---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, January 8, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 6

                            Headlines

AAC HOLDINGS: Still Defends Caudle Class Action in Tennessee
ACER THERAPEUTICS: Sell Suit over Inadequate Disclosure Pending
ADVISORY GROUP: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Abramson Suit Claims
AFFORDABLE & RELIABLE: Midwest TCPA Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
AKORN INC: Asks Court to Adjourn Hearing on Settlement Approval

AMPHASTAR PHARMA: Former IMS Employee Files Class Action
ASAP MARKETING: Faces Winters Suit Alleging Violation of TCPA
AT HOME INN: Underpays Housekeepers, Isaac et al. Allege
B&S CONSULTING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Abante Rooter Claims
BANCORP OF NEW JERSEY: Continues to Defend Parshall Class Suit

BARONE STEEL: Faces Pimentel Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
BECTON DICKINSON: 12,040 Hernia Product Claims Pending
BECTON DICKINSON: Defends 885 Women's Health Product Claims
BELLRING BRANDS: Suit Against Premier Nutrition Ongoing
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Scott Securities Suit Removed to E.D. Calif.

BOX INC: Securities Class Suit in California Ongoing
BRIGHTVIEW HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Pa. Securities Class Suit
CAMPBELL SOUP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated New Jersey Suit Pending
CASTLEROCK ENVIRONMENTAL: Faces Magana Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Vanselow Seeks to Certify Class

CHICAGO, IL: Court Denies Class Certification in Perez et al. Suit
CHICO'S FAS: Altman Suit v. White House Black Market Ongoing
CHICO'S FAS: Mediation Ongoing in Fisher Class Suit
CHINACACHE INT'L: Likas Class Action Underway in California
CLECO CORP: Parties in Merger Suit Agree to Limited Class Status

CLOUDERA INC: Court Consolidates 3 Securities Class Suits
CLOUDERA INC: Hortonworks Merger-Related Suit Ongoing
CONTINENTAL BUILDING: Rice Challenges Merger With Saint-Gobain
DATA ISIGHT: NJ Chiropractors Association Sues Over ERISA Breach
DAVID YURMAN: Gift Cards Not Accessible to Blind, Calcano Says

DOLLAR TREE: ADA Related Suit vs. Family Dollar Ongoing
DOLLAR TREE: Illinois Class Suit vs. Family Dollar Ongoing
DOLLAR TREE: Still Defends Former California Employee's Suit
DOLLAR TREE: Suit by Distribution Center Employee Ongoing
DOLLAR TREE: Supreme Court Won't Review 9th Cir. Ruling

EN ENGINEERING: Rossman Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
ENERGY TRANSFER: Suits Challenging SemGroup Merger Underway
EVOLENT HEALTH: Torres Seeks Conditional Class Certification
EVOQUA WATER: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit in New York Pending
EZCORP INC: Awaits Final Court Approval of Settlement

FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Indirect Customers State Law Claims Ongoing
FPI MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rios Suit Alleges
FPT OPERATING: Scherrer Sues Over Unwanted Solicitation Calls
GREENWOOD SENIOR: Fails to Prevent Bed Bug Infestation, Long Says
GROCERY DELIVERY: Murray Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls

H&R BLOCK: Appeal in Olosoni and Snarr Class Suit Pending
H&R BLOCK: Bid to Stay Proceeding in Swanson Class Suit Pending
HARROW HEALTH: Pays $571,000 to Settle Dr. Sobol's TCPA Action
HARROW HEALTH: Still Faces Gaukel Class Action in Idaho
HILLENBRAND INC: Still Defends Suits over Milacron Acquisition

HOWARD L. NATIONS: Gaudet et al. Seek to Certify Class
HUNGRYPANDA US: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Weng Says
ICU MEDICAL: Bid to Drop Saline Solution Class Suit Remains Pending
INDEPENDENT PET: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Robinson Says
JACOBS ENGINEERING: Continues to Defend Suit over Fly Ash Waste

KIRKLAND'S INC: Miles Class Action Still Ongoing in California
KIRKLAND'S INC: Plaintiff Wants Gennock Suit Moved to Pa. Court
KOI CBD LLC: Fausett et al. Sue over Sales of Cannabidiol Products
KRISPY KREME: Williams Sues Over Misleading Apple Pie Packaging
L & R DISTRIBUTORS: Did Not Rightly Pay Overtime Wage, Reece Says

L BRANDS: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Ongoing in Ohio
LCV STAFFING: Shields Seeks to Stop Illegal Use of Biometric Info
LOVE'S TRAVEL: Underpays Operation Managers, Horton Alleges
MANAGEMENT AND TRAINING: Seiber Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
MARAV USA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Pagoada Suit Alleges

MATSU CORP: Court Conditionally Certifies FLSA Collective Class
MCCLATCHY CO: Still Defends Fresno and Sacramento Class Actions
MEDTRONIC PLC: Suit Over Covidien Acquisition Still Ongoing
MERCEDES-BENZ US: Simmons Sues Over Disability Discrimination
MERIDIAN BIOSCIENCE: $2.1MM Forman Settlement Awaits Final OK

MERITOR INC: Still Defends Class Litigation in Canada
MGT CAPITAL: Plaintiff in NY Suit Seeks Settlement Approval
MILLENDO THERAPEUTICS: Discovery Still Ongoing in Freedman Suit
MOCHI ICE CREAM: Mislabels Vanilla Mochi Products, Louis Claims
MUELLER WATER: Bid to Dismiss Chapman Class Suit Pending

NET 1 UEPS: Baldwin Sues over 31% Drop in Share Price
NEW FOLIAGE: Yeung Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
NOVATION COMPANIES: Appeal in NJ Carpenters' Suit Remains Pending
NOVUS THERAPEUTICS: Awaits Ruling on Class Status Bid in Jackie888
NUTANIX INC: Bid to Dismiss California Securities Suit Pending

NVIDIA CORP: Bid to Drop Consolidated Securities Suit Still Pending
NVIDIA CORP: Plaintiffs Drop Mellanox Acquisition Lawsuits
ON TRACK INNOVATIONS: Not Join Potential Class Suit in Israel
OOMA INC: California Class Suit over IPO Concluded
PACIFIC MARITIME: Removes Andrikos et al. Suit to C.D. California

PARKING REIT: Amended SIPDA Class Suit in Nevada Underway
PARKING REIT: Bid to Dismiss 2 Stockholders Suits Still Pending
PATTERN ENERGY: Faces Thompson Suit Over Sale to Canada Pension
PATTERSON COS: Court Approves Settlement with Objector
PATTERSON COS: Hatchett Class Action Ongoing in S.D. Illinois

PATTERSON COS: Plymouth Retirement System Suit Ongoing
PEPPER LOGISTICS: Underpays Truck Drivers, Bourque Alleges
PERSPECTA INC: Mediation Continues in Forsyth v. HP Class Action
PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Continues to Defend 6 IPO-Related Class Suits
PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Faces VMware Merger-Related Suits

POST HOLDINGS: Still Defends Egg Products Opt-Out Plaintiffs Suit
PROGENICS PHARMACEUTICALS: Bernstein IRA Sues over Merger
PROTEON THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Plumley Class Action
PVH CORPORATION: Faces Dicicco Suit over Misleading Price Tag
QUANTUM CORP: Settlement in Lazan Case Wins Final Approval

QUINTANA ENERGY: FLSA Class Action Closed
RA MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Derr Securities Suit
RAYMOND JAMES: Settlement in Brink & Wistar Suits Wins Final OK
RELAY DELIVERY: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Hernandez Says
RESONSE MARKETING: Hillman Seeks Unpaid Wages Under WARN Act

RH INC: Settlement in Securities Class Suit Wins Final Approval
RN EXPRESS: Baldia Sues Nurse Staffing Firm for Human Trafficking
ROAN RESOURCES: Faces Citizen Energy Merger-Related Suits
ROBERTSON ANSCHUTZ: Sued by Timberlake for Violating FDCPA, FCCPA
SALESFORCE.COM INC: Continues to Defend Scheufele Class Action

SALESFORCE.COM INC: Curtis Class Action Dismissed
SAMEDAY INSURANCE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Estrada Alleges
SC ENVIRONMENTAL: Court Conditionally Certifies FLSA Collective
SCHREIBER COHEN: Court Certifies Two Amended Classes
SELLAS LIFE: New Jersey Court Dismisses Abstral(R)-Related Suit

SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Bid to Nix Securities Class Suit Still Pending
SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Still Defends 22 Price-Fixing Class Lawsuits
STAR GROUP: Settlement in Donnenfeld Suit Wins Initial Approval
SUBURBAN PROPANE: Continues to Defend NY & Pennsylvania Suits
TWITTER INC: Barclift Sues over 20% Drop in Share Price

TWITTER INC: Continues to Defend Hasan Class Action
UGI CORP: Agreement Reached in Underfilled Propane Cylinders Suit
UNITED SERVICES: RA Sues Over Use of Rule That Reduces Claims
VERINT SYSTEMS: Mediation Ongoing in Class Suit Against Unit
VMWARE INC: Faces Winkler Class Action

WAN HAO RESTAURANT: Zhang Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
WEST COAST: Faces Pena Labor Suit in Sacramento California
WILLIAMS INDUSTRIAL: 5th Cir. Affirms Shareholder Case Dismissal
ZENTAO INC: Shen Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages

                            *********

AAC HOLDINGS: Still Defends Caudle Class Action in Tennessee
------------------------------------------------------------
AAC Holdings, Inc. continues to face a purported class action
styled, Caudle v. AAC Holdings, Inc. et al., in Tennessee,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019.

On May 16, 2019, an alleged shareholder filed a purported class
action in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers (Caudle v. AAC Holdings, Inc. et al.).

On November 4, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint on behalf
of a putative class of shareholders who purchased Company stock
between March 8, 2017 and April 15, 2019.  The plaintiff generally
alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making allegedly misleading statements relating to
the Company's marketing practices and with respect to financial
statements reported by the Company for periods between 2016 and
2018, which statements were restated in the Company's Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018.

In two related matters, on August 16, 2019 and September 23, 2019,
alleged shareholders filed derivative actions on behalf of AAC
Holdings, Inc. in the United States District Court in the Middle
District of Tennessee (Cooper v. Cartwright et al. and Pedernera v.
Cartwright, et al.) against the Company's current and certain
former members of its board of directors and senior executive team,
alleging that these individuals breached their fiduciary duties and
engaged in mismanagement.  The two cases have been consolidated and
the consolidated action is stayed pending a decision on the
forthcoming motion to dismiss in the Caudle action.

The Company said, "Given the uncertainty of litigation and the
preliminary stage of these cases, we cannot at this time estimate
the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from
these actions.  The Company believes that the allegations are
without merit and is vigorously defending the action."

                        *     *     *

An Amended Consolidated Complaint for Violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 was filed against AAC Holdings, Inc., Michael
T. Cartwright, Kirk R. Manz, Andrew W. McWilliams, filed by Indiana
Public Retirement System on November 4, 2019.

AAC Holdings, Inc. provides inpatient and outpatient substance use
treatment services for individuals with drug addiction, alcohol
addiction, and co-occurring mental/behavioral health issues in the
United States. Its therapy services include motivational
interviewing, cognitive behavioral therapy, rational emotive
behavior therapy, dialectical behavioral therapy, solution-focused
therapy, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing, and
systematic family intervention. AAC Holdings, Inc. was founded in
2014 and is headquartered in Brentwood, Tennessee.


ACER THERAPEUTICS: Sell Suit over Inadequate Disclosure Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Acer Therapeutics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019, that no activity has occurred in the putative
class action filed by plaintiff Tyler Sell against the Company,
among other defendants.

On July 1, 2019, plaintiff Tyler Sell filed a putative class action
lawsuit, Sell v. Acer Therapeutics Inc., against the Company, Chris
Schelling and Harry Palmin, in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  The complaint alleges that
prior to the receipt of the Complete Response Letter from the FDA,
Acer made material false and misleading statements or omissions
which allegedly constitute securities fraud.

The Company believes the suit is without merit and intends to
defend itself vigorously.  No activity has occurred in the suit
thus far.  The Company has not recorded a liability as of September
30, 2019 because a potential loss is not probable or reasonably
estimable given the preliminary nature of the proceeding.


ADVISORY GROUP: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Abramson Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEWART ABRAMSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE ADVISORY GROUP, LLC d/b/a TAX
ADVISORY GROUP d/b/a TAX LAW ADVOCATES d/b/a TAX LAW ADVISORY; and
JEFF KHATIB, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01581-NR (W.D. Penn.,
Dec. 9, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making
unsolicited calls.

The Advisory Group, LLC offers a full range of accounting, tax and
small business consulting services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


AFFORDABLE & RELIABLE: Midwest TCPA Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned as MIDWEST HEMORRHOID TREATMENT CENTER TOWN &
COUNTRY, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated v. AFFORDABLE & RELIABLE PHARMACY, LLC, ASTHON
T. STUTE, AMY K. STUTE, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 19SL-CC04429,
was removed from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri,
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on
Dec. 30, 2019.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-03393 to the
proceeding.

In the State Court Action, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant
violated a federal statute, the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Max G. Margulis, Esq.
          MARGULIS LAW GROUP
          28 Old Belle Monte Rd.
          Chesterfield, MO 63017

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joshua C. Dickinson, Esq.
          SPENCER FANE LLP
          13520 California Street, Suite 290
          Omaha, NE 68154
          Phone: (402) 965-8600
          Facsimile: (402) 965-8601
          Email: jdickinson@spencerfane.com

               - and -

          Patrick T. McLaughlin, Esq.
          SPENCER FANE LLP
          1 North Brentwood Blvd., Suite 1000
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Phone: (314) 863-7733 (telephone)
          Facsimile: (314) 862-4656
          Email: pmclaughlin@spencerfane.com


AKORN INC: Asks Court to Adjourn Hearing on Settlement Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Akorn, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission filed on November 25, 2019, that the
company and other defendants and the lead plaintiffs in the class
action suit entitled, In re Akorn, Inc. Data Integrity Securities
Litigation, have moved for a 60-day adjournment of the hearing on
final approval of the settlement.

The Company, the other defendants in the Securities Class Action
and the lead plaintiffs jointly moved for a 60-day adjournment of
the hearing on final approval of the settlement of the Securities
Class Action presently scheduled for December 3, 2019 (the "Motion
for Adjournment") in light of the pendency of the motions to
dismiss the Twin Action and the Manikay Action.

On August 9, 2019, Akorn, Inc. and the other defendants in a
putative class action litigation captioned In re Akorn, Inc. Data
Integrity Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 18-cv-1713 (N.D. Ill.)
(the "Securities Class Action"), concerning certain alleged
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement to resolve the Securities
Class Action and the claims of the putative class.  

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Company and the
other defendants in the Securities Class Action have the unilateral
right to terminate the Settlement Agreement on or before the third
business day prior to the hearing on final approval of the
Settlement Agreement (the "Termination Deadline") if persons who
purchased, in aggregate, a number of shares exceeding an agreed
threshold (the "Termination Threshold") timely and validly opt out
of and elect not to participate in or be bound by the terms of the
Settlement Agreement.  

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, putative class members
so desiring to opt out of and elect not to participate in or be
bound by the Settlement Agreement were required to timely mail a
request for exclusion from the terms of the Settlement Agreement to
the claims administrator for the Securities Class Action by
November 12, 2019.

As of the November 12, 2019 deadline for requests for exclusion,
the claims administrator had received requests for exclusion from
putative class members representing claims that substantially
exceed the Termination Threshold, thereby providing the Company and
the other defendants with the unilateral right to terminate the
Settlement Agreement.  

As of November 22, 2019, none of the putative class members who
delivered requests for exclusion had withdrawn its request, and the
Company and the other defendants have not yet made a final
determination as to whether they should exercise their termination
right under the Settlement Agreement.  

Among the putative class members who timely filed requests for
exclusion from the terms of the Settlement Agreement are the
plaintiffs in two separate pending actions, captioned Twin Master
Fund, Ltd. et al. v. Akorn, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 19-cv-3648 (N.D.
Ill.) and Manikay Master Fund, LP et al. v. Akorn, Inc. et al.,
C.A. No. 19-cv-4651 (N.D. Ill.), that make allegations against the
Company and the other defendants that are substantially similar to
the allegations made in the Securities Class Action.  

The Company and the other defendants have moved to dismiss the Twin
Action and Manikay Action. Those motions have not yet been
decided.

On November 22, 2019, the Company, the other defendants in the
Securities Class Action and the lead plaintiffs jointly moved for a
60-day adjournment of the hearing on final approval of the
settlement of the Securities Class Action presently scheduled for
December 3, 2019 (the "Motion for Adjournment") in light of the
pendency of the motions to dismiss the Twin Action and the Manikay
Action.  

Akorn said, "If the Motion for Adjournment is granted, the
Termination Deadline will be the third business day prior to the
rescheduled hearing on final approval of the settlement of the
Securities Class Action. There can be no assurance that the court
will grant the Motion for Adjournment or that, if granted, the
court will rule on the motions to dismiss the Twin Action and
Manikay Action within the 60-day period prior to the rescheduled
hearing on final approval of the settlement of the Securities Class
Action."

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


AMPHASTAR PHARMA: Former IMS Employee Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Amphastar Pharmaceuticals Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that
International Medication Systems, Limited (IMS), a company
subsidiary, is facing a class action suit initiated by its former
employee.

On September 11, 2019, a former employee initiated an employment
litigation against IMS et al. by filing a Class Action Complaint
for alleged violations of various California labor laws pertaining
to wage and hour, and other state laws.

This Class Action Complaint was filed in the Superior Court of
California.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this Employment
Litigation.

Based in Rancho Cucamonga, California, Amphastar Pharmaceuticals
Inc. manufactures injectable and inhaled drugs and drug delivery
systems. The Company also offers contractual manufacturing
services, including labeling and packaging, cold storage, and
aseptic filling.


ASAP MARKETING: Faces Winters Suit Alleging Violation of TCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jackie Winters, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ASAP MARKETING, INC., D/B/A JP MARKETING, and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-10904 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 27,
2019), arises from the illegal actions of the Defendants in
negligently contacting the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff's cellular
telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby, invading
the Plaintiff's privacy.

The Plaintiff did not have an established business relationship
with the Defendant during the time of the solicitation calls from
the Defendant. The Plaintiff did not give the Defendant prior
express written consent for the Defendant to call Plaintiff's home
telephone for marketing or solicitation purposes. The Plaintiff
requested for the Defendant to stop calling the Plaintiff during
one of the initial calls from the Defendant, thus, revoking any
prior express consent that had existed and terminating any
established business relationship that had existed. Despite this,
Defendant continued to call Plaintiff in an attempt to solicit its
services and in violation of the National Do-Not-Call provisions of
the TCPA, thus, repeatedly violating the Plaintiff's privacy, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person residing in Canoga Park,
California.

ASAP MARKETING, INC., D/B/A JP MARKETING, is a marketing
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Phone: (323) 306-4234
          Fax: (866) 633-0228
          Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com


AT HOME INN: Underpays Housekeepers, Isaac et al. Allege
--------------------------------------------------------
MARGARITA ISAAC, and ARNICIA ISAAC, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AT HOME INN, LLC, d/b/a
AT HOME INN- FORT PIERCE; and KEVIN GALLAGHER, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-14468 (S.D. Fla., Dec. 6, 2019) is an action against the
Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as housekeepers.

At Home Inn, LLC, d/b/a At Home Inn-Fort Pierce operates hotels and
motels. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beth Coke, Esq.
          Coke Employment Law
          131 North Second Street, Suite 204
          Fort Pierce, FL 34950
          Telephone: (772) 252-4230
          Facsimile: (772) 252-4575
          E-mail: beth@cokeemploymentlaw.com


B&S CONSULTING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Abante Rooter Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING INC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. B&S CONSULTING GROUP LLC
d/b/a FUNDSHOP; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 3:19-cv-08026 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 9, 2019) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

B&S Consulting Group LLC d/b/a Fundshop provides business
consulting services on a contract or fee basis.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (323) 306-4234
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com


BANCORP OF NEW JERSEY: Continues to Defend Parshall Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bancorp of New Jersey, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on November 25, 2019,
that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled,
Paul Parshall v. Bancorp of New Jersey, Inc. et al.

On August 15, 2019, Bancorp of New Jersey, Inc., a New Jersey
corporation and ConnectOne Bancorp, Inc., a New Jersey corporation,
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, pursuant to which the
Company will merge with and into ConnectOne.

On October 18, 2019, an action captioned Paul Parshall v. Bancorp
of New Jersey, Inc. et al., Docket No. C-276-19, was filed in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County, Chancery Division, on
behalf of a purported class of Company shareholders against the
Company, its current directors and ConnectOne. The complaint in the
Action alleges, among other things, that the registration statement
on Form S-4 filed by ConnectOne on September 27, 2019 in connection
with the Merger (as amended, the "Registration Statement") omits
material information with respect to the Merger, and therefore the
plaintiff in the Action asserts causes of action alleging various
breaches of fiduciary duties by the Defendants.

The Defendants believe that the Action is entirely without merit,
and deny that any further disclosure beyond that already contained
in the Registration Statement is required under applicable law to
supplement the Registration Statement, and the joint proxy
statement included therein, which has subsequently been
disseminated to Company and ConnectOne shareholders.

Nevertheless, to avoid the risk that the Action may delay or
otherwise adversely affect the consummation of the Merger and to
minimize the expense of defending such Action, the Defendants are
making a supplemental disclosures.

The Litigation-Related Supplemental Disclosures supplement the
proxy statement filed by the Company with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 22, 2019 and should be read in
conjunction with the Proxy Statement, which Proxy Statement should
be read in its entirety, along with periodic reports and other
information the Company has filed with the SEC.

A copy of the company's supplemental disclosure is available at
https://bit.ly/2QBnDiL.

Bancorp of New Jersey, Inc. is a bank holding company for Bank of
New Jersey (the Bank). The Company's primary business is ownership
and supervision of the Bank. The Company, through the Bank,
conducts a traditional commercial banking business, accepting
deposits from the general public, including individuals,
businesses, non-profit organizations and governmental units. The
company is based in Fort Lee, New Jersey.


BARONE STEEL: Faces Pimentel Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Pimentel, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. BARONE STEEL, INC., Case No.
1:19-cv-07280 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 30, 2019), is brought for damages and
equitable relief based upon violations that the Defendant committed
of Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to him by the overtime provisions
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendant required the Plaintiff to routinely work, and the
Plaintiff did work, in excess of forty hours each week, or
virtually each week, but the Defendant failed to compensate the
Plaintiff at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of
pay for any hours that he worked in excess of forty in a week, he
alleges. The Defendant failed to compensate the Plaintiff at any
rate of pay for the hours that he worked in excess of forty each
week, let alone at the statutorily- required overtime rate of one
and one-half times his regular hourly rate of pay for any hours
that the Plaintiff worked in excess of forty in a week, in
violation of the FLSA and the NYLL, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant, first as a helper assisting
the Defendant's iron workers while learning that position, and then
as an iron worker.

The Defendant is a Brooklyn-based construction and steel
fabrication company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Danielle E. Mietus, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelly, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 248-5550
          Fax: (516) 248-6027


BECTON DICKINSON: 12,040 Hernia Product Claims Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 27,
2019, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, that as of
September 30, 2019, the Company is defending approximately 12,040
product liability claims involving the Company's line of hernia
repair devices.

The majority of those claims are currently pending in a coordinated
proceeding in Rhode Island State Court, but claims are also pending
in other state and/or federal court jurisdictions. In addition,
those claims include multiple putative class actions in Canada.
Generally, the Hernia Product Claims seek damages for personal
injury allegedly resulting from use of the products.

From time to time, the Company engages in resolution discussions
with plaintiffs' law firms regarding certain of the Hernia Product
Claims, but the Company also intends to vigorously defend Hernia
Product Claims that do not settle, including through litigation.

Trials are scheduled throughout 2020 in various state and/or
federal courts. The Company expects additional trials of Hernia
Product Claims to take place over the next 12 months.

In August 2018, a new hernia multi-district litigation was ordered
to be established in the Southern District of Ohio.

The Company cannot give any assurances that the resolution of the
Hernia Product Claims that have not settled, including asserted and
unasserted claims and the putative class action lawsuits, will not
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results
of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.

Becton, Dickinson and Company develops, manufactures, and sells
medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment, and diagnostic
products worldwide. Becton, Dickinson and Company was founded in
1897 and is based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey.


