data
set, and cautioned readers about applying its findings to any
particular settlement, because the details of the underlying case
and class may have the most important impact on what kind of notice
and/or claims process is appropriate.

Nevertheless, its data is of great use to practitioners, both in
terms of core settlement design and what features do or don't merit
extensive negotiation.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Bureau
of National Affairs, Inc. or its owners.

Stephen J. Newman is a partner in the Financial Services
Litigation, Regulation and Enforcement group at Stroock & Stroock &
Lavan LLP. He handles class action defense and other representative
litigation, including multidistrict cases and proceedings launched
by government officials on behalf of the general public. [GN]


[] AG Continues to Consider Australian Class Action Reforms
-----------------------------------------------------------
InsuranceNEWS.com.au reports that federal Government
Attorney-General Christian Porter is continuing to consider class
action reforms as the Australian Industry Group (Ai Group) warns
increased activity by litigation funders and an explosion in cases
presents a "clear and present danger" to the fragile economy.

Ai Group says well over $10 billion was claimed against businesses
in class actions filed last financial year, based on conservative
estimates, and companies are facing surging insurance costs.

"Overseas litigation funding firms have moved into Australia in a
big way due to the fact that class actions in Australia are subject
to scant regulation, compared with other countries such as the US
and UK," CEO Innes Willox said.

"Regulation cannot be left to the courts. Litigation funding
arrangements are financial products and these arrangements need to
be regulated like other financial products."

An Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) report to the Government
released in January made recommendations on class actions, but
stopped short of calling for litigation funders to be licensed.

"The report raised complex issues which will need thorough
consideration and I am carefully considering each of the report's
recommendations. However, it is clear that there is a need for
reform in this area," Mr Porter said on Oct. 31.

"The emergence of overseas litigation funding in the Australian
market is concerning and the class action regime needs to be free
from actors seeking solely to profit from the circumstances of
others."

Mr Porter says he is actively engaging with stakeholders as part of
the process of preparing a response to each of the recommendations
from the ALRC report to ensure the class action regime provides
"just and effective" outcomes.

Ai Group says legislative amendments should be implemented without
delay to ensure litigation funders are regulated through the
Australian Securities and Investments Commission, and that
reasonable limits on returns to plaintiff lawyers and funders are
imposed.

Other recommendations by the group include exposing lawyers and
funders to adverse costs orders for unsuccessful actions and
increasing the number of minimum plaintiffs for a case to be
started.

Litigation funders should also be prohibited from exerting any
control over the positions taken and the arguments pursued by
lawyers in proceedings, it says.

"Insurers are playing a big role in class actions. This is leading
to massive increases in insurance costs generally for businesses,
which is money that could otherwise be spend more productively on
job creation or investment," Mr Willox says.

"If the Federal Government does not act quickly to protect the
Australian economy from speculative class action claims, it may be
too late to prevent substantial damage." [GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***