BECTON DICKINSON: Defends 885 Women's Health Product Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 27,
2019, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, that as of
September 30, 2019, the Company is defending approximately 885
product liability claims involving the Company's line of pelvic
mesh devices.

The majority of those claims are currently pending in various
federal court jurisdictions, and a coordinated proceeding in New
Jersey State Court, but claims are also pending in other state
court jurisdictions.

In addition, those claims include putative class actions filed in
the United States. Not included in the figures above are
approximately 1,010 filed and unfiled claims that have been
asserted or threatened against the Company but lack sufficient
information to determine whether a pelvic mesh device of the
Company is actually at issue.

The claims identified also includes products manufactured by both
the Company and two subsidiaries of Medtronic plc (as successor in
interest to Covidien plc) ("Medtronic"), each a supplier of the
Company. Medtronic has an obligation to defend and indemnify the
Company with respect to any product defect liability relating to
products its subsidiaries had manufactured. On July 2015 the
Company reached an agreement with Medtronic (which was amended in
June 2017) regarding certain aspects of Medtronic's indemnification
obligation. The foregoing lawsuits, unfiled claims, putative class
actions, and other claims, together with claims that have settled
or are the subject of agreements or agreements in principle to
settle, are referred to collectively as the "Women's Health Product
Claims."

The Women's Health Product Claims generally seek damages for
personal injury allegedly resulting from use of the products.

As of September 30, 2019, the Company has reached agreements or
agreements in principle with various plaintiffs' law firms to
settle their respective inventories of cases totaling approximately
15,160 of the Women's Health Product Claims.

The Company believes that these Women's Health Product Claims are
not the subject of Medtronic's indemnification obligation. These
settlement agreements and agreements in principle include unfiled
and previously unknown claims held by various plaintiffs' law
firms, which are not included in the approximate number of lawsuits
set forth in the first paragraph of this section.

Each agreement is subject to certain conditions, including
requirements for participation in the proposed settlements by a
certain minimum number of plaintiffs. The Company continues to
engage in discussions with other plaintiffs' law firms regarding
potential resolution of unsettled Women's Health Product Claims,
which may include additional inventory settlements.

Starting in 2014 in the MDL, the court entered certain pre-trial
orders requiring trial work up and remand of a significant number
of Women's Health Product Claims, including an order entered in the
MDL on January 30, 2018, that requires the work up and remand of
all remaining unsettled cases (the "WHP Pre-Trial Orders").

The WHP Pre-Trial Orders may result in material additional costs or
trial verdicts in future periods in defending Women's Health
Product Claims. Trials are anticipated throughout 2020 in state and
federal courts.

A trial in the New Jersey coordinated proceeding began in March
2018, and in April 2018 a jury entered a verdict against the
Company in the total amount of $68 million ($33 million
compensatory; $35 million punitive).

The Company is in the process of appealing that verdict. A
consolidated trial involving three plaintiffs is scheduled to begin
in January 2020 in the New Jersey coordinated proceeding. The
Company expects additional trials of Women's Health Product Claims
to take place over the next 12 months, which may potentially
include consolidated trials.

In July 2015, as part of the agreement with Medtronic, Medtronic
agreed to take responsibility for pursuing settlement of certain of
the Women's Health Product Claims that relate to products
distributed by the Company under supply agreements with Medtronic,
and the Company has paid Medtronic $121 million towards these
potential settlements.

In June 2017, the Company amended the agreement with Medtronic to
transfer responsibility for settlement of additional Women’s
Health Product Claims to Medtronic on terms similar to the July
2015 agreement, including with respect to the obligation to make
payments to Medtronic towards these potential settlements. In
August 2019, the Company paid Medtronic an additional $20 million
toward additional settlements. The Company also may, in its sole
discretion, transfer responsibility for settlement of additional
Women's Health Product Claims to Medtronic on similar terms. The
agreements do not resolve the dispute between the Company and
Medtronic with respect to Women's Health Product Claims that do not
settle, if any.

During the course of engaging in settlement discussions with
plaintiffs' law firms, the Company has learned, and may in future
periods learn, additional information regarding these and other
unfiled claims, or other lawsuits, which could materially impact
the Company's estimate of the number of claims or lawsuits against
the Company.

Becton, Dickinson and Company develops, manufactures, and sells
medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment, and diagnostic
products worldwide. Becton, Dickinson and Company was founded in
1897 and is based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey.


BELLRING BRANDS: Suit Against Premier Nutrition Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Bellring Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 22, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, that Premier Nutrition
continues to defend Joint Juice Litigation.

In March 2013, a complaint was filed on behalf of a putative,
nationwide class of consumers against Premier Nutrition in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California seeking
monetary damages and injunctive relief.

The case asserted that some of Premier Nutritions's advertising
claims regarding its Joint Juice line of glucosamine dietary
supplements were false and misleading. In April 2016, the district
court certified a California-only class of consumers in this
lawsuit (this lawsuit is hereinafter referred to as the "California
Class Lawsuit").

In 2016 and 2017, the lead plaintiff's counsel in the California
Class Lawsuit filed ten additional class action complaints in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of putative classes of consumers under the laws of
Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan and Pennsylvania. These
additional complaints contain factual allegations similar to the
California Class Lawsuit, also seeking monetary damages and
injunctive relief.

In April 2018, the district court dismissed the California Class
Lawsuit with prejudice. This dismissal was appealed and is pending
before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The other
ten complaints remain pending in the district court.

In January 2019, the same lead counsel filed a further class action
complaint in Alameda County California Superior Court, alleging
claims similar to the above actions and seeking monetary damages
and injunctive relief on behalf of a putative class of California
consumers.

The Company intends to vigorously defend these cases. The Company
does not believe that the resolution of these cases will have a
material adverse effect on its combined financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows.

Bellring Brands, Inc. manufactures food supplements. The Company
produces nutritional items such as protein shakes, powders, and
bars. Bellring Brands serves customers in the State of Missouri.
The company is based in St. Louis, Missouri.


BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Scott Securities Suit Removed to E.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case titled RAYMOND SCOTT and CARLA SCOTT, v. BLUEGREEN
VACATIONS UNLIMITED, INC; THE CLUB AT BIG BEAR VILLAGE; THE CLUB AT
BIG BEAR VILLAGE MASTER ASSOCIATION; THE CLUB AT BIG BEAR VILLAGE
FRACTIONAL OWNERS ASSOCIATION; BLUEGREEN RESORTS MANAGEMENT, INC;
VACATION TRUST, INC; BLUEGREEN VACATIONS CORPORATION; BLUEGREEN
RESORTS; BLUEGREEN VACATION CLUB; BBX CAPITAL CORPORATION; BFC
FINANCIAL CORPORATION; and SHAWN B. PEARSON and DOES 1 through 10,
Case No. BCV-19-102842, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Kern to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California on Dec. 27, 2019.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-at-00932 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiffs allege claims both under the federal Securities
Exchange Act of 1933 and the California Corporations Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          D. Dennis La, Esq.
          Michael Rapkine, Esq.
          ANGLIN, FLEWELLING, RASMUSSEN CAMPBELL & TRYTTEN LLP
          301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 1 100
          Pasadena, CA 91101-4158
          Phone: (626) 535-1900
          Facsimile: (626) 577-7764
          Email: dla@afrct.com
                 mrapkine@afrct.com


BOX INC: Securities Class Suit in California Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Box, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 6, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended October 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend
a purported securities class action suit in the  U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

On June 6, 2019, a purported securities class action was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
naming Box and certain of its officers and directors as defendants.


The complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired Box's securities between November
28, 2018 and June 3, 2019.

The complaint purports to allege that defendants made false and
misleading statements about Box's business and prospects in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, fees, and
costs.

Box said, "We believe the claims are without merit and intend to
defend against the lawsuit vigorously."

Box, Inc. develops Internet applications software. The Company
operates a content sharing platform that enables users to share,
access, and manage content in the cloud, as well as provides mobile
access, file storage, and online collaboration solutions. Box
serves customers worldwide. The company is based in Redwood,
California.



BRIGHTVIEW HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Pa. Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brightview Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 21, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended September 29, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, In re BrightView
Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation.

On April 11, 2019, a purported class action complaint, captioned
Speiser v. BrightView Holdings, Inc., was filed in federal court in
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Company and two of
the Company's officers.

On April 16, 2019, a second purported class action complaint,
captioned McComas v. BrightView Holdings, Inc., was filed in the
Court of Common Pleas in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania against
the Company, certain current and former officers and directors of
the Company, the underwriters in the Company's initial public
offering (IPO), and the Company's alleged controlling stockholders.


On May 31, 2019, McComas filed an amended complaint. In early June
2019, Speiser voluntarily dismissed his complaint in federal court,
but filed a new complaint in the Court of Common Pleas in
Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. The Speiser state court complaint
is substantively identical to the McComas amended complaint. Both
complaints allege violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of
1933 against all defendants and controlling person claims under
Section 15 of the Act against certain defendants.

The plaintiffs purport to represent similar classes of persons who
purchased BrightView stock in its IPO in July 2018 or purchased
BrightView stock in the market that was traceable to the shares
issued in the IPO. The complaints allege that the IPO prospectus
was misleading because it allegedly failed to disclose that a
portion of BrightView's contracts were underperforming and/or
represented undesirable costs to the Company and that, as a result,
BrightView would implement a managed exit strategy from low margin
or non-profitable contracts that would negatively impact its future
revenues; and that BrightView failed to disclose an alleged labor
shortage caused by the Company's inability to hire sufficient
workers through the H-2B visa program would adversely affect
earnings.

On July 19, 2019, the Court entered an order consolidating the
McComas and Speiser state court actions, under the caption, In re
BrightView Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, with the amended
McComas complaint as the operative pleading.

On August 12, 2019, BrightView and the other defendants filed
preliminary objections seeking dismissal of the complaint as
legally insufficient. Defendants also filed a petition for
dismissal based on the provision in BrightView's certificate of
incorporation that designates the federal district courts of the
United States of America as the exclusive forum for resolving any
claim arising under the United States federal securities laws, or
to stay the action pending the decision of the Delaware Supreme
Court in Sciabacucchi v. Salzberg.

In that case, the Delaware Supreme Court is expected to decide
whether federal forum selection provisions such as the one in
BrightView's certificate of incorporation are enforceable under
Delaware law.  On November 4, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification.  

On November 6, 2019, the Court overruled defendants' preliminary
objections and denied defendants' petition for dismissal or for a
stay.  

Brightview said, "The Company intends to continue to defend itself
vigorously against the actions. The Company is unable at this time
to determine the amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if
any, that it may incur as a result of these matters."

Brightview Holdings Inc. is a commercial landscaping services
provider. The Company provides commercial landscaping services,
ranging from landscape maintenance and enhancements to tree care
and landscape development. It operates through an integrated
national service prototype, which systematically delivers services
at the local levels. The company is based in Blue Bell,
Pennsylvania.


CAMPBELL SOUP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated New Jersey Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Campbell Soup Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended October 27, 2019, that the defendants'
motion to dismiss the class action suit entitled, In re Campbell
Soup Company Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 1:18-cv-14385-NLH-JS,
is pending.

On January 7, 2019, three purported shareholder class action
lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey were consolidated under the caption, In re
Campbell Soup Company Securities Litigation, Civ. No.
1:18-cv-14385-NLH-JS (the Action).

Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System was appointed
lead plaintiff in the Action and, on March 1, 2019, filed an
amended consolidated complaint.

The company, Denise Morrison (the company's former President and
Chief Executive Officer), and Anthony DiSilvestro (the company's
former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer) are
defendants in the Action.

The consolidated complaint alleges that, in public statements
between July 19, 2017 and May 17, 2018, the defendants made
materially false and misleading statements and/or omitted material
information about the company's business, operations, customer
relationships, and prospects, specifically with regard to the
Campbell Fresh segment. The consolidated complaint seeks
unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

On April 30, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.

Campbell said, "We are vigorously defending against the Action."

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

Campbell Soup Company, together with its subsidiaries, manufactures
and markets branded food and beverage products. It operates through
three segments: Americas Simple Meals and Beverages, Global
Biscuits and Snacks, and Campbell Fresh. Campbell Soup Company was
founded in 1869 and is headquartered in Camden, New Jersey.


CASTLEROCK ENVIRONMENTAL: Faces Magana Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marco Magana, on behalf of himself and all others aggrieved v.
CASTLEROCK ENVIRONMENTAL, INC., a California corporation; M2
BUILDING SOLUTIONS, INC., a California corporation; AHMAD RAMI
AWWAD, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
19STCV46774 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Dec. 30, 2019), is
brought against the Defendants for violations of the California
Labor Code.

The Defendants had and have a policy or practice of failing to pay
overtime wages to the Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees in
the State of California, in violation of California state wage and
hour laws, says the complaint.

Mr. Magana, who was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee, alleges that he and other aggrieved employees have worked
over eight hours in a workday or 40 hours in a workweek, over 12
hours in a workday, and/or seven consecutive workdays in a workweek
without being properly compensated for all hours worked in excess
of eight hours in a workday, 40 hours in a workweek, all hours
worked in excess of 12 hours in a workday, and/or for all hours
worked on the seventh consecutive workday in a workweek.

Castlerock is a corporation organized and existing under and by
virtue of the laws of the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
          Diego Aviles, Esq.
          BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1801 Century Park East, Suite 2600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 438-5555
          Facsimile: (310)300-1705
          Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
                 diego@tomorrowlaw.com


CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Vanselow Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ZANE VANSELOW, individually
and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. CHANGE HEALTHCARE TECHNOLOGY ENABLED SERVICES, LLC,
fka PST SERVICES, INC., MILWAUKEE RADIOLOGISTS, LTD., S.C., AND
MIDWEST AREA PHYSICIANS, LLC, the Defendants, and ACUITY, A MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, the Intervening Defendant, Case No.
2:18-CV-01941-LA (E.D. Wisc.), Ms. Zane Vanselow asks the Court for
an order:

   1. preliminarily certifying a settlement class consisting of:

      "any patient or person authorized by the patient who paid a
      fee for the patient's healthcare billing records in excess
      of that permitted by Wisconsin law and who is identified in
      the Attorney Billing Records Request Data attached to the
      Settlement Agreement."

      Excluded from the Settlement Class are:

      -- Defendants, any predecessor, subsidiary, sister and/or
         merged companies, and all of the present or past
         directors, officers, employees, principals, shareholders
         and/or agents of the Defendants;

      -- Any and all Federal, State, County and/or Local
         Governments, including, but not limited to their
         departments, agencies, divisions, bureaus, boards,
         sections, groups, councils and/or any other subdivision,
         and any claim that such governmental entities may have,
         directly or indirectly;

      -- Any currently-sitting Wisconsin state court Judge or
         Justice, or any federal court Judge currently or
         previously sitting in Wisconsin, and the current spouse
         and all  other persons within the third degree of
         consanguinity to  such judge/justice; and

      -- Any law firm of record in these proceedings, including
         any attorney of record in these proceedings.

    2. appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives;

    3. appointing their counsel as class counsel; and

    4. approving notice to the class.

Change Healthcare was founded in 1990. The company's line of
business includes providing accounting, bookkeeping, and related
auditing services. Milwaukee Radiologists was established in 1969
with five physicians.  Its practice is comprised of 24 board
certified radiologists and 2 physician assistants. The company is a
premier, sub-specialized, private radiology group, headquartered in
Southeastern Wisconsin.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Scott C. Borison, Esq.
          LEGG LAW FIRM, LLP
          1400 S. Charles St.
          Baltimore, MD 21230
          Telephone: (301) 620-1016
          Facsimile: (301) 620-1018
          E-mail: borison@legglaw.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Welcenbach, Esq.
          WELCENBACH LAW OFFICES, S.C.
          933 North Mayfair Road, Suite 311
          Milwaukee, WI 53226
          Telephone: (414) 774-7330
          Facsimile: (414) 774-7670
          E-mail: robert@welcenbachlaw.com

               - and -

          Craig Jones, Esq.
          JONES AND HILL, LLC
          131 Highway 165 South
          Oakdale, La 71463
          Telephone: (318) 335-1333
          Facsimile: (318) 335-1934
          E-mail: craig@joneshilllaw.com

CHICAGO, IL: Court Denies Class Certification in Perez et al. Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ANGEL PEREZ, et al., the
Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
1:13-cv-04531 (N.D. Ill.), the Court denies Plaintiffs' motion for
certification of Detainee and Arrestee Class:

   "all natural persons detained or transported for initial arrest
   processing by a Chicago Police Officer to the "non-district
   facility," identified in General Order 06-01-01, Effective Date

   11/12/15, as Homan Square, where no public record of the
   detainment or arrest was created within a reasonable amount of
   time from the initial arrest (Plaintiffs suggest one hour from
   initial detainment) and where no court order existed at the
   time of arrest or detainment sealing or otherwise making the
   detainment or arrest confidential, beginning March 31, 2013 to
   the present."

The Court said, "the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the
class action is superior to individual lawsuits. Here, a realistic
alternative exists: To the extent that Plaintiffs want to expose
the allegedly unconstitutional practices of Homan Square, see
[290-9, 119:1–21], the "desire to prove the existence and
illegality of the practice can be satisfied in an individual suit
without the management issues of a class action"."

Moreover, litigating the secret arrest claim as a class action
would be unmanageable, the Court would have to delve into the
circumstances surrounding thousands of years-old arrests.  See
Radmanovich v. Combined Ins. Co. of Am., 216 F.R.D. 424, 439 (N.D.
Ill. 2003) (denying motion for class certification because the need
to conduct thousands of individual determinations "would render the
case totally unmanageable as a class action").

Indeed, for this reason, class treatment would be inappropriate
even if each individual's damages are slight. Any benefit to
aggregation would be negated by the fact-intensive (i.e.,
expensive-to-litigate) nature of each individual claim, the Court
added.

The case is set for further status hearing on January 16, 2020 at
9:00 a.m.[CC]

CHICO'S FAS: Altman Suit v. White House Black Market Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 27, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended November 2, 2019, that the class action suit
entitled, Altman v. White House Black Market, Inc., remains
pending.

In July 2015, White House Black Market, Inc. ("WHBM") was named as
a defendant in Altman v. White House Black Market, Inc., a putative
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia ("District Court").

The complaint alleges that WHBM, in violation of federal law,
willfully published more than the last five digits of a credit or
debit card number on customers' point-of-sale receipts.

The plaintiff seeks an award of statutory damages of $100 to $1,000
for each alleged willful violation of the law, as well as
attorneys' fees, costs and punitive damages.

WHBM denies the material allegations of the complaint and believes
the case is without merit. On February 12, 2018, the District Court
issued an order certifying the class.

On April 9, 2018, the District Court, sua sponte, issued an order
granting WHBM's earlier 2016 request to appeal, to the Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals ("Eleventh Circuit"), the District Court's
ruling that the plaintiff has standing to maintain the lawsuit. On
April 19, 2018, WHBM filed a petition for review in the Eleventh
Circuit.

In the meantime, the District Court stayed all further proceedings
in the case pending the outcome of the appeal in the Eleventh
Circuit.

On July 12, 2018, the plaintiff and WHBM notified the Eleventh
Circuit that the plaintiff and WHBM had reached a class settlement
on all claims and therefore voluntarily dismissed WHBM's appeal to
the Eleventh Circuit.

On August 2, 2018, the District Court reopened the case for
purposes of reviewing/approving the proposed settlement. On October
22, 2018, the plaintiff filed the settlement papers with the
District Court, along with a motion to stay the District Court's
consideration of the settlement pending the Eleventh Circuit's
final disposition of Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., in which
the Eleventh Circuit held, in an opinion issued October 3, 2018,
that the display of the first five and last four digits of a credit
or debit card number on a customer's receipt given at the point of
sale establishes a "concrete injury" sufficient to confer Article
III standing, enabling the customer to maintain a lawsuit. The
motion to stay was granted on November 15, 2018.

A petition for rehearing on the October 2018 opinion was filed in
the Muransky case on October 24, 2018. The Eleventh Circuit issued
a new opinion on April 22, 2019, sua sponte, superseding the
October 2018 opinion, and reaffirming the establishment of Article
III standing in the Muransky case.  

A petition for rehearing on that April 2019 opinion was filed on
May 13, 2019 and is currently pending before the Eleventh Circuit.


The Muransky opinion, if not altered on the petition for rehearing,
would bind the District Court in the Altman case and likely
establish that the plaintiff has standing to maintain her lawsuit
against WHBM. In such event, the stay will be lifted and the
proposed settlement will be reviewed by the District Court.

If the Eleventh Circuit does not find standing in the Muransky
case, the parties have agreed to submit the proposed settlement to
the Superior Court for Cobb County, Georgia for approval. The
proposed settlement would not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's consolidated financial condition or results of
operations.

Chico's FAS said, "However, no assurance can be given that the
proposed settlement will be approved. If the proposed settlement is
rejected and the case were to proceed as a class action and WHBM
were to be unsuccessful in its defense on the merits, then the
ultimate resolution of the case could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition or results
of operations."

Chico's FAS, Inc. operates as an omnichannel specialty retailer of
women's private branded casual-to-dressy clothing, intimates, and
complementary accessories. It operates under the Chico's, White
House Black Market (WHBM), and Soma brand names. The company also
sells its products through catalogs and its Websites. Chico's FAS,
Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Fort Myers,
Florida.


CHICO'S FAS: Mediation Ongoing in Fisher Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 27, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended November 2, 2019, that a mediation is
ongoing in the class action suit entitled, Fisher v. Chico's FAS,
Inc.

In May 2019, the Company was named as a defendant in Fisher v.
Chico's FAS, Inc., a putative class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California.

The complaint alleges that the Company advertised fictitious prices
and corresponding phantom discounts on its made-for-outlet products
in its Chico's outlets in violation of California's Unfair
Competition Laws, California's False Advertising Laws and the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The plaintiff seeks disgorgement of the Company's profits and
alleged unjust enrichment resulting from such advertising
practices, injunctive relief, a corrective advertising campaign, as
well as attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company was served on May 10, 2019.

On October 22, 2019, the parties attended a mediation, where they
discussed potential settlement terms, subject, to among other
things, agreement upon final terms, the execution of definitive
documentation and court approval. The terms of the settlement as
discussed would not be material to the Company's annual
consolidated financial statements.

Chico's FAS said, "There can be no assurances that a settlement
agreement will be reached or that a settlement agreement, once
finalized, will be approved. If the matter were instead to proceed
as a class action and the Company were to be unsuccessful in its
defense on the merits, then the ultimate resolution of the case
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated
financial condition or results of operations."

Chico's FAS, Inc. operates as an omnichannel specialty retailer of
women's private branded casual-to-dressy clothing, intimates, and
complementary accessories. It operates under the Chico's, White
House Black Market (WHBM), and Soma brand names. The company also
sells its products through catalogs and its Websites. Chico's FAS,
Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Fort Myers,
Florida.


CHINACACHE INT'L: Likas Class Action Underway in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
ChinaCache International Holdings Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November
29, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the
company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, William
Likas v. ChinaCache International Holdings Ltd. et al, Civil Action
No. 2:2019-cv-06942.

The company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors have been named as defendants in a shareholder class
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California: William Likas v. ChinaCache International
Holdings Ltd. et al, Civil Action No. 2:2019-cv-06942 (C.D. Cal.)
(filed on August 9, 2019).  

The action -- purportedly brought on behalf of a class of persons
who allegedly suffered damages as a result of their trading
activities related to its ADSs from April 10, 2015 to May 17, 2019
-- alleges that certain of its public statements and filings
contained materially false and misleading statements misstatements
or omissions in violation of U.S. securities laws.  

Back on June 12, 2019, another plaintiff had filed a substantially
identical putative shareholder class action lawsuit against the
company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York; on August 30, 2019, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed
that lawsuit.  

On October 2, 2019, the Central California District Court appointed
a group of two purported shareholders of the Company as the Lead
Plaintiff of the class. On November 13, 2019, the Central
California District Court entered an order to show cause, ordering
plaintiff to show cause in writing on or before November 20, 2019
why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution.

ChinaCache International Holdings Ltd., an investment holding
company, provides content and application delivery services in the
People's Republic of China. The company offers a portfolio of
services and solutions to businesses, government agencies, and
other enterprises to enhance the reliability and scalability of
their online services and applications. The Company was founded in
1998 and is headquartered in Beijing, the People's Republic of
China.


CLECO CORP: Parties in Merger Suit Agree to Limited Class Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC said in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2019, that the parties in the merger-related
suit has reached an agreement to certify a limited class prior to a
scheduled hearing for the certification of a class in the case.

In connection with the 2016 Merger, four actions were filed in the
9th Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish, Louisiana and three
actions were filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish,
Louisiana.  The petitions in each action generally alleged, among
other things, that the members of Cleco Corporation's Board of
Directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things,
conducting an allegedly inadequate sale process, agreeing to the
2016 Merger at a price that allegedly undervalued Cleco, and
failing to disclose material information about the 2016 Merger.
The petitions also alleged that Cleco Partners, Cleco Corporation,
Merger Sub, and in some cases, certain of the investors in Cleco
Partners, either aided and abetted or entered into a civil
conspiracy to advance those supposed breaches of duty.  The
petitions seek various remedies, including monetary damages, which
includes attorneys' fees and expenses.

The four actions filed in the 9th Judicial District Court for
Rapides Parish are captioned as follows:

   * Braunstein v. Cleco Corporation, No. 251,383B (filed October
27, 2014),

   * Moore v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No.
251,417C (filed October 30, 2014),

   * Trahan v. Williamson, No. 251,456C (filed November 5, 2014),
and

   * L'Herisson v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No.
251,515F (filed November 14, 2014).

In November 2014, the plaintiff in the Braunstein action moved for
a dismissal of the action without prejudice, and that motion was
granted in November 2014.

In December 2014, the Court consolidated the remaining three
actions and appointed interim co-lead counsel.  Also, in December
2014, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a
Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action Petition
for Damages and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction (the
Consolidated Amended Petition).  The consolidated action named
Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, and Merger Sub as
defendants.  The Consolidated Amended Petition alleged, among other
things, that Cleco Corporation's directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Cleco's shareholders and grossly mismanaged Cleco by
approving the Merger Agreement because it allegedly did not value
Cleco adequately, failing to structure a process through which
shareholder value would be maximized, engaging in self-dealing by
ignoring conflicts of interest, and failing to disclose material
information about the 2016 Merger.  The Consolidated Amended
Petition further alleged that all defendants conspired to commit
the breaches of fiduciary duty.  Cleco believes that the
allegations of the Consolidated Amended Petition are without merit
and that it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims set
forth in the Consolidated Amended Petition.

The three actions filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans
Parish are captioned as follows:

   * Butler v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-10776 (filed November 7,
2014),

   * Creative Life Services, Inc. v. Cleco Corporation, No.
2014-11098 (filed November 19, 2014), and

   * Cashen v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11236 (filed November
21, 2014).  

Both the Butler and Cashen actions name Cleco Corporation, its
directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, MIRA, BCI, and John Hancock
Financial as defendants.  The Creative Life Services action names
Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, MIRA,
and Macquarie Infrastructure Partners III, L.P., as defendants.

In December 2014, the plaintiff in the Butler action filed an
Amended Class Action Petition for Damages.  Each petition alleged,
among other things, that the members of Cleco Corporation's Board
of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cleco's
shareholders by approving the Merger Agreement because it allegedly
did not value Cleco adequately, failing to structure a process
through which shareholder value would be maximized and engaging in
self-dealing by ignoring conflicts of interest.  The Butler and
Creative Life Services petitions also allege that the directors
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose material
information about the 2016 Merger.  Each petition further alleged
that Cleco, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, and certain of the
investors in Cleco Partners aided and abetted the directors'
breaches of fiduciary duty.

In December 2014, the directors and Cleco filed declinatory
exceptions in each action on the basis that each action was
improperly brought in Orleans Parish and should either be
transferred to the 9th Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish
or dismissed.  Also, in December 2014, the plaintiffs in each
action jointly filed a motion to consolidate the three actions
pending in Orleans Parish and to appoint interim co-lead plaintiffs
and co-lead counsel.

In January 2015, the Court in the Creative Life Services case
sustained the defendants' declinatory exceptions and dismissed the
case so that it could be transferred to the 9th Judicial District
Court for Rapides Parish.

In February 2015, the plaintiffs in Butler and Cashen also
consented to the dismissal of their cases from Orleans Parish so
they could be transferred to the 9th Judicial District Court for
Rapides Parish.

In February 2015, the 9th Judicial District Court for Rapides
Parish held a hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction filed
by plaintiffs Moore, L'Herisson, and Trahan seeking to enjoin the
shareholder vote for approval of the Merger Agreement.  Following
the hearing, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion.

In June 2015, three of the plaintiffs filed their Second
Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action Petition.
This will be considered according to a schedule established by the
9th Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish.  Cleco filed
exceptions seeking dismissal of the amended petition in July 2015.

In March 2016 and May 2016, the plaintiffs filed their Third
Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative Petition for Damages and
Preliminary and Permanent Injunction and their Fourth Verified
Consolidated Amended Class Action Petition, respectively.  The
fourth petition eliminated the request for preliminary and
permanent injunction and also named an additional executive officer
as a defendant.  Cleco filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the
amended Petition.  A hearing was held in September 2016, and the
District Court granted the exceptions filed by Cleco and dismissed
all claims asserted by the former shareholders.  The plaintiffs
appealed the District Court's ruling to the Louisiana Third Circuit
Court of Appeal.  The Third Circuit Court of Appeal heard oral
arguments in the case in September 2017.

In December 2017, the Third Circuit Court of Appeal issued an order
reversing and remanding the case to the District Court for further
proceedings.

In January 2018, Cleco filed a writ with the Louisiana Supreme
Court seeking review of the Third Circuit Court of Appeal's
decision.  The writ was denied in March 2018 and the parties are
engaged in discovery in the District Court.

In November 2018, Cleco filed exceptions of no cause of action and
res judicata, seeking to dismiss all claims.  The District Court
denied the exceptions on January 14, 2019.

A hearing on the plaintiffs' request for certification of a class
was scheduled for August 26, 2019; however, prior to the hearing,
the parties reached an agreement to certify a limited class.

Cleco believes that the allegations of the petitions in each action
are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses
to the claims set forth in each of the petitions.

Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC operates as a public utility holding
company primarily in Louisiana. The company, through its
subsidiary, operates as a regulated electric utility, which owns
nine generating units with a total capacity of 3,310 megawatts and
serves approximately 291,000 customers in Louisiana through its
retail business; and supplies wholesale power in Louisiana and
Mississippi. The company was formerly known as Cleco Corporation
and changed its name to Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC in April 2016.
Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC was founded in 1934 and is based in
Pineville, Louisiana.


CLOUDERA INC: Court Consolidates 3 Securities Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Cloudera, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2019, that the court has
consolidated three securities class action suits and is now
entitled as, In re Cloudera, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
5:19-cv-3321-LHK.   

On June 7, 2019, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, entitled Christie v. Cloudera, Inc., et al., Case No.
5:19-cv-3221-LHK.

The complaint names as defendants Cloudera, its former Chief
Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer and a former officer
and director. The action purports to assert claims on behalf of
Cloudera stockholders under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.  

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements that artificially inflated the price of Cloudera stock
between April 28, 2017 and June 5, 2019.  

Two substantially similar class action complaints, entitled
Zarantonello v. Cloudera, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-4007-LHK,
and Dvornic v. Cloudera, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-4310-LHK,
were subsequently filed against the same defendants in the same
court.  

The suits seek, among other things, an award of damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The suits have been consolidated under the name, In re Cloudera,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:19-cv-3321-LHK.  

Cloudera believes that the allegations in the lawsuits are without
merit.

Cloudera, Inc. provides platform for machine learning and analytics
in the United States, Europe, and Asia. The company operates
through two segments, Subscription and Services. Cloudera, Inc. was
founded in 2008 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California.


CLOUDERA INC: Hortonworks Merger-Related Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Cloudera, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, In re Cloudera, Inc.
Securities Litigation, related to the company's merger agreement
with  Hortonworks, Inc.

In January 2019, the company completed its merger with Hortonworks,
Inc., a publicly-held company headquartered in Santa Clara,
California, and a provider of enterprise-grade, global data
management platforms, services and solutions.

On June 7, 2019, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, entitled
Lazard v. Cloudera, Inc., et al., Case No. 19CV348674.  

The complaint names as defendants Cloudera, thirteen individuals
who are current or former directors or officers of the Company, and
Intel Corporation.  

The complaint alleges that the registration statement contained
untrue statements of material fact and omitted material facts.  

Two substantially similar suits, entitled Franchi v. Cloudera,
Inc., et al., Case No. 19CV348790, and Cannizzo v. Cloudera, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 19CV348974, were subsequently filed in the same
court.  

The suits have been consolidated under the name In re Cloudera,
Inc. Securities Litigation, and plaintiffs in the consolidated
action purport to assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of all persons who acquired
Cloudera stock pursuant or traceable to the S-4 registration
statement filed in connection with Cloudera's January 2019 merger
with Hortonworks.  

Plaintiffs seek, among other things, an award of damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Cloudera believes that the allegations in the lawsuits are without
merit.

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

Cloudera, Inc. provides platform for machine learning and analytics
in the United States, Europe, and Asia. The company operates
through two segments, Subscription and Services. Cloudera, Inc. was
founded in 2008 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California.


CONTINENTAL BUILDING: Rice Challenges Merger With Saint-Gobain
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Rice, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. CONTINENTAL BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., EDWARD M.
BOSOWSKI, JAMES BACHMANN, MICHAEL J. KEOUGH, JACK C. SWEENY,
MICHAEL O. MOORE, CHANTAL VEEVAETE, and IRA S. STRASSBERG, Case No.
1:19-cv-02362-UNA (D. Del., Dec. 27, 2019), accuses the Defendants
of violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with
the proposed merger between Continental and Compagnie de
Saint-Gobain S.A.

On November 12, 2019, the Company's board of directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to
which the Company's shareholders stand to receive $37 in cash for
each share of Continental stock they own.

On December 11, 2019, in order to convince Continental shareholders
to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized
the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Form PREM14A
Preliminary Proxy Statement with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, in violation of the Exchange Act, the Plaintiff says.

While touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the
Company's shareholders in the Proxy, the Plaintiff asserts, the
Defendants have failed to disclose certain material information
that is necessary for shareholders to properly assess the fairness
of the Proposed Transaction, thereby, violating SEC rules and
regulations and rendering certain statements in the Proxy
materially incomplete and misleading.

In particular, the Plaintiff avers, the Proxy contains materially
incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i) the financial
projections for the Company that were prepared by the Company and
relied on by Defendants in recommending that Continental
shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction; and (ii)
the summary of certain valuation analyses conducted by
Continental's financial advisor, Citigroup Global Markets Inc. in
support of its opinion that the Merger Consideration is fair to
shareholders, on which the Board relied.

The Plaintiff, who holds Continental common stock, argues that it
is imperative that the material information that has been omitted
from the Proxy is disclosed prior to the forthcoming vote to allow
the Company's shareholders to make an informed decision regarding
the Proposed Transaction.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Defendants from
holding the shareholder vote on the Proposed Transaction and taking
any steps to consummate the Proposed Transaction unless, and until,
the omitted material information is disclosed to Continental
shareholders sufficiently in advance of the vote on the Proposed
Transaction or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is
consummated, to recover damages resulting from the Defendants'
violations of the Exchange Act.

Continental is manufacturer of gypsum wallboard and complementary
finishing products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 201
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Phone: (302) 482-3182
          Email: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 983-9330
          Fax: (212) 983-9331
          Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                 jwilson@faruqilaw.com


DATA ISIGHT: NJ Chiropractors Association Sues Over ERISA Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
THE ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY CHIROPRACTORS, INC., PETER SCORDILIS,
DC, & ERIC LOEWRIGKEIT, DC, on behalf of themselves, and ANJC
members similarly situated v. DATA ISIGHT, INC.; MULTIPLAN, INC.;
CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE CO.; CIGNA INSURANCE CO.; AETNA
HEALTH INC.; AETNA HEALTH INSURANCE CO., Case No. 2:19-cv-21973
(D.N.J., Dec. 27, 2019), alleges that the Defendants violated the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Under ERISA, the Defendants are required, among other things, to
comply with the terms and conditions of their health care plans and
the plans they administer and federal laws and to accord their
subscribers and their providers an opportunity to obtain a "full
and fair review" of any denied or reduced reimbursements. As the
Plan Administrators, the Defendants also assume various obligations
specified under ERISA. These obligations include providing their
subscribers with Summary Plan Description ("SPD"), a document
designed to describe in layperson's language the material terms,
conditions and limitations of the health care plan. The full
details of the plan, which are summarized in the SPD, are contained
in the Evidence of Coverage ("EOC") that governs each member's
health care plan.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have made adverse benefit
determinations with regard to the policies by repricing the
reimbursement of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated providers
below the rates required by the SPD/EOC plan documents. By
implementing this improper repricing policy in violation of the
plan SPD provisions, there is no review being performed by
Defendants, let alone a full and fair review, when they globally
reprice the claims of the Plaintiffs in violation of federal ERISA
law, says the complaint.

The Association of New Jersey Chiropractors, Inc., is a New Jersey
Not-for-Profit Corporation, which consists of over 1,900
chiropractors licensed to practice chiropractic in the State of New
Jersey.

Data ISight, Inc., is a is a foreign corporation authorized to
perform the business of insurance and/or third-party administration
of insurance in New Jersey and is performing the business of
insurance and/or third-party administration of insurance in New
Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey B. Randolph, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY RANDOLPH, L.L.C.
          139 Harristown Rd., Ste. 205
          Glen Rock, NJ 07452-3304


DAVID YURMAN: Gift Cards Not Accessible to Blind, Calcano Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARCOS CALCANO, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, plaintiff v. DAVID YURMAN ENTERPRISES LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-11147 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 5, 2019) alleges violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant failed to
sell store gift cards to consumers that contain writing in Braille
and to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The
Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its store gift
cards, and therefore denial of its products and services offered
thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a
violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

David Yurman Enterprises LLC provides jewelry products. The Company
offers bracelets, enhancers, necklaces, chains, earrings,
timepieces, sunglasses, wedding bands, and gifts cards. David
Yurman serves customers in the State of New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284


DOLLAR TREE: ADA Related Suit vs. Family Dollar Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 26, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that Family Dollar
continues to defend a class action suit filed by a customer related
to its violation with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

In July 2019, a customer filed a nationwide class action in federal
court in Pennsylvania on behalf of all customers with mobility
disabilities alleging the Company violated the public accommodation
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act by systemically
blocking the aisles with merchandise.

The customer seeks a permanent injunction requiring the Company to
remove all access barriers and giving the customer authority to
monitor the Company's compliance.

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

Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It
operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The
company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake,
Virginia.


DOLLAR TREE: Illinois Class Suit vs. Family Dollar Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 26, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that Family Dollar
continues to defend against a class action suit in Illinois
initiated by a customer.

In January 2017, a customer filed a class action in federal court
in Illinois alleging the Company violated various state consumer
fraud laws as well as express and implied warranties by selling a
product that purported to contain aloe when it did not.

The requested class is limited to the state of Illinois.

The Company believes that it is fully indemnified by the entities
that supplied it with the product.

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

Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It
operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The
company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake,
Virginia.


DOLLAR TREE: Still Defends Former California Employee's Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 26, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend against a class action suit brought by a former
employee in the California state court.

In August 2018, a former employee brought suit in California state
court as a class action and as a Private Attorney General Act
("PAGA") representative suit alleging the Company failed to provide
all non-exempt California store employees with compliant rest and
meal breaks, accrued vacation, accurate wage statements and final
pay upon termination of employment.

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

Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It
operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The
company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake,
Virginia.


DOLLAR TREE: Suit by Distribution Center Employee Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 26, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended November 2, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit in California initiated by a
distribution center employee.

In April 2015, a distribution center employee filed a class action
in California state court with allegations concerning wages, meal
and rest breaks, recovery periods, wage statements and timely
termination pay.

The employee filed an amended complaint in which he abandoned his
attempt to certify a nation-wide class of non-exempt distribution
center employees for alleged improper calculation of overtime
compensation.

The Company removed this lawsuit to federal court. The court
certified the case as a state-wide class action as to those
employees who began working for the Company prior to October 6,
2014.

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

Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It
operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The
company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake,
Virginia.


DOLLAR TREE: Supreme Court Won't Review 9th Cir. Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 26, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the Supreme Court
of the United States has denied plaintiff's petition seeking review
of the decision made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

In 2015, a former store manager filed a class action in California
federal court alleging, among other things, that the Company failed
to make wage statements readily available to employees who did not
receive paper checks.

In 2017, a jury found in favor of the Company.

In 2019, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the jury
verdict.

In July 2019, the plaintiff filed a petition with the Supreme Court
of the United States seeking a review of the decision. The Supreme
Court denied the petition.

Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It
operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The
company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake,
Virginia.


EN ENGINEERING: Rossman Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as KEVIN ROSSMAN, Individually
and For Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. EN
ENGINEERING, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05768 (N.D.
Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an Order:

   1. granting conditional certification of the proposed
      collective pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor
      Standard Act;

   2. ordering ENE to produce computer-readable data containing
      the names, last known mailing addresses, last known personal

      and work email addresses, telephone numbers (both landline
      and mobile), and dates of employment for all Putative Class
      Members;

   3. authorizing the issuance of notice to all Putative Class
      Members by mail, email, and text message, as well as
      authorizing an identical reminder notice via these means
      half-way through the opt-in period;

   4. authorizing posting of the notice at jobsites;

   5. allowing for a 60-day opt-in period; and

   6. granting such further relief as the Court deems just and
      proper.

ENE provides engineering services. The company offers pipeline,
electrical, and energy infrastructure engineering, designing,
automation, integration, and consulting services. EN Engineering
serves oil and gas, manufacturing, and chemical processing.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members are:

          Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100

               - and -

          Richard (Rex) J. Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788

               - and -

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 West Washington, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419-1008

ENERGY TRANSFER: Suits Challenging SemGroup Merger Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer LP said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on November 27, 2019, that
the company continues to face multiple class action suits related
to its merger with SemGroup Corporation.

On September 15, 2019, Energy Transfer LP, a Delaware limited
partnership ("Energy Transfer"), entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Nautilus Merger Sub LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company and a newly formed, wholly owned
subsidiary of Energy Transfer ("Merger Sub"), and SemGroup
Corporation, a Delaware corporation ("SemGroup"), pursuant to which
Merger Sub will merge with and into SemGroup (the "Merger"), with
SemGroup continuing as the surviving company and a direct wholly
owned subsidiary of Energy Transfer. In connection with the Merger,
Energy Transfer filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission a
registration statement on Form S-4, including a proxy
statement/prospectus for the solicitation of proxies in connection
with the special meeting of SemGroup’s stockholders to be held on
December 4, 2019, for purposes of voting, among other things, on
the adoption of the Merger Agreement.

On October 30, 2019, the registration statement on Form S-4 was
declared effective by the SEC and the definitive proxy
statement/prospectus was filed.

In connection with the Merger Agreement and the transactions
contemplated thereby, seven complaints challenging the sufficiency
of the disclosures made in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus,
including multiple purported class action complaints, have been
filed on behalf of SemGroup stockholders in the United States
District Courts for the District of Delaware, Southern District of
New York and the District of Colorado.

The seven complaints are captioned as follows: Walpole v. SemGroup
Corporation et al., Case 1:19-cv-01957-MN (D. Del.) (Oct. 15,
2019), Thompson v. SemGroup Corporation et al., Case
1:19-cv-01948-MN (D. Del.) (Oct. 15, 2019), Lawrence v. SemGroup
Corporation et al., Case 1:19-cv-02035-UNA (D. Del.) (Oct. 28,
2019), Topley v. SemGroup Corporation et al., Case 1:19-cv-09630
(S.D.N.Y.) (Oct. 18, 2019), Hills v. SemGroup Corporation et al.,
Case 1:19-cv-10412 (S.D.N.Y.) (Nov. 8, 2019), Marzacco v. SemGroup
Corporation, et al., Case 1:19-cv-10610 (S.D.N.Y.) (Nov. 15, 2019),
Stallings v. SemGroup Corporation et al., Case 1:19-cv-03108
(D.Co.) (Oct. 31, 2019), which are herein referred to collectively
as the "Stockholder Actions."

In general, the Stockholder Actions allege that the defendants,
which include SemGroup, members of SemGroup's board of directors
and, in two of the Stockholder Actions, Energy Transfer and Merger
Sub, violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, or aided and abetted in such alleged
violations, because the Proxy Statement/Prospectus allegedly omits
or misstates material information.

The Stockholder Actions seek, among other things, injunctive relief
preventing the consummation of the Merger, unspecified damages and
attorneys' fees.

Energy Transfer, SemGroup and the other named defendants believe
that no supplemental disclosures are required under applicable
laws; however, to avoid the risk of the Stockholder Actions
delaying the Merger and to minimize the expense of defending the
Stockholder Actions, and without admitting any liability or
wrongdoing, Energy Transfer and SemGroup are making certain
disclosures that supplements and revises those contained in the
Proxy Statement/Prospectus, which are referred to as the
"litigation-related supplemental disclosures."

The litigation-related supplemental disclosures should be read in
conjunction with the Proxy Statement/Prospectus, which is available
on the Internet site maintained by the SEC at http://www.sec.gov,
along with periodic reports and other information that Energy
Transfer and SemGroup file with the SEC. Energy Transfer, SemGroup
and the other named defendants have denied, and continue to deny,
that they have committed or assisted others in committing any
violations of law, and expressly maintain that, to the extent
applicable, they complied with their legal obligations and are
providing the litigation-related supplemental disclosures solely to
try to eliminate the burden and expense of further litigation, to
put the claims that were or could have been asserted to rest, and
to avoid any possible delay to the closing of the Merger that might
arise from further litigation.

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://bit.ly/2SO294L.

Energy Transfer LP provides energy-related services in the United
States and China. The company owns and operates approximately 9,400
miles of natural gas transportation pipelines and three natural gas
storage facilities in Texas; and approximately 12,200 miles of
interstate natural gas pipelines. The company is based in Dallas,
Texas.


EVOLENT HEALTH: Torres Seeks Conditional Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MARTIN TORRES, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
EVOLENT HEALTH LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02887 (N.D.
Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an Order:

   1. granting conditional certification of a proposed collective;

   2. ordering the Defendant to produce a computer-readable data
      file containing the names, last known mailing addresses,
      last known personal and work email addresses, mobile
      telephone numbers, social security numbers (for those
      notices returned undeliverable), and work locations for all
      collective members within 14 days;

   3. authorizing the issuance of notice to all collective members

      by mail and email or text message, as well as a reminder
      notice during the opt-in period; and

   4. granting such other, further, or different relief as the
      Court deems just and proper.

The Defendant is in the health care supply chain.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James X. Bormes, Esq.
          Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
          8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 201-0575

               - and -

          Thomas M. Ryan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C.
          35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 726-3400

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael R. Phillips, Esq.
          Melissa Marie Weiss, Esq.
          Joel H. Spitz, Esq.
          MCGUIRE WOODS LLP
          77 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 4100
          Chicago, IL 60601-1815
          E-mail: jspitz@mcguirewoods.com
                  mweiss@mcguirewoods.com
                  mphillips@mcguirewoods.com

EVOQUA WATER: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit in New York Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 25,
2019, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, that briefing
on the defendants' motions seeking dismissal of the class action
suit entitled, In re Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. Securities
Litigation, remains pending.

On or around November 6, 2018, a purported shareholder of the
Company filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York alleging that the Company and
senior management violated federal securities laws by issuing
false, misleading, and/or omissive disclosures in the period
leading up to the Company's October 30, 2018 announcement of, among
other things, (a) preliminary results for the full-year fiscal 2018
that were below previous expectations and (b) a transition from a
three-segment structure to a two-segment operating model.  

The action is captioned McWilliams v. Evoqua Water Technologies
Corp., et al., Case No. 1:18-CV-10320 and names as defendants the
Company and the Company's CEO and CFO.

In January 2019, the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel and re-captioned the action as In re Evoqua Water
Technologies Corp. Securities Litigation.

In March 2019, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which
asserts claims pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
the Securities Act against the Company, members of the Company's
board of directors, senior management, a former executive, AEA, and
the underwriters of the Company's IPO and secondary public
offering. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by issuing false, misleading,
and/or omissive disclosures concerning the Company's integration of
acquired companies, the Company’s reduction-in-force, and the
Company’s accounting practices.

The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount to
be proved at trial, an award of reasonable costs and expenses to
the plaintiff and class counsel, and such other relief as the court
may deem just and proper.  

In June 2019, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaint, and briefing of those motions was completed in October
2019.

The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends
to vigorously defend itself against the allegations.

Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. provides a range of water and
wastewater treatment systems and technologies, and mobile and
emergency water supply solutions and services. It operates in three
segments: Industrial, Municipal, and Products. The company has
operations in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, the
Netherlands, Germany, Australia, China, and Singapore. Evoqua Water
Technologies Corp. was incorporated in 2013 and is headquartered in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


EZCORP INC: Awaits Final Court Approval of Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------
EZCORP, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 5, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, that the parties in the class
action suit entitled, In re EZCORP, Inc. Securities Litigation
(Master File No. 1:15-cv-00608-SS), are awaiting the court's final
approval of settlement.

In July 2015 and August 2015, two substantially identical lawsuits
were filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas. Those lawsuits were subsequently consolidated
into a single action under the caption In re EZCORP, Inc.
Securities Litigation (Master File No. 1:15-cv-00608-SS).

The original complaint related to the Company's announcement on
July 17, 2015 that it will restate its financial statements for
fiscal 2014 and the first quarter of fiscal 2015, and alleged
generally that the Company issued materially false or misleading
statements concerning the Company, its finances, business
operations and prospects and that the Company misrepresented the
financial performance of the Grupo Finmart business.

In January 2016, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action
Complaint, which asserted that the Company and Mark E.
Kuchenrither, our former Chief Financial Officer, violated Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, issued
materially false or misleading statements concerning the Company
and its internal controls, specifically regarding the financial
performance of Grupo Finmart. The plaintiffs also allege that Mr.
Kuchenrither, as a controlling person of the Company, violated
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.

In October 2016, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss and dismissed the Amended Complaint without prejudice. In
November 2016, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint ("Second Amended Complaint"), raising the
same claims previously dismissed by the Court, but reducing the
class period (November 7, 2013 to October 20, 2015 instead of
November 6, 2012 to October 20, 2015).

In May 2017, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss
with regard to claims related to accounting errors relating to
Grupo Finmart’s bad debt reserve calculations for "nonperforming"
loans, but denied the motion to dismiss with regard to claims
relating to accounting errors related to certain sales of loan
portfolios to third parties.

Following discovery on the surviving claims, the plaintiff filed a
Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint, seeking to
revive the "nonperforming" loan claims that the Court previously
dismissed, and on July 26, 2018, the Court granted the plaintiff's
motion for leave to amend, thus accepting the Third Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint.

The Court issued an order certifying the class and approving the
class representative and class counsel in February 2019, and we
appealed that order to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals,
which appeal was granted in March 2019.

On May 30, 2019, the parties agreed to a mediated settlement of all
remaining claims and entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
regarding that settlement.

The proposed settlement provides for the payment of $4.9 million by
the defendants. On July 18, 2019, the parties entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement reflecting the terms of the
agreed settlement, which was preliminarily approved by the Court on
August 5, 2019.

The proposed settlement remains subject to several conditions,
including final Court approval at a Settlement Hearing scheduled
for December 6, 2019.

EZCORP, Inc. provides pawn loans. It operates through three
segments: U.S. Pawn, Latin America Pawn, and Other International.
EZCORP, Inc. was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in Austin,
Texas.


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Indirect Customers State Law Claims Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend 13 state law claims brought by a putative class of
indirect customers related barbeque cylinders.

Ferrellgas has been named as a defendant, along with a competitor,
in putative class action lawsuits filed in multiple jurisdictions.


The lawsuits, which were consolidated in the Western District of
Missouri on October 16, 2014, allege that Ferrellgas and a
competitor coordinated in 2008 to reduce the fill level in barbeque
cylinders and combined to persuade a common customer to accept that
fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to direct
customers and end-user customers in violation of federal and
certain state antitrust laws.

The lawsuits seek treble damages, attorneys' fees, injunctive
relief and costs on behalf of the putative class. These lawsuits
have been coordinated for pretrial purposes by the multidistrict
litigation panel.

The Federal Court for the Western District of Missouri initially
dismissed all claims brought by direct and indirect customers other
than state law claims of indirect customers under Wisconsin, Maine
and Vermont law.

The direct customer plaintiffs filed an appeal, which resulted in a
reversal of the district court’s dismissal.

The company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari which was
denied.

An appeal by the indirect customer plaintiffs resulted in the court
of appeals affirming the dismissal of the federal claims and
remanding the case to the district court to decide whether to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law
claims.

Thereafter, in August 2019, Ferrellgas reached a settlement with
the direct customers, pursuant to which it agreed to pay a total of
$6.25 million to resolve all claims asserted by the putative direct
purchaser class.  

With respect to the indirect customers, the district court
exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law
claims, but then granted in part Ferrellgas' pleadings-based motion
and dismissed 11 of the 24 remaining state law claims.  

As a result, there are 13 remaining state law claims brought by a
putative class of indirect customers.  

Ferrellgas believes it has strong defenses and intends to
vigorously defend itself against these remaining claims.
Ferrellgas does not believe loss is probable or reasonably
estimable at this time related to the putative class action
lawsuit.

Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. distributes and sells propane and related
equipment and supplies. The company transports propane to propane
distribution locations, tanks on customers' premises, or to
portable propane tanks delivered to retailers. Ferrellgas Partners,
L.P. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Overland Park,
Kansas.


FPI MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rios Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE RIOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FPI MANAGEMENT, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10,
Defendants, Case No. 19CECG04348 (Cal. Super., Fresno Cty., Dec. 3,
2019) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay
minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and
rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse
necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff Rios was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt,
hourly-paid employee.

FPI Management, Inc. provides real estate services. The Company
offers brokerage and lease management services. FPI Management
serves clients in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
          Nicol E. Hajjar, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          E-mail: bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  justin@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  nicol@wilshirelawfirm.com


FPT OPERATING: Scherrer Sues Over Unwanted Solicitation Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maura Scherrer, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FPT OPERATING COMPANY, LLC D/B/A TALUS PAYMENTS, a
Texas limited liability company, Case No. 1:19-cv-03703 (D. Colo.,
Dec. 29, 2019), is brought to stop the Defendant from violating the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by placing unwanted solicitation
calls to consumers without their consent, and to otherwise obtain
injunctive and monetary relief for all persons injured by the
Defendant's conduct.

When soliciting business, Talus Payments' agents use an autodialer
through which they place autodialed solicitation calls. However,
the Plaintiff contends, Talus Payments is calling cell phone
numbers using an autodialer without having the necessary prior
express written consent that is required for making autodialed
telemarketing calls.

In the Plaintiff's case, Talus Payments placed two autodialed phone
calls to her cellular phone, despite being told not to call again
after the first call, says the complaint. In response to these
calls, the Plaintiff files this class action lawsuit seeking
injunctive relief, requiring the Defendant to cease from placing
calls using an autodialer, as well as an award of statutory damages
to the members of the Class.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Arvada, Colorado.

Talus Payments is a business payment processing provider.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (877) 333-9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
          Email: Law@StefanColeman.com

               - and -

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          400 NW 26th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Phone: (305) 469-5881
          Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com


GREENWOOD SENIOR: Fails to Prevent Bed Bug Infestation, Long Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Greenwood Senior Living, L.P.
The case is captioned as WALTER LONG, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREENWOOD SENIOR
LIVING, L.P.; CONSECRA CORPORATION; and EMBRACE LIVING COMMUNITIES,
Defendants, Case No. 2019CH14074 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Dec. 6,
2019).

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, prior to and since the
date on which the Plaintiff moved into his leased apartment/unit
owned and operated by the Defendants in 2010, said apartment/unit
have been continuously infested with bed bugs, a fact of which the
Defendants were aware.

Despite knowledge of the bed bug infestation, the Defendants failed
to prevent the apartment/unit from becoming infested with bed bugs,
failed to warn the Plaintiff of the dangerous condition and
infestation of adjacent spaces in the building, and failed to
effectively or timely exterminate bed bugs in the Plaintiff's
apartment/unit.

Greenwood Senior Living LP owns and operates apartments, house for
rent, located in Chicago, IL. The company also operates senior
living facilities in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hall Adams, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HALL ADAMS
          33 North Dearborn Street, Suite 2350
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 445-4900
          Facsimile: (312) 445-4901


GROCERY DELIVERY: Murray Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Grace Murray, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
GROCERY DELIVERY E-SERVICES USA INC. DBA HELLO FRESH, Case No.
1:19-cv-12608 (D. Mass., Dec. 30, 2019), is brought to enforce the
consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, a federal statute enacted in 1991 in response to widespread
public outrage about the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance
telemarketing practices.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant sent telemarketing calls
to her and other putative class members listed on the National Do
Not Call Registry without their prior express written consent.
Because telemarketing 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 telemarketing calls
from or on behalf of the Defendant.

Ms. Murray currently resides in Massachusetts in this District.

Grocery Delivery E-Services USA INC., DBA Hello Fresh, is
headquartered in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


H&R BLOCK: Appeal in Olosoni and Snarr Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2019, that the company's appeal
from the order denying a motion to compel arbitration is pending.

On May 17, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed
against H&R Block, Inc., HRB Tax Group, Inc. and HRB Digital LLC in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Francisco (Case No. CGC-19576093) styled Olosoni and Snarr v. H&R
Block, Inc., et al.

The case was removed to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on June 21, 2019 (Case No.
3:19-cv-03610-SK).

The plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on August 9, 2019,
dropping H&R Block, Inc. from the case. In their amended complaint,
the plaintiffs seek to represent classes of all persons, between
May 17, 2015 and the present, who (1) paid to file one or more
federal tax returns through H&R Block's internet-based filing
system, (2) were eligible to file those tax returns for free
through the H&R Block Free File offer of the IRS Free File Program,
and (3) resided in and were citizens of California at the time of
the payments.

The plaintiffs generally allege unlawful, unfair, fraudulent and
deceptive business practices and acts in connection with the IRS
Free File Program in violation of the California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, California Civil Code Sections 1750, et seq.,
California False Advertising Law, California Business and
Professions Code Sections 17500, et seq., and California Unfair
Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code Sections
17200 et seq.

The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs.

The company filed a motion to stay the proceedings based on the
primary jurisdiction doctrine and a motion to compel arbitration,
both of which were denied. The company filed an appeal of the
denial of the motion to compel arbitration, which is pending. The
company also filed a motion to transfer venue to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Missouri, which remains
pending.

H&R Block said, "We have not concluded that a loss related to this
matter is probable, nor have we accrued a liability related to this
matter."

H&R Block, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides assisted income
tax return preparation, digital do-it-yourself (DIY) tax solutions,
and other services and products related to income tax return
preparation to the general public primarily in the United States,
Canada, and Australia. H&R Block, Inc. was founded in 1946 and is
headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri.


H&R BLOCK: Bid to Stay Proceeding in Swanson Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2019, that the company's motion
to stay the proceedings in Swanson v. H&R Block, Inc., et al.,
based on the primary jurisdiction doctrine and a motion to compel
arbitration, remains pending.

On September 26, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed
against H&R Block, Inc., HRB Tax Group, Inc., HRB Digital LLC and
Free File, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Missouri (Case No. 4:19-cv-00788-GAF) styled Swanson v.
H&R Block, Inc., et al.

The plaintiff seeks to represent both a nationwide class and a
California subclass of all persons eligible for the IRS Free File
Program who paid to use an H&R Block product to file an online tax
return for the 2002 through 2018 tax filing years.

The plaintiff generally alleges unlawful, unfair, fraudulent and
deceptive business practices and acts in connection with the IRS
Free File Program in violation of the California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, California Civil Code Sections 1750, et seq.,
California False Advertising Law, California Business and
Professions Code Sections 17500, et seq., California Unfair
Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code Sections
17200, et seq., in addition to breach of contract and fraud.

The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement, compensatory
damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, interest, attorneys'
fees and costs.

H&R Block filed a motion to stay the proceedings based on the
primary jurisdiction doctrine and a motion to compel arbitration,
both of which remain pending.

H&R Block said, "We have not concluded that a loss related to this
matter is probable, nor have we accrued a liability related to this
matter."

H&R Block, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides assisted income
tax return preparation, digital do-it-yourself (DIY) tax solutions,
and other services and products related to income tax return
preparation to the general public primarily in the United States,
Canada, and Australia. H&R Block, Inc. was founded in 1946 and is
headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri.


HARROW HEALTH: Pays $571,000 to Settle Dr. Sobol's TCPA Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Harrow Health, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019, that it paid US$571,000 in October 2019 to
settle damages in the lawsuit initiated by Louis L. Sobol, M.D.

In December 2016, Louis L. Sobol, M.D. filed a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
Division against the Company, asserting claims on behalf of himself
and an as-yet-uncertified class of consumers.  The claims allege
violations under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C.
Section 227 via the Company's alleged transmittal of advertisements
to its clients via facsimile.  The Court approved the parties'
proposed settlement agreement in the spring of 2019.  During the
year ended December 31, 2018, the Company accrued US$640,000 for
expected damages related to this matter and the proposed settlement
amount.  As a result of the low claim rate of approximately 1.4%,
the Company's total damages were US$571,000, which was paid in
October 2019.

Harrow Health, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops,
produces, and sells medications for unmet needs primarily in the
United States. The company primarily provides ophthalmology based
formulations to physicians and patients; and sterile and
non-sterile compounded medications. The company was formerly known
as Imprimis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and changed its name to Harrow
Health, Inc. in December 2018. Harrow Health, Inc. was founded in
1998 and is headquartered in San Diego, California.


HARROW HEALTH: Still Faces Gaukel Class Action in Idaho
-------------------------------------------------------
Harrow Health, Inc. continues to face the class action allegations
and product liability claims filed by Anna Sue Gaukel and Lawrence
Gaukel, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019.

In June 2019, Anna Sue Gaukel and Lawrence Gaukel served the
Company with a lawsuit filed in state court in Idaho against
Imprimis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. asserting class action allegations
and product liability claims related to Mrs. Gaukel's doctor's use
of a compounded drug injection in each of her eyes.

In June 2019, the Company removed the case to Federal Court and
subsequently answered the complaint.  The case continues to be in
its early phase.

The Company believes the claims are meritless and has previously
and will continue to dispute all claims asserted against it and
intends to vigorously defend against these allegations.
Nonetheless, the Company cannot predict the eventual outcome of
this litigation, it could result in substantial costs, losses and a
diversion of management's resources and attention, which could harm
the Company's business and the value of its common stock.

Harrow Health, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops,
produces, and sells medications for unmet needs primarily in the
United States. The company primarily provides ophthalmology based
formulations to physicians and patients; and sterile and
non-sterile compounded medications. The company was formerly known
as Imprimis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and changed its name to Harrow
Health, Inc. in December 2018. Harrow Health, Inc. was founded in
1998 and is headquartered in San Diego, California.


HILLENBRAND INC: Still Defends Suits over Milacron Acquisition
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hillenbrand, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended September 30,
2019, that it is facing class action complaints related to the
proposed acquisition of Milacron Holdings Corp.

Following the announcement of the proposed Milacron merger, several
putative class action complaints were filed by purported
stockholders of Milacron.  Certain of the class action complaints
named Hillenbrand as a defendant.  The complaints in these cases
allege that, among other things, the defendants violated Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
under the Exchange Act, by omitting or misrepresenting certain
allegedly material information in the proxy statement/prospectus
filed in connection with the proposed transaction.  The complaints
seek, among other things, injunctive relief preventing the
consummation of the merger, rescissory damages or rescission in the
event the merger is consummated and plaintiff's attorneys' and
experts' fees.  The defendants believe the allegations and claims
asserted in the complaints are without merit.


HOWARD L. NATIONS: Gaudet et al. Seek to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as In the class action lawsuit
styled as DEBORAH A. GAUDET, ET AL., Individually and on Behalf of
a Class of All Other Similarly Situated Persons, the Plaintiffs,
vs. HOWARD L. NATIONS, APC, ET AL., the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-10356-WBV-JVM (E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for
an order:

   1. certifying a proposed Class;

   2. appointing Deborah A. Gaudet, Timothy Butler, Dian B.
      Campbell, Kristine Collins, Regina Falgoust, Abraham
      Gamberella, Adam J. Hebert, Fred Ledet, Standwood Moore,
      Jr., and James Scales, III as Class representatives; and

   3. appointing Jerald P. Block, Richard C. Breaux, Kendall J.
      Krielow, Sarah M. Lambert, and Matthew P. Hymel as Class
      Counsel.

Howard Nations has been at the forefront of civil and personal
injury litigation for over 50 years and has built a national
practice focused on mass tort pharmaceuticals, individual
catastrophic injuries, and complex business litigation.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class Members are:

          Jerald P. Block, Esq.
          Richard C. Breaux, Esq.
          Kendall J. Krielow, Esq.
          Sarah M. Lambert, Esq.
          Matthew P. Hymel, Esq.
          BLOCK LAW FIRM, APLC
          422 East First Street
          Post Office Box 108
          Thibodaux, LA 70302
          Telephone: (985) 446-0418
          Facsimile: (985) 446-0422

HUNGRYPANDA US: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Weng Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Qiang Weng, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. HUNGRYPANDA US INC d/b/a HungryPanda; JIAWEI SUN, and
KELU LIU, Case No. 1:19-cv-11882 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 29, 2019), is
brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed
widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in pattern
and practice of failing to pay its employees, including the
Plaintiff, minimum wage for each hour worked and overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is employed by the Defendants at to work as a
Deliveryman at HungryPanda.

HUNGRYPANDA US INC., doing business as HungryPanda, is a foreign
business corporation organized under the laws of the State of
Delaware with a principal address in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Phone: (718) 762-1324


ICU MEDICAL: Bid to Drop Saline Solution Class Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ICU Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019, that briefing is complete regarding the
Defendants' motion to dismiss a second amended complaint in the
intravenous saline solutions class action suit, and the parties are
awaiting the Court's ruling.

Beginning in November 2016, purported class actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against Pfizer, Inc. subsidiaries, Hospira, Inc., Hospira
Worldwide, Inc. and certain other defendants relating to the
intravenous saline solutions part of the HIS business.  Plaintiffs
seek to represent classes consisting of all persons and entities in
the U.S. who directly purchased intravenous saline solution sold by
any of the defendants from January 1, 2013 until the time the
defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct ceases.  Plaintiffs allege
that U.S. manufacturer defendants conspired together to restrict
output and artificially fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize the
prices of intravenous saline solution sold throughout the U.S. in
violation of federal antitrust laws.  Plaintiffs seek treble
damages (for themselves and on behalf of the putative classes) and
an injunction against defendants for alleged price overcharges for
intravenous saline solution in the U.S. since January 1, 2013.

On July 5, 2018, the District Court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the operative complaint for failing to state a valid
antitrust claim, but allowed the plaintiffs to file a second
amended complaint.

The Company said, "On September 6, 2018, plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint adding new allegations in support of their
conspiracy claims and adding ICU as a defendant.  All defendants
have filed a motion to dismiss this second amended complaint.
Briefing is complete and we are awaiting the Court's ruling.  On
February 3, 2017, we completed the acquisition of the HIS business
from Pfizer.  This litigation is the subject of a claim for
indemnification against us by Pfizer and a cross-claim for
indemnification against Pfizer by us under the HIS stock and asset
purchase agreement."

ICU Medical, Inc. develops, manufactures, and sells medical devices
used in vascular therapy, critical care, and oncology applications
worldwide.  ICU Medical, Inc. was founded in 1984 and is
headquartered in San Clemente, California.


INDEPENDENT PET: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Robinson Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Westley Robinson and Luther Cockrill, as individuals, and on behalf
of all similarly situated employees v. INDEPENDENT PET PARTNERS
HOLDINGS, LLC; KRISER'S FEEDING PETS FOR LIFE, LLC DBA KRISER'S
NATURAL PET; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
2:19-cv-10929 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 27, 2019), seeks recovery of damages
for the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants, as a result of its
nationwide policies and practices, failed to pay them the
applicable minimum and overtime wage for off-the-clock work, in
violation of California law. The Plaintiffs further allege that the
Defendants failed to pay the applicable minimum wage for
non-productive time and time spent during rest breaks for employees
paid purely on commissions.

The Defendants, as a result of its nationwide policies and
practices, also failed to pay all overtime and double time wages at
the proper rates by failing to pay one-and-a-half times the regular
rate of pay and by failing to include bonuses, commissions, and
other incentive pay into employees' regular rate of pay for
purposes of calculating overtime, and double the regular rate of
pay when applicable in violation of federal law, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as bathers.

Defendant IPPH is a Delaware corporation that sells retail pet
products and provides grooming services, among other things.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq.
          Atoy H. Wilson, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Phone: (562) 590-5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
          Email: kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net
                 awilson@mahoney-law.net


JACOBS ENGINEERING: Continues to Defend Suit over Fly Ash Waste
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 25,
2019, for the fiscal year ended September 27, 2019, that the
company and Tennessee Valley Authority ("TVA") continue to defend a
class action suit related to the release of fly ash waste into the
Emory River and surrounding community.

On December 22, 2008, a coal fly ash pond at the Kingston Power
Plant of the Tennessee Valley Authority ("TVA") was breached,
releasing fly ash waste into the Emory River and surrounding
community.  

In February 2009, TVA awarded a contract to the Company to provide
project management services associated with the clean-up.

All remediation and dredging were completed in August 2013 by other
contractors under direct contracts with TVA. The Company did not
perform the remediation, and its scope was limited to program
management services.

On November 2019, a resident of Roane County filed a purported
class action against TVA and the Company alleging they failed to
adequately warn local residents about risks associated with the
released fly ash.  

There has been no finding of liability against the Company or that
any of the alleged illnesses are the result of exposure to fly ash
in any of the cases.

The Company disputes the claims asserted and is vigorously
defending these claims.

Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc., is a
global provider of technical, professional, and scientific
services, including engineering, architecture, construction,
operations and maintenance.


KIRKLAND'S INC: Miles Class Action Still Ongoing in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kirkland's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended November 2, 2019, that Kirkland's Stores,
Inc. continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled,
Miles v. Kirkland's Stores, Inc.

The Company has been named as a defendant in a putative class
action filed in May 2018 in the Superior Court of California, Miles
v. Kirkland’s Stores, Inc.

The case has been removed to Federal Court, Central District of
California, and trial is not yet set. The complaint alleges, on
behalf of Miles and all other hourly Kirkland’s employees in
California, various wage and hour violations.

Kirkland's denies the material allegations in the complaint and
believes that its employment policies are generally compliant with
California law.

Kirkland's said, "To date, the parties have exchanged the court
mandated initial disclosures. The Company believes the case is
without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the
allegations."

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

Kirkland's, Inc. operates as a specialty retailer of home decor in
the United States.  The company's stores provide various
merchandise, including holiday decor, framed arts, furniture,
ornamental wall decor, fragrance and accessories, mirrors, lamps,
decorative accessories, textiles, housewares, gifts, artificial
floral products, frames, clocks, and outdoor living items.
Kirkland's, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is based in Brentwood,
Tennessee.


KIRKLAND'S INC: Plaintiff Wants Gennock Suit Moved to Pa. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kirkland's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended November 2, 2019, that the plaintiffs in the
case, Gennock v. Kirkland's, Inc., have filed a Praecipe to
Transfer the case to Pennsylvania state court.

The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action
filed in April 2017 in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania, Gennock v. Kirkland's, Inc.

The complaint alleged that the Company, in violation of federal
law, published more than the last five digits of a credit or debit
card number on customers’ receipts.

On October 21, 2019, the District Court dismissed the matter and
ruled that the Plaintiffs did not have standing based on the Third
Circuit's recent decision in Kamal v. J. Crew Group, Inc., 918 F.3d
102 (3d. Cir. 2019).

Following the dismissal in Federal Court, on October 25, 2019 the
Plaintiffs filed a Praecipe to Transfer the case to Pennsylvania
state court.

The Company continues to believe that the case is without merit and
intends to continue to vigorously defend itself against the
allegations.

Kirkland's said, "The matter is covered by insurance, and the
Company does not believe that the case will have a material adverse
effect on its consolidated financial condition, operating results
or cash flows."

Kirkland's, Inc. operates as a specialty retailer of home decor in
the United States.  The company's stores provide various
merchandise, including holiday decor, framed arts, furniture,
ornamental wall decor, fragrance and accessories, mirrors, lamps,
decorative accessories, textiles, housewares, gifts, artificial
floral products, frames, clocks, and outdoor living items.
Kirkland's, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is based in Brentwood,
Tennessee.


KOI CBD LLC: Fausett et al. Sue over Sales of Cannabidiol Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
CALLEY FAUSETT; and LEIGH GOOD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KOI CBD, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-10318 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 5, 2019) is an action
brought individually by the Plaintiffs on behalf of consumers who
purchased the Defendant's "CBD Healing Balm", "CBD Vape Oil", "Full
Spectrum CBD Tincture", "KOI Lotion", "KOI CBD Gummies", "KOI CBD
Infused Shot", "KOI Naturals CBD Spray for Pets", and "KOI CBD soft
chews" (the "Products" or "CBD Products"). All of the Products are
promoted as products containing cannabidiol (CBD), for personal use
and not for resale.

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

Koi CBD, LLC was established in 2015 with the mission to create a
standard of quality for full-spectrum hemp extract containing
naturally occurring CBD products. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


KRISPY KREME: Williams Sues Over Misleading Apple Pie Packaging
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Williams, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation, Case No.
1:19-cv-11878 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 27, 2019), seeks damages under
consumer protection laws from the Defendant's misleading
representations on their apple pie products' packaging.

The Product's relevant front label representations include "Krispy
Kreme Doughnuts," "Glazed Apple Pie," "Original Glazed Flavoring,"
"Made with Real Fruit Filling and Other Natural Flavors," pictures
of what appear to be whole and cut Granny Smith apples and the pie
filling visible in the two halves of the pie.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Product's representations are
misleading because despite the front label and advertising
indicating they are "Made with Real Fruit Filling and Other Natural
Flavors" and "Original Glazed Flavoring," they fail to disclose
that the fruit filling and/or glaze contains artificial flavor (1)
which imparts flavor to the fruit filling and/or glaze and/or (2)
resembles, simulates or enhances the natural flavor used to impart
flavor to the fruit filling and/or glaze.

Whether or not a flavor is from a natural or artificial source and
the role of a natural and artificial flavor in a food are material
to consumers seeking to eschew artificial flavors for various
reasons, including nutrition, health, and avoidance of chemicals,
the Plaintiff contends. Had the Plaintiff and class members known
the truth, they would not have bought the Product or would have
paid less for it.

The Product contains other representations which are misleading and
deceptive, says the complaint. As a result of the false and
misleading labeling, the Product is sold at a premium price,
approximately no less than $2.99 per 4 OZ, excluding tax--compared
to other similar products represented in a non-misleading way.

The Plaintiff purchased one or more of the Products for personal
use and consumption.

Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation manufactures, distributes,
markets, labels and sells single serving apple pies under their
Krispy Kreme brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


L & R DISTRIBUTORS: Did Not Rightly Pay Overtime Wage, Reece Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chinnettia Reece, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. L & R DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Case No.
4:19-cv-00940-JM (E.D. Ark., Dec. 30, 2019), is brought against the
Defendant for violations of the overtime requirements of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

During weeks in which the Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees worked over 40 hours, the Defendant paid an improper
overtime rate because the Defendant determined the regular rate of
pay solely based on employees' hourly rate, without including the
value of the earned semi-annual bonuses, says the complaint.
Therefore, the Plaintiff contends, the Defendant violated the FLSA
by not including all forms of compensation, such as the bonus, in
the regular rate when calculating the Plaintiff's and similarly
situated employees' overtime pay.

The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly-paid "Picker" from
September 2014 until December 2019.

The Defendant conducts business within the State of Arkansas,
operating a distribution facility in Pine Bluff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake Hoyt, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Phone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          Email: blake@sanfordlawfirm.com
                 josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


L BRANDS: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Ongoing in Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------
L Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended November 2, 2019, that the court has
consolidated two class action suits in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio.

In July 2019, a plaintiff shareholder filed a putative class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio alleging that the Company made false and/or misleading
statements relating to the November 2018 announcement that the
Company was reducing its quarterly dividend.

In September 2019, a different plaintiff shareholder filed a second
putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio containing substantially the same
allegations and seeking substantially the same relief.  

In October 2019, the Court issued an order consolidating the two
putative class actions, appointing a lead plaintiff, and approving
that lead plaintiff's selection of lead counsel.  

The deadline for the lead plaintiff to file an amended complaint is
December 20, 2019.  

The Company views this lawsuit as meritless and intends to defend
against this lawsuit vigorously.

L Brands, Inc. sells women's apparel and beauty products. The
Company offers various products including women's apparel, women's
lingerie, beauty and personal care products, home fragrances, and
other related products and accessories. L Brands serves customers
in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom through
specialty retail stores, websites, and catalogues. The company is
based in Columbus, Ohio.


LCV STAFFING: Shields Seeks to Stop Illegal Use of Biometric Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Shields and Johnnie Tyler, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. LCV STAFFING, LLC, an Illinois limited
liability company, Case No. 2019CH15039 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Dec.
30, 2019), is brought against the Defendant to stop its capture,
collection, use, disclosure, publication, dissemination and storage
of its employees' biometric identifiers and/or biometric
information, in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act.

The Defendant has implemented an invasive program that captures,
collects, stores and uses employees' fingerprints, while
disregarding the applicable Illinois statute and the privacy
interests it protects, according to the complaint.

In recognition of the concern regarding the security of
individuals' biometrics, the Illinois Legislature enacted BIPA,
which provides, inter alia, that private entities, such as the
Defendant, may not obtain and/or possess an individual's biometrics
unless they first: Inform that person in writing that biometric
identifiers or information will be collected or stored; Inform that
person in writing of the specific purpose and the length of term
for which such biometric identifiers or biometric information is
being collected, stored and used; Receive a written release from
the person for the collection of their biometric identifiers or
biometric information; and Publish a publicly available retention
schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying biometric
identifiers and biometric information.

BIPA expressly obligates Defendant to obtain an executed, written
release from an individual in order to capture, collect and store
an individual's biometric identifiers, especially a fingerprint,
and biometric information derived from it. Despite the requirements
under BIPA, the Defendant's practice of capturing, collecting,
storing, disclosing, disseminating and using employees' biometric
information without informed written consent violates the
employees' statutorily protected privacy rights under BIPA, says
the complaint

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as hourly employees.

The Defendant is a Chicago based industrial staffing company that
provides temporary workers for companies in various industries such
as manufacturing, food manufacturing and packaging.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas M. Ryan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C.
          35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: 312-726-3400
          Email: tom@tomryanlaw.com

               - and -

          James X. Bormes, Esq.
          Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES P.C.
          8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 201-0575
          Fax: (312) 332-0600
          Email: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com
                 cpsons@bormeslaw.com

              - and -

          Frank Castiglione, Esq.
          Frank Castiglione, Esq.
          Kasif Khowaja, Esq.
          THE KHOWAJA LAW FIRM, LLC
          8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 356-3200
          Fax: (312) 386-5800
          Email: fcastiglione@khowajalaw.com
                 kasif@khowajalaw.com


LOVE'S TRAVEL: Underpays Operation Managers, Horton Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
KRISTEN LEANN HORTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOVE'S TRAVEL STOPS & COUNTRY
STORES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01193 (M.D.N.C., Dec. 6,
2019) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs.

The Plaintiff Horton was employed by the Defendant as operation
manager.

Love's Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc. operates a chain of
combined fueling stations and convenience stores. The Company
provides gift and novelty items, shower rooms, laundry facilities,
game rooms, mail drops, fast-food restaurants, and gas outlets for
automobiles. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian L. Kinsley, Esq.
          Crumley Roberts LLP
          2400 Freeman Mill Road
          Greensboro, NC 27406
          Telephone: (800) 288-1529
          Facsimile: (336) 333-9894
          E-mail: BLKinsley@crumleyroberts.com

                - and -

           Marc S. Hepworth, Esq.
           Charles Gershbaum, Esq.
           David A. Roth, Esq.
           Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq.
           Jessica Massimi, Esq.
           HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC
           192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802
           New York, NY 10016
           Telephone: (212) 545-1199
           Facsimile: (212) 532-3801
           E-mail: mhepworth@hgrlawyers.com
                   cgershbaum@hgrlawyers.com
                   droth@hgrlawyers.com
                   rpredovan@hgrlawyers.com
                   jmassimi@hgrlawyers.com

                - and -

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


MANAGEMENT AND TRAINING: Seiber Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cheyenne Seiber, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. MANAGEMENT AND TRAINING CORPORATION, Case No. 3:19-cv-02983-JZ
(N.D. Ohio, Dec. 27, 2019), is brought to challenge the Defendant's
policies and practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act,
as well as the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was routinely required to work in excess of 40 hours
per workweek, says the complaint. The Defendant required the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees to arrive before
their scheduled shift for "pass down," which involved several shift
change duties, including attendance at a mandatory pre-shift
briefing. The Plaintiff alleges that subject to this policy,
employees were not paid any amount for the pre-shift "pass down"
work, as such time was not counted as hours worked for purposes of
computing overtime.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a correctional
officer from February 2013 through December 2019.

The Defendant is in the business of operating private prisons.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Lalak, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          614 W. Superior Ave., Suite 1148
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Phone: (216) 230-2955
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          Email: claklak@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Phone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          Email: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Ste. 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Phone: 614-949-1181
          Fax: 614-386-9964
          Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com


MARAV USA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Pagoada Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
MIRNA PAGOADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MARAV USA LLC, d/b/a BINGO WHOLESALE; HADAR
GEULAH INC; MOSHE NEIGER; DAVID WEISS; and SAMUEL ROTH, Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-06885 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 6, 2019) seeks to recover
from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Pagoada was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt,
hourly paid employee.

Marav USA LLC, d/b/a Bingo Wholesale is engaged in retail and
wholesale store services in the fields of groceries, dairy
products, baked goods, meats, fruits and vegetables, frozen foods,
beverages, alcoholic beverages, home cleaning products, paper and
office supplies, laundry products, lawn and garden products,
barbecue products, clothing and accessories, bedding, luggage,
personal care products, cookware, beverage ware, computers and
personal electronic products, health care products, nutritional
supplements, small and major home appliances, household furniture.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Jerry Boies, Esq.
           THE BOIES LAW FIRM, PLLC
           535 Fifth Avenue, 4th Floor
           New York, NY 10017
           Telephone: (646) 274-1400
           E-mail: jboies@boieslaw.com

               - and –

          Eliseo Cabrera, Esq.
          123 William Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (646) 459-3020
          E-mail: ecabrera@takerootjustice.org


MATSU CORP: Court Conditionally Certifies FLSA Collective Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as GUI ZHEN ZHU, and RONG JIAO
YIN, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. MATSU CORP d/b/a Matsu; and MATSU
GRILL CO. LLC, d/b/a Matsuri and; KIMMING MARTY CHENG, and ZIQIAO
CAO a/k/a Michael Cao, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-203 (CSH)
(D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. entered an order
on Jan. 2, 2020:

   1. conditionally certifying the case as an Fair Labor Standards
      Act collective action on behalf of:

      "all current and former non-exempt employees employed by
      Defendants at any time from February 2, 2015 to the date of
      the Order";

   2. directing current and former employees of Defendants to opt-
      in to the action in a manner consistent with the ruling, to
      participate in the action;

   3. directing Defendants, within 15 days of the Order, to
      produce a list of the names, addresses, compensation rates,
      telephone numbers, and dates of employment of all non-exempt

      employees employed by the Defendants from February 2, 2015
      to the date of the Order in an Excel format; and

   4. directing Plaintiffs and Defendants to meet and confer on
      newly-revised Notice of Pendency and Consent Form that
      incorporate the Court's rulings above.

The Court said, "Zhu alleges that she regularly worked over 70
hours a week without receiving overtime pay and that she had never
received a notice of her pay rate. Zhu also recounts that several
kitchen employees—Ding, Da Jiang, Sunny and Chief Song -- were
similarly undercompensated despite the fact that they regularly
worked over 70 hours a week and stayed at the restaurant overnight
at least once a week in order to prepare for the big orders."

Zhu contends that Ding, Da Jiang, Sunny and Chief Song each
complained to her about their grueling working hours and
Defendants' failure to pay the minimum wage and provide overtime
compensation for their labor.

Similarly, Yin alleges that she was paid less than the minimum wage
and received no overtime compensation despite the fact that she
regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week. Based on her
personal experiences and conversations she had with other
individuals employed by Defendants, Yin contends that it was
Defendants' policy to pay their employees less than the minimum
wage and withhold appropriate overtime compensation, the Court
added.

Zhu and Yin allege that Defendants, owners of two restaurants in
Westport and Darien, Connecticut, 1 violated the minimum wage and
overtime pay provisions of the FLSA and Connecticut Minimum Wage
Act by willfully underpaying their employees.

On February 2, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint in this
action seeking to recover from Defendants unpaid minimum wages and
unpaid overtime compensation, among other damages.[CC]

MCCLATCHY CO: Still Defends Fresno and Sacramento Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
The McClatchy Company said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 29, 2019, that it continues to defend the class action
styled Becerra v. The McClatchy Company ("Fresno case") and a
substantially similar lawsuit styled Sawin v. The McClatchy Company
("Sacramento case") related to mileage reimbursement.

In December 2008, carriers of The Fresno Bee filed a class action
lawsuit against the Company and The Fresno Bee in the Superior
Court of the State of California in Fresno County captioned Becerra
v. The McClatchy Company ("Fresno case") alleging that the carriers
were misclassified as independent contractors and seeking mileage
reimbursement.

In February 2009, a substantially similar lawsuit, Sawin v. The
McClatchy Company, involving similar allegations was filed by
carriers of The Sacramento Bee ("Sacramento case") in the Superior
Court of the State of California in Sacramento County.  The class
consists of roughly 5,000 carriers in the Sacramento case and 3,500
carriers in the Fresno case.  The plaintiffs in both cases are
seeking unspecified restitution for mileage reimbursement.  With
respect to the Sacramento case, in September 2013, all wage and
hour claims were dismissed, and the only remaining claim is an
equitable claim for mileage reimbursement under the California
Civil Code.  In the Fresno case, in March 2014, all wage and hour
claims were dismissed, and the only remaining claim is an equitable
claim for mileage reimbursement under the California Civil Code.

The court in the Sacramento case trifurcated the trial into three
separate phases, independent contractor status, liability and
restitution.

On September 22, 2014, the court in the Sacramento case issued a
tentative decision following the first phase, finding that the
carriers that contracted directly with The Sacramento Bee during
the period from February 2005 to July 2009 were misclassified as
independent contractors.  The Company objected to the tentative
decision, but the court ultimately adopted it as final.

In June 2016, The McClatchy Company was dismissed from the lawsuit,
leaving The Sacramento Bee as the sole defendant.

On August 30, 2017, the court issued a statement of decision ruling
that the court would not hold a phase two trial but would, instead,
assume liability from the evidence previously submitted and from
the independent contractor agreements.  The Company objected to
this decision, but the court adopted it as final.  The third phase
began on June 20, 2019, and is ongoing.

The court in the Fresno case bifurcated the trial into two separate
phases: the first phase addressed independent contractor status and
liability for mileage reimbursement and the second phase was
designated to address restitution, if any.  The first phase of the
Fresno case began in the fourth quarter of 2014 and concluded in
late March 2015.

On April 14, 2016, the court in the Fresno case issued a statement
of final decision in favor of the Company and The Fresno Bee.
Accordingly, there will be no second phase.  The plaintiffs filed a
Notice of Appeal on November 10, 2016.

The Company said, "We continue to defend these actions vigorously
and expect that we will ultimately prevail.  As a result, we have
not established a reserve in connection with the cases.  While we
believe that a material impact on our condensed consolidated
financial position, results of operations or cash flows from these
claims is unlikely, given the inherent uncertainty of litigation, a
possibility exists that future adverse rulings or unfavorable
developments could result in future charges that could have a
material impact.  We have and will continue to periodically
reexamine our estimates of probable liabilities and any associated
expenses and make appropriate adjustments to such estimates based
on experience and developments in litigation."

The McClatchy Company provides news and advertising services in
digital and print formats in the United States. Its publications
include the Miami Herald, The Kansas City Star, The Sacramento Bee,
The Charlotte Observer, The (Raleigh) News and Observer, The (Fort
Worth) Star-Telegram, and The (Durham, NC) Herald-Sun. The
McClatchy Company was founded in 1857 and is headquartered in
Sacramento, California.


MEDTRONIC PLC: Suit Over Covidien Acquisition Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 3, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended October 25, 2019, that the company continues
to defend itself in a consolidated class action suit involving the
acquisition of Covidien PLC.

On July 2, 2014, Lewis Merenstein filed a putative shareholder
class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court seeking
to enjoin the then-potential acquisition of Covidien.

The lawsuit named Medtronic, Inc., Covidien, and each member of the
Medtronic, Inc. Board of Directors at the time as defendants, and
alleged that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to
shareholders with regard to the then-potential acquisition.

On August 21, 2014, Kenneth Steiner filed a putative shareholder
class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court, also
seeking an injunction to prevent the potential Covidien
acquisition.

In September 2014, the Merenstein and Steiner matters were
consolidated and in December 2014, the plaintiffs filed a
preliminary injunction motion seeking to enjoin the Covidien
transaction.

On March 20, 2015, the District Court issued an order and opinion
granting Medtronic’s motion to dismiss the case.

In May of 2015, the plaintiffs filed an appeal, and, in January of
2016, the Minnesota State Court of Appeals affirmed in part, and
reversed in part. On April 19, 2016 the Minnesota Supreme Court
granted the Company's petition to review the issue of whether most
of the original claims are properly characterized as direct or
derivative under Minnesota law.

In August of 2017, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the
decision of the Minnesota State Court of Appeals, sending the
matter back to the trial court for further proceedings, which are
ongoing.

Medtronic said, "The Company has not recognized an expense related
to damages in connection with this matter, because any potential
loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S.
GAAP. Additionally, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate
the range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters."

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

Medtronic plc develops, manufactures, distributes, and sells
device-based medical therapies to hospitals, physicians,
clinicians, and patients worldwide. It operates through four
segments: Cardiac and Vascular Group, Minimally Invasive Therapies
Group, Restorative Therapies Group, and Diabetes Group. The company
was founded in 1949 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


MERCEDES-BENZ US: Simmons Sues Over Disability Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Simmons v. MERCEDES-BENZ U.S. INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No.
7:19-cv-02123-LSC (N.D. Ala., Dec. 27, 2019), is brought as a class
action for all persons, who have an qualifying disability under the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and were denied short term
disability policy benefits as the Defendant's elevates "business
need" over the employee's need for plan benefits.

The lawsuit is brought for legal and equitable relief to redress
unlawful disability and race discrimination and to secure the
protection of and to redress the deprivation of rights secured by
the ADA.

In July 2018, Simmons experienced chronic and severe pain stemming
from a previous Achilles rupture. The previous fall, Simmons was
off of work and had surgery to rupture. On July 19, 2019, Dr.
Patricia Antero informed Mercedes that do to the nature of the
degeneration and previous rupture that Mr. Simmons was in pain, had
difficulty walking and needed a surgical procedure.

On August 9, 2019, Southlake Orthopedics advised Mercedes of
upcoming appointment for surgical consult with an expected return
to work date of September 06, 2018. Mercedes rejected the doctor's
explanation, denied Mr. Simmons any short term disability and
requested additional information. On August 13, 2019 at 6:41 p.m.
via e-mail, Simmons provided Mercedes official David Olive obtained
further medical clarification, which stated that patient needed
surgery as soon as possible.

On August 20, 2019, Steve Shiew, Team Relations Manager, Sent Mr.
Simmons a letter terminating his employment and incorrectly that he
had not provided any additional medical information.

According to the complaint, Mercedes maintains a short term
disability plan that allows for continuation of salary for team
members because of non-work related medical impairment extending
beyond seven days. Mr. Simmons contends he was denied a reasonable
accommodation of allowing to be off of work under the policy and
terminated.

The Plaintiff is an African-American male citizen of the United
States over the age of 19 years and is disabled by way of an
Achilles injury. He worked as specialist procuring automotive parts
in the Mercedes Benz's supply chain.

The Defendant is a leading manufacturer of automobiles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lee D. Winston, Esq.
          Roderick T. Cooks, Esq.
          WINSTON COOKS, LLC
          505 North 20th Street North, Suite 815
          Phone: (205) 502-0940
          Facsimile: (205) 278-5876
          Email: lwinston@winstoncooks.com


MERIDIAN BIOSCIENCE: $2.1MM Forman Settlement Awaits Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
Meridian Bioscience Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 26, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, that the court has
scheduled a final settlement approval hearing for March 2020 in the
class action initiated by Barbara Forman.

On November 15, 2017, Barbara Forman filed a class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio (the Court) naming Meridian, its former Chief Executive
Officer and former Chief Financial Officer (in their capacities as
such) as defendants.

An amended complaint was filed on April 16, 2018 and the Company
believes the essential elements of the amended complaint are the
same.

On July 9, 2019, a settlement was reached with the plaintiff that
provides for a $2.1 million payment by the Company.

On October 9, 2019, the Court granted a motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement, and on November 7, 2019, the settlement
amount was paid from the Company's Directors and Officers insurance
policy into a plaintiff escrow account.

The Court has scheduled a final approval hearing for March 2020.

Meridian said, "Because the settlement was a covered claim under
our Directors and Officers insurance policy, no provision for
litigation losses has been included within the accompanying
Consolidated Statements of Operations for fiscal 2019, 2018 or
2017."

Meridian Bioscience Inc., an integrated life science company,
manufactures, develops, sells, and distributes diagnostic test
kits. Meridian, founded in 1976, is based in Cincinnati Ohio.


MERITOR INC: Still Defends Class Litigation in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 29, 2019, that it is still facing a purported class suit
in Alberta, Canada, and a nearly identical complaint in British
Columbia, Canada.

The Company said, "In March 2016, two virtually identical
complaints were filed against our company and other defendants in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan.  The complaints are proposed class actions alleging that
we violated federal and state antitrust and other laws in
connection with a former business of ours that manufactured and
sold exhaust systems for automobiles.  The first proposed class is
composed of persons and entities that purchased or leased a
passenger vehicle during a specified time period; the second is a
purported class of automobile dealers.  We accepted service of
these complaints in July 2016.  We settled both of these lawsuits
for a total of US$1 million.  The settlements were preliminarily
approved by the court in June and September 2018.

"A third complaint on behalf of a proposed class of direct
purchasers was filed against our company and other defendants in
the same court in November 2016; we accepted service in April
2017.

"In December 2017, we were served with a similar suit naming the
company as a defendant on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
in Alberta, Canada, and were served with a nearly identical
complaint in British Columbia, Canada in March 2018.

"In August 2017, our subsidiary, Meritor do Brasil Sistema
Automotivos Ltda., received notice that it was made a formal party
to an investigation by the antitrust authority of the Brazilian
government relating to the alleged existence of a cartel in the
exhaust systems and components market in Brazil.

"In September 2019, the Brazilian antitrust authority issued a
non-binding opinion imputing the conduct of the cartel to Meritor.
We do not know when a binding ruling will be issued by the
Brazilian antitrust authority.

"We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against the unsettled
claims and currently believe the risk of loss would not be material
to our financial statements."


MGT CAPITAL: Plaintiff in NY Suit Seeks Settlement Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
MGT Capital Investments, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the lead plaintiff in the
class action pending in New York against the Company has filed an
unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a proposed class
action settlement.

In September 2018 and October 2018, various shareholders of the
Company filed putative class action lawsuits against the Company,
its then former Chief Executive Officer and certain of its
individual officers and shareholders, alleging violations of
federal securities laws and seeking damages (the "2018 Securities
Class Actions").

The 2018 Securities Class Action followed and referenced the
allegations made against the Company's then former Chief Executive
Officer and others in the SEC Action.

The first putative class action lawsuit was filed on September 28,
2018, in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, and alleges that the named defendants engaged in a
pump-and-dump scheme to artificially inflate the price of the
Company's stock and that, as a result, defendants' statements about
the Company's business and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at relevant times.

The second putative class action was filed on October 9, 2018, in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York and makes similar allegations.

On May 28, 2019, the parties to the Class Actions entered into a
binding settlement term sheet, and on September 24, 2019, the
parties entered into a stipulation of settlement.

On August 7, 2019, the lead plaintiff in the first class action
filed a notice and order of voluntary dismissal with prejudice, and
on October 11, 2019, the lead plaintiff in the second class action
filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the proposed
class action settlement.

MGT Capital Investments, Inc. engages in bitcoin mining operations
in the Wenatchee Valley area of central Washington. At March 30,
2018, it owned and operated approximately 500 miners located in a
leased facility in Quincy, Washington; and 4,200 miners located in
a leased facility in Sweden, as well as operated approximately
2,100 miners in the Sweden location. The company was founded in
1979 and is headquartered in Durham, North Carolina.


MILLENDO THERAPEUTICS: Discovery Still Ongoing in Freedman Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the shareholder class action with Freedman Family
Investments LLC as lead plaintiff are still engaged in discovery,
according to Millendo Therapeutics, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019.

On March 24, 2017, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(Dahhan v. OvaScience, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-10511-IT (D. Mass.))
against OvaScience and certain former officers and directors of
OvaScience alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act (the "Dahhan Action").

On July 5, 2017, the court entered an order approving the
appointment of Freedman Family Investments LLC as lead plaintiff,
the firm of Robins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel and the
Law Office of Alan L. Kovacs as local counsel.  Plaintiff filed an
amended complaint on August 25, 2017.  The Company filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint, which the court denied on July
31, 2018.

On August 14, 2018, the Company answered the amended complaint.

The parties presently are engaged in discovery.

The Company believes that the amended complaint is without merit
and intends to defend against the litigation.

The Company said, "There can be no assurance, however, that the
Company will be successful.  A resolution of this lawsuit adverse
to the Company or the other defendants could have a material effect
on the Company's consolidated financial position and results of
operations.  At present, the Company is unable to estimate
potential losses, if any, related to the lawsuit."

Millendo Therapeutics, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company, engages in the development of various treatments for
orphan endocrine diseases in the United States. The company is
based in Ann Arbor, Michigan.


MOCHI ICE CREAM: Mislabels Vanilla Mochi Products, Louis Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAWN LOUIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE MOCHI ICE CREAM COMPANY, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-11242 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 8, 2019) alleges that the
Defendant falsely labels its mochi products as containing more
vanilla than they actually do.

According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactures,
distributes, markets, labels and sells confections made from mochi
(sticky rice) with a purported vanilla ice cream filling, under
their my/mo mochi brand ("Products").

Where a product is labeled as a type of, or containing, vanilla
bean ice cream, without any or adequate qualification, but the
ingredient list identifies "natural flavor" in lieu of the
exclusively vanilla flavoring ingredients such as vanilla extract,
it means (1) the flavoring is not exclusively from vanilla, (2) the
non-vanilla flavor may contain vanillin, not disclosed as an
artificial flavor when paired with vanilla, (3) the non-vanilla
flavors simulate, resemble and reinforce the vanilla flavor and (4)
the non-vanilla flavors allow the use of less real vanilla.

Had the Plaintiff's Products flavoring derived exclusively from
vanilla, the ingredient list would declare the common or usual
names of one or more of the exclusively vanilla ingredients.

The Plaintiff's Products are misleading because they do not contain
the amount, type and percentage of vanilla and vanilla beans as a
component of the flavoring in the ice cream, which is required and
consistent with consumer expectations. Had the Plaintiff and class
members known the truth, they would not have bought the Product or
would have paid less for it.

The Mochi Ice Cream Company is an ice cream manufacturer that
offers premium ice cream wrapped in traditional sweet rice mochi
dough. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and –

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


MUELLER WATER: Bid to Dismiss Chapman Class Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Mueller Water Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 20,
2019, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, that the motion
to dismiss filed in the class action suit entitled, Chapman v.
Mueller Water Products, et al., is pending.

In 2017, the company's warranty analyses identified that certain
Technologies radio products produced prior to 2017 and installed in
particularly harsh environments had been failing at higher than
expected rates.

During the quarter ended March 31, 2017, the company conducted
additional testing of these products and revised its estimates of
warranty expenses. As a result, the company recorded additional
warranty expense of $9.8 million in the second quarter of 2017.

During the quarter ended June 30, 2018, the company completed a
similar analysis and determined, based on this new information,
that certain other Technologies products had been failing at
higher-than-expected rates as well and that the average cost to
repair or replace certain products under warranty was higher than
previously estimated.

As a result, in the third quarter of 2018, the company recorded
additional warranty expense of $14.1 million associated with such
products. Related to the above warranty expenses, on April 11,
2019, an alleged stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit
against Mueller Water Products, Inc. and certain of its former and
current officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The proposed class consists of all persons and entities that
acquired its securities between May 9, 2016 and August 6, 2018 (the
"Class Period"). The complaint alleges violations of the federal
securities laws, including, among other things, that the company
made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about its business, operations, and
prospects during the proposed Class Period.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and
costs but does not specify the amount.

Accordingly, the company cannot reasonably estimate the amount of
any cost or liabilities related to this matter, and therefore no
amounts have been accrued related to this matter as of September
30, 2019.

Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on November 1, 2019.

Mueller said, "We believe the allegations are without merit and
intend to vigorously defend against the claims. However, the
outcome of this legal proceeding cannot be predicted with
certainty."

Mueller Water Products, Inc. manufactures and markets products and
services for use in the transmission, distribution, and measurement
of water in the United States, Canada, and internationally. It
operates in two segments, Infrastructure and Technologies. The
company is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


NET 1 UEPS: Baldwin Sues over 31% Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN BALDWIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NET 1 UEPS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;
HERMAN G. KOTZE; and ALEX M.R. SMITH, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-11174 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 5, 2019) is a federal securities
class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired UEPS securities between September 12, 2018, and November
8, 2018, inclusive, seeking remedies under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

On September 12, 2018, when the Company filed a Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2018 ("2018 10-K") with the SEC, which
provided the Company's fiscal year 2018 financial results and
positions and stated that the Company's internal control over
financial reporting was effective as of June 30, 2018. The 2018
10-K was signed and certified under the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002
by the Individual Defendants attesting to the accuracy of the
financial statements, effectiveness of internal controls, and that
all fraud was disclosed.

On November 8, 2018, after the market close, UEPS filed a Form 8-K
with the SEC under item 4.02(a) for non-reliance on previously
issued financial statements.

On this news, the price of the Company's common stock declined
$2.16 from a close on November 8, 2018 at $7.00 per share of UEPS
common stock, to a close on November 9, 2018 at $4.84 per share of
UEPS common stock, a drop of approximately 30.86%.

On December 6, 2018, UEPS filed an amendment to the 2018 10-K on
Form 10-K/A with the SEC, disclosing a material weakness in its
internal control over financial reporting.

Net 1 UEPS Technologies, Inc. holds a non-exclusive worldwide
license to the Universal Electronic Payment System (UEPS). The
Company commercializes the smart card based service through
alliances with banks, card services, and retail organizations.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          Nicholas L. Porritt, Esq.
          Adam M. Apton, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          55 Broadway, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail: ek@zlk.com
                  nporritt@zlk.com
                  aapton@zlk.com


NEW FOLIAGE: Yeung Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tung Yeung, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. NEW FOLIAGE INC; and YI WEI REN a/k/a Jack Ren, RICHIE
XIAOLU REN, and SHANZHU HE, Case No. 3:19-cv-02018 (D. Conn., Dec.
29, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Connecticut Minimum Wage
Act.

The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed
widespread violations of the FLSA and CMWA by engaging in pattern
and practice of failing to pay its employees, including the
Plaintiff, minimum wage for each hour worked and overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to work as a
Deliveryman at Foliage Chinese Restaurant.

NEW FOLIAGE INC., d/b/a Foliage Chinese Restaurant, is a domestic
business corporation organized under the laws of the State of
Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Phone: (718) 762-1324


NOVATION COMPANIES: Appeal in NJ Carpenters' Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Novation Companies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2019, that the appeal from the court's order
approving the settlement of the class action lawsuit by the New
Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund is still pending.

On May 21, 2008, a purported class action case was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the New
Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated.  Defendants in the case included NovaStar
Mortgage Funding Corporation ("NMFC") and NovaStar Mortgage, Inc.
("NMI"), wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company, and NMFC's
individual directors, several securitization trusts sponsored by
the Company ("affiliated defendants") and several unaffiliated
investment banks and credit rating agencies.  The case was removed
to the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

On June 16, 2009, plaintiff filed an amended complaint.  Plaintiff
seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants violated
Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
by making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage loans that
served as collateral for securities purchased by plaintiff and the
purported class members.

On August 31, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's claims, which the court granted on March 31, 2011, with
leave to amend.  Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on May
16, 2011, and the Company again filed a motion to dismiss.

On March 29, 2012, the court dismissed plaintiff's second amended
complaint with prejudice and without leave to replead.  Plaintiff
filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit (the "Appellate Court").

On March 1, 2013, the Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the
lower court, which had dismissed the case.  Also, the Appellate
Court vacated the judgment of the lower court which had held that
plaintiff lacked standing, even as a class representative, to sue
on behalf of investors in securities in which plaintiff had not
invested, and the appellate court remanded the case back to the
lower court for further proceedings.

On April 23, 2013 plaintiff filed its memorandum with the lower
court seeking a reconsideration of the earlier dismissal of
plaintiff's claims as to five offerings in which plaintiff was not
invested, and on February 5, 2015, the lower court granted
plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and vacated its earlier
dismissal.

On March 8, 2017, the affiliated defendants and all other parties
executed an agreement to settle the action, with the contribution
of the affiliated defendants to the settlement fund being paid by
their insurance carriers.

The court certified a settlement class and granted preliminary
approval to the settlement on May 10, 2017.  One member of the
settlement class objected to the settlement and sought a stay of
the final settlement approval hearing on the ground that it did not
receive notice of the settlement and had no opportunity to timely
opt out of the class.  After the court rejected the motion for a
stay, the objector filed an appeal and requested a stay of the
district court proceedings pending disposition of the appeal.

The court of appeals denied the temporary stay of the district
court proceedings and on October 19, 2018 dismissed the appeal as
moot.  Following the court of appeals' denial of the objector's
petition for rehearing, the district court on March 7, 2019 held a
fairness hearing.  

On March 8, 2019, the district court issued a memorandum and order
approving the settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate, and
dismissing the action with prejudice.

Following entry of judgment, the objector filed a notice of appeal
on March 26, 2019 and their opening brief was filed on June 28,
2019.  The defendants answered on September 27, 2019, and the
objector replied on October 18, 2019.

Novation Companies said, "Assuming the settlement approval becomes
final, which is expected, the Company will incur no loss.  The
Company believes that the affiliated defendants have meritorious
defenses to the case and, if the settlement approval does not
become final, expects them to defend the case vigorously."

Novation Companies, Inc., through its subsidiary, Healthcare
Staffing, Inc., provides outsourced health care staffing and
related services primarily to Community Service Boards in Georgia.
It also owns a portfolio of mortgage securities. The company was
formerly known as NovaStar Financial, Inc. and changed its name to
Novation Companies, Inc. in May 2012. Novation Companies, Inc. was
founded in 1996 and is based in Kansas City, Missouri.


NOVUS THERAPEUTICS: Awaits Ruling on Class Status Bid in Jackie888
------------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing for the motion for class certification in the case styled
Jackie888, Inc. v. Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., was held on
October 23, 2019, according to Novus Therapeutics, Inc.'s Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019.

On August 19, 2016, a purported stockholder of Tokai filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Francisco, entitled Jackie888, Inc. v.
Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. CGC-16-553796.  The
plaintiff sought to represent a class of purchasers of Tokai common
stock in or traceable to Tokai's IPO.

On October 19, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss or stay the
action on grounds of forum non conveniens, and certain individual
defendants moved to quash the plaintiff's summons for lack of
personal jurisdiction.

On February 27, 2017, the Superior Court entered an order granting
defendants' motion to stay the lawsuit.

On May 24, 2018, the plaintiff dismissed its complaint in the
Superior Court of the State of California and refiled its complaint
in the Business Litigation Session of the Superior Court Department
of the Suffolk County Trial Court, Massachusetts ("Massachusetts
State Court").

On June 28, 2018, plaintiff Wu moved to consolidate the Jackie888
Action with the Wu Action.

On June 29, 2018, plaintiffs Jackie888 and Wu filed a consolidated
complaint.

On July 6, 2018, the Jackie888 Action was consolidated with the Wu
Action.  

The Jackie888 Action and Wu Action were later de-consolidated on
May 16, 2019, when the Wu Action was dismissed with prejudice.  In
the remaining Jackie888 action, the plaintiff filed a motion for
class certification on August 22, 2019.  Defendants opposed the
plaintiff's motion, and the Court held a hearing on the motion for
class certification on October 23, 2019.

Headquartered in Irvine, California, Novus Therapeutics, Inc., is a
pharmaceutical company that focuses on developing products for
patients with disorders of ear, nose, and throat. Its lead product
is (OP-02), a surfactant-based combination drug product for
patients at risk for, or with, otitis media (OM) (middle ear
inflammation with or without infection). The company also has a
foam-based drug delivery technology (OP-01) that could be used to
deliver drugs into the ear, nose, and sinus cavities.


NUTANIX INC: Bid to Dismiss California Securities Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nutanix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2019, that the defendants'
motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class action suit in
California remains pending.

Beginning on March 29, 2019, several purported securities class
actions were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against the company and two of its
officers.

The initial complaints generally alleged that the defendants made
false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5.

In July 2019, the court consolidated the actions into a single
action, and appointed a lead plaintiff who, per the court-approved
schedule, filed a consolidated amended complaint on September 9,
2019.

The action is brought on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise
acquired our stock between November 30, 2017 and May 30, 2019,
inclusive.

The consolidated amended complaint seeks monetary damages in an
unspecified amount.

On October 24, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

Nutanix said, "This case is in the very early stages and we are not
able to determine what, if any, liabilities will attach to these
complaints."

Nutanix, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops and
provides an enterprise cloud platform in North America, Europe, the
Asia Pacific, the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa. The
company was founded in 2009 and is headquartered in San Jose,
California.


NVIDIA CORP: Bid to Drop Consolidated Securities Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NVIDIA Corporation's motion to dismiss the consolidated class suit
styled, In Re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation, remains
pending, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
October 27, 2019.

On December 21, 2018, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, captioned Iron Workers Joint Funds v.
Nvidia Corporation, et al. (Case No. 18-cv-7669), naming as
defendants NVIDIA and certain of NVIDIA's officers.

On December 28, 2018, a substantially similar purported securities
class action was commenced in the Northern District of California,
captioned Oto v. Nvidia Corporation, et al. (Case No. 18-cv-07783),
naming the same defendants, and seeking substantially similar
relief.

On February 19, 2019, a number of shareholders filed motions to
consolidate the two cases and to be appointed lead plaintiff and
for their respective counsel to be appointed lead counsel.

On March 12, 2019, the two cases were consolidated under case
number 4:18-cv-07669-HSG and titled In Re NVIDIA Corporation
Securities Litigation.

On May 2, 2019, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel.

On June 21, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class
action complaint.  The consolidated complaint asserts that the
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5, by
making materially false or misleading statements related to channel
inventory and the impact of cryptocurrency mining on GPU demand
between May 10, 2017 and November 14, 2018.  The plaintiffs also
allege that the NVIDIA executives who they named as defendants
violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The plaintiffs seek
class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages,
an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys'
fees and expert fees, and further relief as the Court may deem just
and proper.

On August 2, 2019, NVIDIA moved to dismiss the consolidated class
action complaint on the basis that plaintiffs failed to state any
claims for violations of the securities laws by NVIDIA or the named
defendants.

NVIDIA Corporation operates as a visual computing company
worldwide. It operates in two segments, GPU and Tegra Processor.
The company was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Santa
Clara, California.


NVIDIA CORP: Plaintiffs Drop Mellanox Acquisition Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------
NVIDIA Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
October 27, 2019, that as of October 14, 2019, all stockholder
lawsuits relating to NVIDIA's pending acquisition of Mellanox,
including the Stein lawsuit, had been voluntarily dismissed by the
respective plaintiffs.

On May 3, 2019, an alleged stockholder of Mellanox filed a putative
class action lawsuit alleging that the proxy statement filed by
Mellanox in connection with the stockholder vote on NVIDIA's
pending acquisition of Mellanox violates Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and asserting claims under those statutes
against Mellanox and its board of directors as well as NVIDIA.

The complaint, which is captioned Stein v. Mellanox Technologies,
Ltd., et al., Case No. 19-2428 (United States District Court,
Northern District of California), seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief and unspecified damages.

As reported by the Class Action Reporter on September 3, 2019,
NVIDIA and Mellanox announced in March this year that the companies
have reached a definitive agreement under which NVIDIA will acquire
all of the issued and outstanding common shares of Mellanox for
$125 per share in cash, representing a total enterprise value of
approximately $6.9 billion.  The acquisition will unite two of the
world's leading companies in high performance computing (HPC).
Together, NVIDIA's computing platform and Mellanox's interconnects
power over 250 of the world's TOP500 supercomputers and have as
customers every major cloud service provider and computer maker.

A number of other alleged Mellanox stockholders have filed
substantially similar lawsuits against Mellanox and its directors
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California and in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, but NVIDIA was not named as a defendant in
any of these other lawsuits.

NVIDIA Corporation operates as a visual computing company
worldwide. It operates in two segments, GPU and Tegra Processor.
The company was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Santa
Clara, California.


ON TRACK INNOVATIONS: Not Join Potential Class Suit in Israel
-------------------------------------------------------------
On Track Innovations Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2019, that at this stage, it will not
participate in the potential class action related to the EasyPark
card in Israel.

In July, 2019, the Company received a request (the "Request"), to
allow a petitioner to submit a class action, which concerns the
petitioner's claims that, inter alia, through the EasyPark card,
drivers are permitted to exceed the quota of permitted hours in
accordance with the instructions of various local authorities in
Israel.  The Request was submitted against a company (the "Buyer's
Company") incorporated by the buyer of the assets (including the
parking activity) of the Israeli subsidiaries of the Company (the
"Company's Subsidiaries") and against two other companies that
operate technological means for payment for public parking spaces
scattered throughout the cities.

The Company said, "Since the majority of potential claims against
the Company's Subsidiaries relate to the period following the sale
of the Company's Subsidiaries' assets, including the parking
activity, it appears that the Company's exposure through this
channel is limited.  Furthermore, even if payment will be required,
the buyer would be liable for the majority of such payment.
Therefore the Company will not participate in such procedure at
this stage.  Based on the assessment of the Company's external
legal counsel, the exposure of the Company cannot be assessed at
this point."


OOMA INC: California Class Suit over IPO Concluded
--------------------------------------------------
Ooma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 6, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended October 31, 2019, that the consolidated class action
lawsuit pending before the San Mateo County Superior Court of the
State of California has been concluded.

On January 14, 2016, Michael Barnett filed a purported stockholder
class action in the San Mateo County Superior Court of the State of
California (Case No. CIV536959) against the Company, certain of its
officers and directors, and certain of the underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering (IPO) on July 17, 2015.

After the case was consolidated with two other identical lawsuits,
a "consolidated complaint" was filed on behalf of all persons who
purchased shares of common stock in the Company's IPO in reliance
upon the Registration Statement and Prospectus the Company filed
with the SEC.

The consolidated complaint alleged that the Company and the other
defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933, as amended by
issuing the Registration Statement and Prospectus, which the
plaintiffs alleged contained material misstatements and omissions
in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities
Act.

On May 30, 2019, the parties filed with the Court a Stipulation of
Settlement, and on October 18, 2019 the Court entered final
approval of the settlement. Under the terms of the settlement, the
Company's directors' and officers' liability insurers deposited
$8.65 million into a settlement fund for payment to class members,
and paid plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs of administering the
settlement.

The Stipulation of Settlement contains no admissions of wrongdoing,
and the Company and the other defendants have maintained and
continue to deny liability and wrongdoing of any kind with respect
to the class action claims.

As part of the final settlement approval, the Court dismissed the
class action lawsuit with prejudice and the plaintiff released all
claims against the Company and all other defendants relating to the
allegations in the class action.

Ooma, Inc. creates connected experiences for businesses and
consumers in the United States, Canada, and internationally. Ooma,
Inc. was incorporated in 2003 and is headquartered in Sunnyvale,
California.


PACIFIC MARITIME: Removes Andrikos et al. Suit to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of EVAGELOS ANDRIKOS; BRYANT BURNS;
MICHAEL OLVERA; PAUL RUIZ; JERRY VRBANOVIC, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PACIFIC
MARITIME ASSOCIATION; PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION, INC.; APM
TERMINALS PACIFIC LLC; APS STEVEDORING, LLC; BENICIA PORT TERMINAL
COMPANY; CERES TERMINALS INCORPORATED; CRESCENT CITY MARINE WAYS &
DRYDOCK COMPANY, INC.; EAGLE MARINE SERVICES, LTD.; EVERPORT
TERMINAL SERVICES, INC.; HARBOR INDUSTRIAL SERVICES CORPORATION;
INNOVATIVE TERMINAL SERVICES INC.; INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION
SERVICE, INC.; KINDER MORGAN BULK TERMINALS LLC; LBCT, LLC; MARINE
TERMINALS CORPORATION; MARINE TERMINALS CORPORATION OF LOS ANGELES;
MATSON NAVIGATION COMPANY, INC.; MATSON TERMINALS, INC.;
METROPOLITAN STEVEDORE COMPANY; OCEAN TERMINAL SERVICES, INC.;
PACIFIC CRANE MAINTENANCE COMPANY LP; PACIFIC RO-RO STEVEDORING,
LLC; PASHA STEVEDORING & TERMINALS LP; PORT MAINTENANCE GROUP; SSA
MARINE, INC.; SSA TERMINALS, LLC; TERMINAL EQUIPMENT SERVICES,
INC.; TOTAL TERMINALS INTERNATIONAL, LLC; TRANSPAC TERMINAL
SERVICES, LLC; TRAPAC, LLC; YUSEN TERMINALS, INC. and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the
lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles (Case No. 19STCV29526) to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on December 9, 2019. The
clerk of court for the Central District of California assigned Case
No. 2:19-cv-10421.

Pacific Maritime Association operates as a non-profit organization.
The Organization provides negotiating services between marine
terminal operators and labor unions. Pacific Maritime serves
members in the United States. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Clifford D. Sethness, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Tel: (213) 612-2500
          Fax: (213) 612-2501
          E-mail: clifford.sethness@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Eric Meckley, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market, Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
          Tel: (415) 442-1000
          Fax: (415) 442-1001
          E-mail: eric.meckley@morganlewis.com


PARKING REIT: Amended SIPDA Class Suit in Nevada Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
The Parking REIT, Inc. continues to face a purported class action
initiated by SIPDA Revocable Trust ("SIPDA") against the Company in
Nevada, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019.

On March 12, 2019, stockholder SIPDA Revocable Trust ("SIPDA")
filed a purported class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada, against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors.

SIPDA filed an Amended Complaint on October 11, 2019.  The Amended
Complaint purports to assert class action claims on behalf of all
public shareholders of the Company and MVP I between August 11,
2017 and April 1, 2019 in connection with the (i) August 2017 proxy
statements filed with the SEC to obtain shareholder approval for
the merger of the Company and MVP I (the "proxy statements"), and
(ii) August 2018 proxy statement filed with the SEC to solicit
proxies for the election of certain directors (the "2018 proxy
statement").  The Amended Complaint alleges, among other things,
that the 2017 proxy statements failed to disclose that two major
reasons for the merger and certain charter amendments implemented
in connection therewith were (i) to facilitate the execution of an
amended advisory agreement that allegedly was designed to benefit
Mr. Shustek financially in the event of an internalization and (ii)
to give Mr. Shustek the ability to cause the Company to internalize
based on terms set forth in the amended advisory agreement.  The
Amended Complaint further alleges, among other things, that the
2018 proxy statement failed to disclose the Company's purported
plan to internalize its management function.

The Amended Complaint alleges, among other things, (i) that all
defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
14a-9 promulgated thereunder, by disseminating proxy statements
that allegedly contain false and misleading statements or omit to
state material facts; (ii) that the director defendants violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act; and (iii) that the director
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the members of the
class and to the Company.

The Amended Complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified
damages; declaratory relief; and the payment of reasonable
attorneys' fees, accountants' and experts' fees, costs and
expenses.

On June 13, 2019, the court granted SIPDA's motion for Appointment
as Lead Plaintiff.  The litigation is still at a preliminary
stage.

Parking REIT said, "The Company and the Board of Directors have
reviewed the allegations in the Amended Complaint and believe the
claims asserted against them in the Amended Complaint are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend this action."

The Parking REIT, Inc., formerly known as MVP REIT II, Inc., is a
Maryland corporation formed on May 4, 2015 and has elected to be
taxed, and has operated in a manner that will allow the Company to
qualify as a real estate investment trust ("REIT") for U.S. federal
income tax purposes beginning with the taxable year ended December
31, 2017; therefore, the Company intends to continue operating as a
REIT for the taxable year ended December 31, 2019. The company is
based in Las Vegas, Nevada.


PARKING REIT: Bid to Dismiss 2 Stockholders Suits Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The motions to dismiss two class action lawsuits in Baltimore City,
Maryland, against The Parking REIT, Inc., among other defendants,
are still pending, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019.

On May 31, 2019, and June 27, 2019, alleged stockholders filed
class action lawsuits alleging direct and derivative claims against
the Company, certain of its officers and directors, MVP Realty
Advisors, Vestin Realty Mortgage I, and Vestin Realty Mortgage II
in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, captioned Arthur Magowski
v. The Parking REIT, Inc., et al, No. 24-C-19003125 (filed on May
31, 2019) (the "Magowski Complaint") and Michelle Barene v. The
Parking REIT, Inc., et al, No. 24-C-19003527 (filed on June 27,
2019) (the "Barene Complaint").

The Magowski Complaint asserts purportedly direct claims on behalf
of all stockholders (other than the defendants and persons or
entities related to or affiliated with any defendant) for breach of
fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment arising from the Company's
decision to internalize its advisory function.  In this Complaint,
Plaintiff Magowski asserts that the stockholders have allegedly
been directly injured by the internalization and related
transactions.  The Barene Complaint asserts both direct and
derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty arising from
substantially similar allegations as those contained in the
Magowski Complaint.  The purportedly direct claims are asserted on
behalf of the same class of stockholder as the purportedly direct
claims in the Magowski Complaint, and the derivative claims in the
Barene Complaint are asserted on behalf of the Company.

On September 12 and 16, 2019, the defendants filed motions to
dismiss the Magowski and Barene complaints, respectively.  The
Magowski and Barene Complaints seek, among other things, damages;
declaratory relief; equitable relief to reverse and enjoin the
internalization transaction; and the payment of reasonable
attorneys' fees, accountants' and experts' fees, costs and
expenses.  The actions are at a preliminary stage.  The Company and
the board of directors intend to vigorously defend against these
lawsuits.

The Magowski Complaint also previewed that a stockholder demand
would be made on the Board to take action with respect to claims
belonging to the Company for the alleged injury to the Company.

On June 19, 2019, Magowski submitted a formal demand letter to the
Board asserting the same alleged wrongdoing as alleged in the
Magowski Complaint and demanding that the Board investigate the
alleged wrongdoing and take action to remedy the alleged injury to
the Company.  The demand includes that claims be initiated against
the same defendants as are named in the Magowski Complaint.  In
response to this stockholder demand letter, on July 16, 2019, the
Board established a demand review committee of two independent
directors to investigate the allegations of wrongdoing made in the
letter and to make a recommendation to the Board for a response to
the letter.  The work of the demand review committee is on-going.

The Parking REIT, Inc., formerly known as MVP REIT II, Inc., is a
Maryland corporation formed on May 4, 2015 and has elected to be
taxed, and has operated in a manner that will allow the Company to
qualify as a real estate investment trust ("REIT") for U.S. federal
income tax purposes beginning with the taxable year ended December
31, 2017; therefore, the Company intends to continue operating as a
REIT for the taxable year ended December 31, 2019. The company is
based in Las Vegas, Nevada.


PATTERN ENERGY: Faces Thompson Suit Over Sale to Canada Pension
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Thompson, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. PATTERN ENERGY GROUP INC., ALAN BATKIN, JOHN BROWNE,
MICHAEL GARLAND, RICHARD GOODMAN, DOUGLAS HALL, PATRICIA NEWSON,
and MONA SUTPHEN, Case No. 1:19-cv-02369-UNA (D. Del., Dec. 30,
2019), stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Pattern
Energy will be acquired by affiliates of Canada Pension Plan
Investment Board.

On November 3, 2019, Pattern Energy's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Pacific
US Inc. and Pacific BidCo US Inc. Pursuant to the terms of the
Merger Agreement, Pattern Energy's stockholders will receive $26.75
in cash for each share of Pattern Energy common stock they own.

On December 13, 2019, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection
with the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff alleges that the Proxy
Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the
Proxy Statement.

The Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the
Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading, the Plaintiff says. The Proxy Statement omits material
information regarding the Company's financial projections and
information regarding the analyses performed by the Company's
financial advisor in connection with the Proposed Transaction,
Evercore Group L.L.C. The Proxy Statement also omits material
information regarding potential conflicts of interest of Evercore,
and fails to disclose whether the Company entered into any
nondisclosure agreements that contained "don't ask, don't waive"
provisions that are or were preventing the counterparties from
requesting waivers of standstill provisions to submit offers to
acquire the Company, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is the owner of Pattern Energy common stock. The
Plaintiff and other stockholders need the omitted material
information to make an informed decision regarding the Proposed
Transaction.

Pattern Energy is an independent power company and has a portfolio
of twenty-eight renewable energy projects with an operating
capacity of 4.4 GW in the United States, Canada, and Japan that use
proven, best-in-class technology.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Phone: (484) 324-6800
          Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
          Email: rm@maniskas.com


PATTERSON COS: Court Approves Settlement with Objector
------------------------------------------------------
Patterson Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended October 26, 2019, that the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York has approved a
settlement between the objector and the plaintiffs that served to
resolve the objection made in the class action suit entitled, In re
Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No.
1:16-CV-00696-BMC-GRB.

Beginning in January 2016, purported antitrust class action
complaints were filed against defendants Henry Schein, Inc., Benco
Dental Supply Company and Patterson Companies, Inc.

Although there were factual and legal variations among these
complaints, each alleged that defendants conspired to foreclose and
exclude competitors by boycotting manufacturers, state dental
associations, and others that deal with defendants' competitors.

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

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

Subject to certain exclusions, the putative class representatives
seek to represent all private dental practices and laboratories who
purchased dental supplies or equipment in the U.S. directly from
any of the defendants, during the period beginning August 31, 2008
until March 31, 2016.

In the consolidated class action complaint, putative class
representatives allege a nationwide agreement among Henry Schein,
Benco, Patterson and non-party Burkhart Dental Supply Company, Inc.
not to compete on price. The consolidated class action complaint
asserts a single count under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and
seeks equitable relief, compensatory and treble damages, jointly
and severally, interest, and reasonable costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees and expert fees.

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

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

Under the terms of the settlement, the company paid $28,263 into
escrow upon preliminary court approval. Such funds are to be
released to the settlement fund administrator upon final court
approval of the settlement, which was granted at the fairness
hearing held on June 24, 2019.

The company recorded a pre-tax reserve of $28,263 in its first
quarter 2019 results in its Corporate segment to account for the
settlement of this matter.

On July 16, 2019, objector William Roe filed a notice of appeal of
the final order, contesting the amount of attorneys' fees awarded
to class counsel out of the settlement fund.

On October 24, 2019, the U.S. District Court approved a settlement
between the objector and the plaintiffs that served to resolve the
objection.

Patterson Companies, Inc. distributes and sells dental and animal
health products in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
Canada. It operates through Dental and Animal Health segments. The
company was formerly known as Patterson Dental Company and changed
its name to Patterson Companies, Inc. in June 2004. Patterson
Companies, Inc. was founded in 1877 and is headquartered in St.
Paul, Minnesota.


PATTERSON COS: Hatchett Class Action Ongoing in S.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patterson Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended October 26, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a purported class action complaint by R. Lawrence
Hatchett, M.D.

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

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

The complaint alleges that the alleged conspiracy overcharged
Illinois dental practices, orthodontic practices and dental
laboratories on their purchase of dental supplies, which in turn
passed on some or all of such overcharges to members of the class.
Subject to certain exclusions, the complaint defines the class as
all persons residing in Illinois purchasing and/or reimbursing for
dental care provided by independent Illinois dental practices
purchasing dental supplies from the defendants, or purchasing from
buying groups purchasing these supplies from the defendants, on or
after January 29, 2015.

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

Patterson said, "While the outcome of litigation is inherently
uncertain, we believe that the indirect purchaser action is without
merit, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this
litigation."

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

Patterson Companies, Inc. distributes and sells dental and animal
health products in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
Canada. It operates through Dental and Animal Health segments. The
company was formerly known as Patterson Dental Company and changed
its name to Patterson Companies, Inc. in June 2004. Patterson
Companies, Inc. was founded in 1877 and is headquartered in St.
Paul, Minnesota.


PATTERSON COS: Plymouth Retirement System Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Patterson Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended October 26, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit captioned as Plymouth County
Retirement System v. Patterson Companies, Inc., Scott P. Anderson
and Ann B. Gugino, Case No. 0:18-CV-00871 MJD/SER.

On March 28, 2018, Plymouth County Retirement System filed a
federal securities class action complaint against Patterson
Companies, Inc. and its former CEO Scott P. Anderson and former CFO
Ann B. Gugino in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota in a case captioned Plymouth County Retirement System v.
Patterson Companies, Inc., Scott P. Anderson and Ann B. Gugino,
Case No. 0:18-CV-00871 MJD/SER.

On November 9, 2018, the complaint was amended to add former CEO
James W. Wiltz and former CFO R. Stephen Armstrong as individual
defendants. Under the amended complaint, on behalf of all persons
or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Patterson's common
stock between June 26, 2013 and February 28, 2018, Plymouth alleges
that Patterson violated federal securities laws by failing to
disclose that Patterson's revenue and earnings were "artificially
inflated by Defendants' illicit, anti-competitive scheme with its
purported competitors, Benco and Schein, to prevent the formation
of buying groups that would allow its customers who were
office-based practitioners to take advantage of pricing
arrangements identical or comparable to those enjoyed by
large-group customers."

In its class action complaint, Plymouth asserts one count against
Patterson for violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and a second,
related count against the individual defendants for violating
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  

Plymouth seeks compensatory damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest and reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' witness fees
and costs.  

On August 30, 2018, Gwinnett County Public Employees Retirement
System and Plymouth County Retirement System, Pembroke Pines
Pension Fund for Firefighters and Police Officers, Central Laborers
Pension Fund were appointed lead plaintiffs.  

On January 18, 2019, Patterson and the individual defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 25, 2019, the
U.S Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation that the
motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part.

The report and recommendation, among other things, recommends the
dismissal of all claims against individuals defendants Ann B.
Gugino, R. Stephen Armstrong and James W. Wiltz.

On September 10, 2019, the District Court adopted the Magistrate
Judge's report and recommendation.

Patterson said, "While the outcome of litigation is inherently
uncertain, we believe that the class action complaint is without
merit, and we are vigorously defending ourselves in this
litigation. We do not anticipate that this matter will have a
material adverse effect on our financial statements. Patterson has
also received, and responded to, requests under Minnesota Business
Corporation Act Section 302A.461 to inspect corporate books and
records relating to the issues raised in the securities class
action and the antitrust matters."

Patterson Companies, Inc. distributes and sells dental and animal
health products in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
Canada. It operates through Dental and Animal Health segments. The
company was formerly known as Patterson Dental Company and changed
its name to Patterson Companies, Inc. in June 2004. Patterson
Companies, Inc. was founded in 1877 and is headquartered in St.
Paul, Minnesota.


PEPPER LOGISTICS: Underpays Truck Drivers, Bourque Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES R. BOURQUE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. C. PEPPER LOGISTICS, LLC;
INDEPENDENT SERVICE PROVIDER, LLC; and JAMES L. PEPPER, Defendants,
Case No. 6:19-cv-01558 (W.D. La., Dec. 5, 2019) is an action
against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

The Plaintiff Bourque was employed by the Defendants as truck
driver.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Arthur Smith, III, Esq.
          SMITH LAW FIRM
          830 North Street
          Baton Rouge, LA 70802
          Telephone: (225) 383-7716
          Facsimile: (225) 383-7773
          E-mail: jasmith@jarthursmith.com


PERSPECTA INC: Mediation Continues in Forsyth v. HP Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discussions in the second mediation for the case styled, Forsyth,
et al. v. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise, still continue,
according to Perspecta Inc.'s Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019.  The Company also
disclosed that former business units of HPE now owned by the
Company will be liable in this matter for any recovery by
plaintiffs previously associated with the USPS business of HPE.

This purported class and collective action was filed on August 18,
2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, against HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company
("HPE") alleging violations of the Federal Age Discrimination in
Employment Act ("ADEA"), the California Fair Employment and Housing
Act, California public policy and the California Business and
Professions Code.  Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
December 19, 2016.

Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class action under the ADEA
comprised of all U.S. residents employed by defendants who had
their employment terminated pursuant to a work force reduction
("WFR") plan on or after December 9, 2014 (deferral states) and
April 8, 2015 (non-deferral states), and who were 40 years of age
or older at the time of termination.  Plaintiffs also seek to
represent a Rule 23 class under California law comprised of all
persons 40 years or older employed by defendants in the state of
California and terminated pursuant to a WFR plan on or after August
18, 2012.

The case has remained stayed while the parties have engaged in
mediation with opt-in plaintiffs who are subject to mandatory,
individual arbitration agreements.  Two mediation sessions have
taken place.

In October 2018, a settlement was reached with 16 named and opt-in
plaintiffs; that settlement has been completed.

On June 26-27, 2019, a second mediation was held, involving 145
opt-in plaintiffs.  Discussions continue.

Perspecta Inc. provides enterprise information technology (IT)
services to government customers in the United States federal,
state, and local markets. Perspecta Inc. is headquartered in
Chantilly, Virginia.


PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Continues to Defend 6 IPO-Related Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pivotal Software, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended November 1, 2019, that the company continues
to defend six putative class action suits related to its initial
public offering (IPO).

Between June 14, 2019 and June 27, 2019, six complaints were filed
against the company in state and federal court in San Francisco
alleging violations of securities laws in connection with
disclosures made in connection with the IPO and thereafter.

The plaintiffs in those cases are seeking to have the cases
certified as class actions, and also seek damages and legal fees.

Pivotal said, "At this time, it is not reasonably possible to
determine the ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability
related to, these matters."

Pivotal Software, Inc. provides platform-as-a-service solutions.
The Company offers cloud-based platform to build, deploy, and
operate software including enterprises in the automotive, financial
services, industrial, insurance, media, retail, technology, and
telecommunications sectors. Pivotal Software serves customers in
the United States, Singapore, and the United Kingdom. The company
is based in San Francisco, California.

PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Faces VMware Merger-Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------
Pivotal Software, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended November 1, 2019, that the company is facing
six class action suits related to its merger with VMware and Raven
Transaction Sub, Inc.

On August 22, 2019, Pivotal entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with VMware and Raven Transaction
Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of
VMware ("Merger Sub"). The Merger Agreement provides that, subject
to certain terms and conditions, Merger Sub will merge with and
into Pivotal (the "Merger"), with Pivotal surviving the Merger and
becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of VMware.

Pivotal is aware of six complaints related to the Merger Agreement
having been filed: Briant v. Pivotal Software, Inc., No.
1:19-cv-09479 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2019); Plumley v. Pivotal
Software, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-01974 (D. Del. Oct. 17, 2019); Shan v.
Pivotal Software, Inc., No. 3:19-cv-06814 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21,
2019); Silverberg v. Pivotal Software, Inc., No. 3:19-cv-06977
(N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2019); Rothman v. Pivotal Software, Inc., No.
3:19-cv-07066 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2019); and Parada v. Pivotal
Software, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-06306 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2019).

The complaints are brought by putative stockholders against Pivotal
and members of its board of directors and the Pivotal Special
Committee.

The Shan complaint also names VMware and Merger Sub as defendants.


Among other things, the complaints allege that the disclosures in
the company's proxy statement filings violate the Exchange Act and
the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.

In addition, the Shan complaint alleges that members of the
company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the board of director’s approval of the Merger
Agreement.

The plaintiffs in these cases seek various forms of relief,
including unspecified monetary damages, legal fees, and injunctive
relief enjoining consummation of the Merger.

The plaintiffs in all actions other than Briant and Parada seek to
have their cases certified as class actions.

The defendants, including Pivotal and the members of the Pivotal
Special Committee and its board of directors, believe that the
claims asserted in these lawsuits are without merit. Nevertheless,
the outcomes of these lawsuits are uncertain and cannot be
predicted with any certainty.
Stockholders have delivered two demand letters to the company's
board of directors under Section 220 of the Delaware General
Corporation Law for various books and records related to the Merger
Agreement.

Pivotal said, "We are committed to cooperating with our
stockholders in responding to reasonable records requests that
comply with applicable law."

Pivotal Software, Inc. provides platform-as-a-service solutions.
The Company offers cloud-based platform to build, deploy, and
operate software including enterprises in the automotive, financial
services, industrial, insurance, media, retail, technology, and
telecommunications sectors. Pivotal Software serves customers in
the United States, Singapore, and the United Kingdom. The company
is based in San Francisco, California.


POST HOLDINGS: Still Defends Egg Products Opt-Out Plaintiffs Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Post Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 22, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, that Michael Foods, Inc.
(MFI) continues to defend a class action suit by opt-out plaintiffs
related to egg products.

In late 2008 and early 2009, approximately 22 class action lawsuits
were filed in various federal courts against Michael Foods, Inc.
("MFI"), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, and
approximately 20 other defendants (producers of shell eggs and egg
products and egg industry organizations), alleging violations of
federal and state antitrust laws in connection with the production
and sale of shell eggs and egg products, and seeking unspecified
damages. All cases were transferred to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania for coordinated and/or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

The cases involved three plaintiff groups: (i) a nationwide class
of direct purchasers of shell eggs (the "direct purchaser class");
(ii) individual companies (primarily large grocery chains and food
companies that purchase considerable quantities of eggs) that opted
out of various settlements and filed their own complaints related
to their purchases of shell eggs and egg products ("opt-out
plaintiffs"); and (iii) indirect purchasers of shell eggs
("indirect purchaser plaintiffs").

Resolution of claims: To date, MFI has resolved the following
claims, including all class claims: (i) in December 2016, MFI
settled all claims asserted against it by the direct purchaser
class for a payment of $75.0 million, which was approved by the
district court in December 2017; (ii) in January 2017, MFI settled
all claims asserted against it by opt-out plaintiffs related to
shell egg purchases on confidential terms; (iii) in June 2018, MFI
settled all claims asserted against it by indirect purchaser
plaintiffs on confidential terms; and (iv) between June 2019 and
September 2019, MFI individually settled on confidential terms egg
product opt-out claims asserted against it by four separate opt-out
plaintiffs. MFI has at all times denied liability in this matter,
and no settlement contains any admission of liability by MFI.

Remaining portion of the cases: MFI remains a defendant only with
respect to claims that seek damages based on purchases of egg
products by three opt-out plaintiffs.

The district court had granted summary judgment precluding any
claims for egg products purchases by such opt-out plaintiffs, but
the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded these
claims for further pre-trial proceedings. Defendants filed a second
motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the claims, which
was denied in June 2019. The remaining opt-out plaintiffs have not
yet been assigned trial dates.

Post Holdings said, "Although the likelihood of a material adverse
outcome in the egg antitrust litigation has been significantly
reduced as a result of the MFI settlements described above, the
remaining portion of the cases could still result in a material
adverse outcome."

Post Holdings, Inc. operates as a consumer packaged goods holding
company in the United States and internationally. It operates
through Post Consumer Brands, Weetabix, Refrigerated Food, and
Active Nutrition segments. The company was founded in 1895 and is
headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.


PROGENICS PHARMACEUTICALS: Bernstein IRA Sues over Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL A. BERNSTEIN IRA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROGENICS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;
KAREN JEAN FERRANTE; BRADLEY L. CAMPBELL; ERIC J. ENDE; DAVID W.
MIMS; ANN L. MACDOUGALL; GERARD BER; HEINZ MAUSLI; LANTHEUS
HOLDINGS, INC.; and PLATO MERGER SUB, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-21200 (D.N.J., Dec. 9, 2019) is an action challenging a
proposed transaction announced on October 2, 2019, pursuant to
which Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. will be acquired by Lantheus
Holdings, Inc. as Parent, and Plato Merger Sub, Inc.

On October 1, 2019, Progenics' Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
Lantheus. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Progenics'
stockholders will receive 0.2502 shares of Parent common stock for
each share of Progenics common stock they own.

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Progenics'
stockholders will receive Progenics shares which reached a high of
$5.75 per share. Progenics' shares had recently been as low as
$3.54 on August 19, 2019. Parent shares on that day closed at
$19.43 on October 3, 2019.

On November 12, 2019, the Board caused the Company to file a Form
S-4 Registration Statement, which also contained Progenics' and
Lantheus' Preliminary Joint Proxy/Prospectus, with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the
Proposed Transaction.

The Registration Statement omits material information with respect
to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration
Statement false and misleading.

Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company. The
Company develops and distributes therapeutic products to treat the
unmet medical needs of patients with debilitating conditions and
life-threatening diseases. Progenics' principal programs are
directed toward supportive care, virology, human immunodeficiency
virus, hepatitis C virus infections, and oncology. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Howard T. Longman, Esq.
          STULL STULL & BRODY
          354 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 1800
          Livingston, NJ 07039
          Tel: (973) 994-2315
          Fax: (973) 994-2319
          E-mail: hlongman@ssbny.com

               - and -

          Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
          STULL STULL & BRODY
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Tel: (954) 341-5561
          Fax: (954) 341-5531
          E-mail: memert@ssbny.com


PROTEON THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Plumley Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Proteon Therapeutics, Inc. said in a Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, Plumley v. Proteon
Therapeutics, Inc., et al.

On September 23, 2019, Proteon's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with ArTara
and Merger Sub. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, each
share of ArTara common stock will be converted into the right to
receive Proteon shares such that, following the consummation of the
Proposed Transaction, ArTara stockholders will own approximately
90% of the combined company, while stockholders of Proteon will own
only approximately 10%.

On November 15, 2019, a lawsuit entitled Patrick Plumley v. Proteon
Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02143-UNA, was filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
against Proteon, ArTara Therapeutics, Inc. ("ArTara"), REM 1
Acquisition, Inc. ("Merger Sub") and the individual members of
Proteon's board of directors. The Plumley complaint is brought as a
purported class action lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that the preliminary registration statement
filed by Proteon on November 7, 2019 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in connection with the proposed merger of
Merger Sub with and into ArTara, with ArTara surviving as a wholly
owned subsidiary of Proteon, omits material information with
respect to the transactions contemplated by the Agreement and Plan
of Merger and Reorganization, dated as of September 23, 2019, as
amended, rendering it false and misleading in violation of Sections
14(a) (and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The plaintiff seeks, among other things, injunctive relief,
rescission, declaratory relief and unspecified monetary damages.
Proteon intends to defend vigorously against all claims asserted.

Proteon Therapeutics, Inc. researches and develops
biopharmaceutical products. The Company produces pharmaceuticals to
address the medical needs of patients with renal and vascular
diseases. Proteon Therapeutics conducts its business in the United
States. The company is based in Waltham, Massachusetts.


PVH CORPORATION: Faces Dicicco Suit over Misleading Price Tag
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT DICICCO, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PVH Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-11092-ER (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 3, 2019) is an action against the
Defendant for unlawful advertising, marketing, and sales
practices.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has a uniform policy of
assigning and displaying a "reference" price on the tag of every
item offered for sale in its Van Heusen Company Stores in New
Jersey. This tagged reference price is not the actual selling price
of the item. Very few, if any, items in the Defendant's Van Heusen
Company Stores in New Jersey are ever sold or offered for sale in
the Defendant's stores at the reference price displayed on their
price tags.

Rather, the tagged reference prices are consistently higher than
the actual sale prices of the items and purport to be a comparison
for the item, or the item's former original price. The actual sale
prices of the items in the Defendant's Van Heusen Company Stores in
New Jersey, i.e., the prices at which the Defendant offers items
for sale, and actually sell items, on a daily basis, are nearly
always much lower than the advertised reference prices, typically
by 50% to 70%.

In actuality, each item in the Defendant's Van Heusen Stores in New
Jersey that bears a higher reference price on its tag is not being
discounted by the Defendant, and the lower, purportedly-discounted
sale prices is, or is very close to, the true, every day, regular
price at which the item is typically sold by the Defendant and
other retailers in New Jersey. Thus, the Defendant's advertised
sale prices and promised discounts relating to these items, which
are based on the Defendant's inflated reference prices, are
similarly false and misleading.

PVH Corp. designs, sources, manufactures, and markets men's,
women's, and children's apparel and footwear. The Company markets
its products at a wholesale level through department store chains
and directly to consumers through retail stores. PVH offers attire
that includes dress shirts, sportswear, neckwear, and footwear.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
          DeNNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
          315 Madison Avenue, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 979-3642
          E-mail: rschmierer@denittislaw.com


QUANTUM CORP: Settlement in Lazan Case Wins Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
Quantum Corporation said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated December 2, 2019, that on
November 27, 2019, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California entered a Final Judgement and Order
Granting Final Approval of the Stipulation of Settlement in the
action captioned Lazan, et al. v. Quantum Corporation, et al., Case
No. 3:18-cv-00923-RS.

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

QUINTANA ENERGY: FLSA Class Action Closed
-----------------------------------------
Quintana Energy Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the
District Court for the Southern District of Texas has issued a
Final Judgment in favor of the Company on all claims in the class
action suit against one of the company's subsidiary, and the time
for claimants to appeal has passed.

The Company previously disclosed a class action filed in 2016
against one of the Company's subsidiaries alleging violations of
state based wage and hour laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") relating to non-payment of overtime pay.

The Company believes its pay practices comply with the FLSA and
presented a vigorous defense.

In September 2019, the District Court for the Southern District of
Texas issued a Final Judgment in favor of the Company on all
claims, and the time for claimants to appeal has passed.

Quintana Energy Services Inc. provides oilfield services to onshore
oil and natural gas exploration and production companies operating
in conventional and unconventional plays in the United States. The
company operates through four segments: Directional Drilling,
Pressure Pumping, Pressure Control, and Wireline. Quintana Energy
Services Inc. was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Houston,
Texas.


RA MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Derr Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------
RA Medical Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 29, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a putative securities class action suit
entitled, Derr v. Ra Medical Systems, Inc., et. al.

On June 7, 2019, a putative securities class action complaint
captioned Derr v. Ra Medical Systems, Inc., et. al., (Civil Action
no. 19CV1079 LAB NLS) was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California against the Company,
certain current and former officers and directors, and certain
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering (IPO).

The complaint alleges that the defendants made material
misstatements or omissions in the Company's registration statement
that caused the stock price to drop. The court appointed a Lead
Plaintiff on September 5, 2019, and on October 2, 2019, it ordered
that Lead Plaintiff file an amended complaint within forty-five
days after the Company files with the SEC its Form 10-Q for the
period ended June 30, 2019.

Management intends to vigorously defend the Company against this
lawsuit. At this time, the Company cannot predict how a court or
jury will rule on the merits of the claims and/or the scope of the
potential loss in the event of an adverse outcome.

RA Medical said, "Should the Company ultimately be found liable,
the liability could have a material adverse effect on our financial
condition and our results of operations for the period or periods
in which it is incurred. The Company is unable to predict the
ultimate outcome and is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the
amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from any
unfavorable outcome."

RA Medical Systems, Inc. designs, develops, and produces medical
devices. The Company offers excimer lasers for the treatment of
dermatologic and cardiovascular diseases. RA Medical Systems serves
patients in the United States. The company is based in Carlsbad,
California.


RAYMOND JAMES: Settlement in Brink & Wistar Suits Wins Final OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond James Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 26,
2019, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, that the
District Court has entered an order granting final approval of the
settlement in the cases, Jyll Brink v. Raymond James & Associates,
Inc. and Caleb Wistar and Ernest Mayeaux v. Raymond James Financial
Services, Inc. and Raymond James Financial Services Advisors, Inc.

On February 17, 2015, Jyll Brink filed a putative class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida under the caption Jyll Brink v. Raymond James & Associates,
Inc.

The Brink Complaint alleges that Brink, a former customer of RJ&A,
was charged a fee in her Passport Investment Account, and that the
fee included an unauthorized and undisclosed profit to RJ&A in
violation of its customer agreement and applicable industry
standards.

The Passport Investment Account is a fee-based account in which
clients pay asset-based advisory fees and certain processing fees
for ongoing investment advice and monitoring of securities
holdings.

The Brink Complaint seeks, among other relief, damages in the
amount of the difference between the actual cost of processing a
trade, as alleged by Brink, and the fee charged by RJ&A.

On October 19, 2018, the District Court certified a class of former
and current customers of RJ&A who executed a Passport Agreement and
were charged processing fees during the period between February 17,
2010 and February 17, 2015.

On February 11, 2016, Caleb Wistar and Ernest Mayeaux filed a
putative class action complaint in the District Court under the
caption Caleb Wistar and Ernest Mayeaux v. Raymond James Financial
Services, Inc. and Raymond James Financial Services Advisors, Inc.


Similar to the Brink Complaint, the Wistar Complaint alleges that
Wistar and Mayeaux, former customers of Raymond James Financial
Services, Inc. and Raymond James Financial Services Advisors, Inc.
, were charged a fee in RJFS and RJFSA's Passport Investment
Account and that the fee included an unauthorized and undisclosed
profit to RJFS and RJFSA in violation of its customer agreement and
applicable industry standards.

The Wistar Complaint seeks, among other relief, damages in the
amount of the difference between the actual cost of processing a
trade, as alleged by Wistar and Mayeaux, and the fee charge by RJFS
and RJFSA.

On April 5, 2019, the parties to the Brink Complaint and the Wistar
Complaint agreed in principle to an aggregate settlement of $15
million.

On October 25, 2019, the District Court entered an order granting
final approval of the settlement.

Raymond James Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, engages in
the underwriting, distribution, trading, and brokerage of equity
and debt securities, and the sale of mutual funds and other
investment products in the United States, Canada, Europe, and
internationally. It operates in five segments: Private Client Group
(PCG), Capital Markets, Asset Management, RJ Bank, and Other. The
company was founded in 1962 and is headquartered in St. Petersburg,
Florida.

RELAY DELIVERY: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Hernandez Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Omar Santos Hernandez, on his own behalf and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. RELAY DELIVERY, INC. d/b/a Relay; ALEX BLUM,
and MICHAEL J. CHEVETT, Case No. 1:19-cv-11888 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 30,
2019), is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed
widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in pattern
and practice of failing to pay its employees, including the
Plaintiff, minimum wage for each hour worked and overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to work as a
Deliveryman.

Relay's entire business consists of providing on-demand delivery
services for restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
          Leanghour Lim, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Phone: (718) 762-1324


RESONSE MARKETING: Hillman Seeks Unpaid Wages Under WARN Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Hillman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. RESONSE MARKETING GROUP, LLC; Case No.
2:19-cv-01002-DBP (D. Utah, Dec. 30, 2019), is brought for
collection of unpaid wages and benefits for 60 calendar days
pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act
of 1988.

The Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendant until he was
terminated as part of, or as a result of a mass layoff and/or plant
closing ordered by the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is liable
under the WARN Act for the failure to provide the Plaintiff and the
other similarly situated former employees at least 60 days' advance
written notice of termination, as required by the WARN Act, says
the complaint.

Mr. Hillman was an employee of the Defendant.

The Defendant was a Utah corporation, which maintained a facility
in Lindon, Utah.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin D. Heideman, Esq.
          HEIDEMAN & ASSOCIATES
          2696 North University Avenue, Suite 180
          Provo, UT 84604
          Phone: (801) 476-7742
          Facsimile: (801) 374-1724
          Email: jheideman@heidlaw.com

               - and -

          Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
          LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
          132 Nassau Street, Suite 1100
          New York, NY 10038
          Phone: (212) 581-5005
          Fax: (212) 581-2122

               - and -

          Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
          M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
          THE GARDNER FIRM, PC
          210 S. Washington Ave.
          Mobile, AL 36602
          Phone: (251) 433-8100
          Fax: (251) 433-8181


RH INC: Settlement in Securities Class Suit Wins Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
RH, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 5, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended November 2, 2019, that the settlement in the class
action suit entitled, In re RH, Inc. Securities Litigation, has
been granted final approval.

On February 2, 2017, City of Miami General Employees' & Sanitation
Employees' Retirement Trust filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court, Northern District of California,
against the Company, Gary Friedman, and Karen Boone.

On March 16, 2017, Peter J. Errichiello, Jr. filed a similar class
action complaint in the same forum and against the same parties. On
April 26, 2017, the court consolidated the two actions.

The consolidated action is captioned In re RH, Inc. Securities
Litigation. An amended consolidated complaint was filed in June
2017 asserting claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The complaint asserts claims purportedly on behalf of a class of
purchasers of Company common stock from March 26, 2015 to June 8,
2016. The alleged misstatements relate to statements regarding the
roll out of the RH Modern product line and the Company's inventory
levels.

The complaint seeks class certification, monetary damages, and
other appropriate relief, including an award of costs and
attorneys' fees.

On March 21, 2019, the Company and the individual defendants in the
case entered into a binding memorandum of understanding to settle
the case.

The settlement amount is $50 million, which was funded entirely by
the Company's insurance carriers. On May 6, 2019, the plaintiffs
filed a motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement
together with a settlement agreement executed by both parties.

The settlement agreement was subject to customary conditions
including court approval following notice to the Company's
shareholders, and a hearing at which time the court will consider
the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement.

On June 21, 2019, the court issued an order preliminarily approving
the settlement. The court granted final approval of the settlement
on October 25, 2019.

As a result of the court approval and adjudication of the claims,
as well as the Company's insurance carriers funding the settlement
amount, the Company has derecognized the provision for legal
settlement and unpaid legal fees within other current liabilities
and the associated litigation insurance recovery receivable on the
condensed consolidated balance sheets as of November 2, 2019, which
settlement resolved all of the claims that were or could have been
brought in the action.

RH, together with its subsidiaries, operates as a retailer in the
home furnishings. It offers products in various categories,
including furniture, lighting, textiles, bathware, decor, outdoor
and garden, tableware, and child and teen furnishings. The company
was formerly known as Restoration Hardware Holdings, Inc. and
changed its name to RH in January 2017. RH was founded in 1979 and
is headquartered in Corte Madera, California.


RN EXPRESS: Baldia Sues Nurse Staffing Firm for Human Trafficking
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARIE ALEXANDRINE BALDIA a/k/a MARIE ALEXANDRINE NADELA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. RN EXPRESS STAFFING REGISTRY LLC; SALLY NUNEZ; and
ALEXANDER ALEJANDRINO, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-11268
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 9, 2019) alleges violation of the Trafficking
Victims Protection Act.

The action arises out of Defendants' recruitment, provision and
obtaining of the Plaintiff's labor or services through the use of
fraud and the abuse of the immigration process that resulted in the
forced labor and wage exploitation of the Plaintiff by the
Defendants. The Defendants are foreign labor recruiters who have
recruited more than 100 registered nurses from the Philippines to
work for the Defendants in the state of New York under contracts of
indentured servitude. The Defendants made false and fraudulent
promises in their immigration sponsorship petitions with regard to
the payment of prevailing wages to lure the Plaintiff and other
Filipino registered nurses into employment, only for the Plaintiff
and the other registered nurses to later realize the Defendants did
not correctly pay them their offered prevailing wage rates.

The Plaintiff was forced under the circumstances to continue
working for the Defendants despite the Plaintiff's complaints of
not being paid the prevailing wage rate because of the Defendants'
threats to have her pay the $33,320 indenture. While the Defendants
characterize the $33,320 indenture as "liquidated damages", there
is in fact no basis for this claim. To keep the Plaintiff and other
similarly-situated registered nurses from leaving their employment,
the Defendants threaten the registered nurses with serious harm,
including threats to enforce the draconian penalties in their
employment contracts.

RN Express Staffing Registry LLC operates as an employment agency.
The company provides staffing services to hospitals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Felix Vinluan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF FELIX VINLUAN
          69-10 Roosevelt Avenue, 2nd Fl.
          Woodside, NY 11377
          Tel: (718) 478-4488
          Fax: (718) 478-4588
          E-mail: fqvinluan@yahoo.com

               - and –

          Jude T. Palces, Esq.
          JUDE TADEO PALCES LAW
          535 Lakeville Road
          New Hyde Park, NY 11040
          Tel: (917) 816-0482
          E-mail: jtpalces@gmail.com


ROAN RESOURCES: Faces Citizen Energy Merger-Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Roan Resources, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on November 27, 2019, that
the company is defending against class action suits challenging its
merger deal with Citizen Energy Operating, LLC.

On October 1, 2019, Roan Resources, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger
Agreement"), by and among Citizen Energy Operating, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company ("Parent"), Citizen Energy Pressburg
Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Parent
("Merger Sub"), and the Company.

The Merger Agreement provides for, among other things, the merger
of Merger Sub with and into the Company, on the terms and subject
to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement (the "Merger"),
with the Company continuing as the surviving corporation in the
Merger. As a result of the Merger, the Company would become a
wholly owned subsidiary of Parent.

On November 4, 2019, the Company filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission a Definitive Proxy Statement for the
solicitation of proxies in connection with the special meeting of
the Company's stockholders, to be held on December 4, 2019, to vote
upon, among other things, matters necessary to complete the
Merger.

Following the filing of the Proxy Statement with the SEC, two
purported stockholders of the Company filed separate putative
federal class action complaints on behalf of themselves and all
owners of the Company's Class A common stock (other than defendants
and related or affiliated persons) against the Company and the
directors of the Company.

The two complaints are captioned as follows: Jennifer Burfeind v.
Roan Resources, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02135-UNA (the
"Burfeind Action") and Adam Franchi v. Roan Resources, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-02142-UNA (the "Franchi Action").

The Stockholder Actions allege that, among other things, the Proxy
Statement fails to disclose certain allegedly material information
in violation of Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), as well as
Rule 14a-9 under the Exchange Act.

The Burfeind Action further alleges that the directors of the
Company failed to fulfill their fiduciary duties in connection with
the Merger by purportedly initiating a process to sell the Company
in a transaction that undervalues the Company.

The complaints seek injunctive relief enjoining the Merger, damages
and costs, among other remedies.

Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Roan Resources, Inc., is an
independent oil and natural gas company focused on the development
of our assets throughout the eastern and southern Anadarko Basin.


ROBERTSON ANSCHUTZ: Sued by Timberlake for Violating FDCPA, FCCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn S. Timberlake v. ROBERTSON, ANSCHUTZ & SCHNEID, P.L., Case
No. 8:19-cv-03167 (M.D. Fla., Dec. 27, 2019), is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act and the Florida Consumer Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff defaulted on her mortgage of her former home located
at 811 South Orleans Avenue, in Tampa, Florida. Bank of New York
Mellon brought a foreclosure action on October 16, 2007, against
the Plaintiff. The foreclosure action was subsequently dismissed
for lack of prosecution. Thus, Bank of New York was not the
prevailing party and not entitled to attorney's fees and cost.

Despite not prevailing, the Defendant, on behalf of Wilmington
Savings Fund Society, FSB, d/b/a Christiana Trust, not Individually
by as Trustee for Pretium Mortgage Acquisition Trust, who was not
privy to the initial foreclosure action and had no relation to Bank
of New York Mellon, began communicating with the Plaintiff in an
attempt to collect on accumulated attorney's fees and costs related
to the first foreclosure action, to which the Defendant was not
entitled, says the complaint. By doing so, the Plaintiff alleges,
the Defendant knowingly violated the FDCPA and FCCPA.

Plaintiff Carolyn S. Timberlake is a citizen of Hillsborough
County, Florida. She seeks damages, costs and attorney's fees from
the Defendant for their violations of the FDCPA and FCCPA.

The Defendant is a Florida limited liability company and is a debt
collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian L. Shrader, Esq.
          SHRADER LAW, PLLC
          612 W. Bay Street
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Phone: (813) 360-1529
          Fax: (813) 336-0832
          Email: bshrader@centroneshrader.com


SALESFORCE.COM INC: Continues to Defend Scheufele Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Salesforce.com, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend "Scheufele Action" in the U.S. District for the
Southern District of New York.

In July and August 2017, two substantially similar securities class
action complaints were filed against Tableau Software, Inc. and two
of its now former executive officers.

The first complaint was filed in the U.S. District for the Southern
District of New York.

The second complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington and was voluntarily dismissed on
October 17, 2017.  

In December 2017, the lead plaintiff in the Scheufele Action filed
an amended complaint, which alleged that between February 5, 2015
and February 4, 2016, Tableau and certain of its executive officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in
connection with statements regarding Tableau's business and
operations by allegedly failing to disclose that product launches
and software upgrades by competitors were negatively impacting
Tableau's competitive position and profitability.

The amended complaint sought unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and other costs.  

In February 2018, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint (the "SAC"), which contains substantially similar
allegations as the amended complaint, and added as defendants two
of Tableau's now former executive officers and directors.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the SAC in March 2018, which
was denied in February 2019. Defendants filed an answer to the SAC
in March 2019, and subsequently amended their answer in April
2019.

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

Salesforce.com, Inc. develops enterprise cloud computing solutions
with a focus on customer relationship management. The company
offers Sales Cloud to store data, monitor leads and progress,
forecast opportunities, and gain insights through analytics and
relationship intelligence, as well as deliver quotes, contracts,
and invoices. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered
in San Francisco, California.


SALESFORCE.COM INC: Curtis Class Action Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
Salesforce.com, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2019, that the class action suit
initiated by Marcy Curtis against the company has been dismissed.

In July 2019, three civil actions were filed against Tableau and
each of the members of Tableau's board of directors as of the dates
of the complaints asserting claims under Sections 14(e), 14(d), and
20(a) of the Exchange Act challenging the adequacy of certain
public disclosures made by Tableau concerning its proposed
transaction with Salesforce.

Salesforce was named as a defendant in one of these three actions.


Specifically, Shiva Stein, a purported Tableau stockholder,
commenced an action in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware (the "Stein Action");  Marcy Curtis, a
purported Tableau stockholder, commenced a putative class action in
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the
"Curtis Action"); and Cathy O'Brien, a purported Tableau
stockholder, commenced an action in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York (the "O'Brien Action").


Salesforce was named as a defendant in the Curtis Action.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an injunction that would
have prevented the acquisition of Tableau by Salesforce, rescission
of the transaction or rescissory damages, an accounting by the
defendants for all damages caused to the plaintiffs, and the award
of attorneys' fees and expenses.  

Tableau has not answered the complaint in the Curtis, or O'Brien
Actions, and Salesforce has not answered the complaint in the
Curtis Action.

Salesforce.com said, "We settled these three civil actions during
the quarter ended October 31, 2019. All three cases are now
dismissed."

Salesforce.com, Inc. develops enterprise cloud computing solutions
with a focus on customer relationship management. The company
offers Sales Cloud to store data, monitor leads and progress,
forecast opportunities, and gain insights through analytics and
relationship intelligence, as well as deliver quotes, contracts,
and invoices. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered
in San Francisco, California.


SAMEDAY INSURANCE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Estrada Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER ESTRADA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAMEDAY INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.;
and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV43499 (C.D.
Cal., Dec. 3, 2019) is an action against the Defendant's failure to
pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff Estrada was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt,
hourly paid employees.

Sameday Insurance Services, Inc. provides insurance services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carney R. Shegerian, Esq.
          Anthony Nguyen, Esq.
          Cheryl A. Kenner, Esq.
          SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          145 South Spring Street, Suite 400
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Telephone: (310) 860-0770
          Facsimile: (310) 860-0771
          E-mail: CShegerian@Shegerianlaw.com
                  ANguyen@Shegerianlaw.com
                  CKenner@Shegerianlaw.com


SC ENVIRONMENTAL: Court Conditionally Certifies FLSA Collective
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CHRISTOPHER UNGER and DUSTIN
LACH, individuals and on behalf of similarly situated persons, the
Plaintiffs, v. SC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, LLC, a Michigan limited
liability company, SC SERVICES, LLC, and JOHN K. SEARS, an
individual, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00125-JTN-ES (W.D.
Mich.), the Hon. Judge Janet T. Neff entered an order on Dec. 30,
2019:

   1. conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act
      Collective Action:

      "Employees of Defendants in the State of Michigan who were
      compensated on an hourly basis at any time within the three
      years immediately preceding the filing of the collective and

      class action complaint";

   2. designating Christopher Unger and Dustin Lach as
      Representative Plaintiffs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a),

      and the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section; and

   3. appointing Jeffrey S. Theuer and Loomis, Ewert, Parsley,
      Davis & Gotting, P.C. as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R.
      Civ. P. 23(g).

The Class claims are defined as whether Defendants violated the
FLSA, by failing to pay for all hours worked, all work hours at the
correct job classifications and wage rates, and the applicable
overtime premium wage rates for all hours over 40 per week for all
hourly employees, the Court said.

SC Environmental Services, LLC's line of business includes
providing wrecking and demolition services. SC Services offers
cleaning services.[CC]

SCHREIBER COHEN: Court Certifies Two Amended Classes
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as VANESSA MARTI, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
SCHREIBER/COHEN, LLC, & DAVID ROWAND HOWARD, the Defendants, Case
No. 4:18-cv-40164-TSH (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Timothy S. Hillman
entered an order on Jan. 2, 2020, certifying these two amended
classes:

   Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Class:

   "(i) all persons with addresses in Massachusetts (ii) to whom
   Defendants sent or caused to be sent an initial communication
   (iii) in an attempt to collect an alleged obligation originally

   due to Comenity Bank (iv) which, as shown by the nature of the
   alleged obligation, Defendants' records, or the records of the
   original creditors, was primarily for personal, family, or
   household purposes (v) during the period one year prior to the
   date of the filing this action"; and

   Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act Class:

   "(i) all persons with addresses in Massachusetts (ii) to whom
   Defendants sent or caused to be sent an initial communication
   (iii) in an attempt to collect an alleged obligation originally

   due to Comenity Bank (iv) which, as shown by the nature of the
   alleged obligation, Defendants' records, or the records of the
   original creditors, was primarily for personal, family, or
   household purposes (v) during the period four years prior to
   the date of the filing the action."

The Court said, "A class action would promote uniformity of
decision and save time and expense. The main issues in the action
and the effect of any arbitration provision on the ability to raise
the claim -- are common to all members of the classes and should be
answered in the same way."

The Court also found it significant that an individual action
likely would not be economically feasible for each putative class
member. And while a class action does admittedly reduce the
possible recovery each debtor is entitled to receive, given the
amendments to the classes, the reduction will be much less drastic
than Defendants contend. Thus, on balance, the Court found that
Plaintiff has met her burden of demonstrating compliance with the
superiority requirement with respect to the amended class
definitions.[CC]

SELLAS LIFE: New Jersey Court Dismisses Abstral(R)-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted
SELLAS Life Sciences Group, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the amended
complaint in the Abstral(R)-related suit, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 25, 2019, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019.

On February 13, 2017, multiple putative shareholder securities
class action complaints were filed in federal court alleging, among
other things, that the Company and certain of the Company's former
officers and directors failed to disclose that Galena's promotional
practices for Abstral(R) (fentanyl sublingual tablets) were
allegedly improper and that Galena may be subject to civil and
criminal liability, and that these alleged failures rendered
Galena's statements about its business misleading.  The individual
actions were consolidated, lead plaintiffs were named by the
federal court and a consolidated complaint was filed.  The Company
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.

On August 21, 2018, the Company's motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint was granted without prejudice to file an
amended complaint.

On September 20, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

On October 22, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

On November 13, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey granted the Company's motion to dismiss.  Plaintiffs had
30 days from November 13, 2019 to file an amended complaint.

SELLAS Life Sciences Group, Inc., a clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development of novel
cancer immunotherapies for various cancer indications.   SELLAS
Life Sciences Group, Inc. is headquartered in New York, New York.


SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Bid to Nix Securities Class Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the action styled, In
re Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, remains
pending, according to Sinclair Broadcast's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019.

On August 9, 2018, Edward Komito, a putative Company shareholder,
filed a class action complaint (the "Initial Complaint") in the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland (the
"District of Maryland") against the Company, Christopher Ripley and
Lucy Rutishauser, which action is now captioned In re Sinclair
Broadcast Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, case No.
1:18-CV-02445-CCB (the "Securities Action").  

On March 1, 2019, lead counsel in the Securities Action filed an
amended complaint, adding David Smith and Steven Marks as
defendants, and alleging that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing false or misleading disclosures
concerning (a) the Merger prior to the termination thereof; and (b)
the DOJ investigation concerning the alleged exchange of pacing
information.  The Securities Action seeks declaratory relief, money
damages in an amount to be determined at trial, and attorney's fees
and costs.

On May 3, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, which motion has been opposed by lead plaintiff.

The Company believes that the allegations in the Securities Action
are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against the
allegations.

Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. operates as a television
broadcasting company in the United States. It owns or provides
various programming, operating, sales, and other non-programming
operating services to television stations. The company was founded
in 1986 and is headquartered in Hunt Valley, Maryland.


SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Still Defends 22 Price-Fixing Class Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the Company is aware of 22
putative class action lawsuits related to the exchange of pacing
data.

According to the Company, 22 putative class action lawsuits were
filed against it following published reports of the DOJ
investigation into the exchange of pacing data within the industry.
On October 3, 2018, these lawsuits were consolidated in the
Northern District of Illinois.

The consolidated action alleges that the Company and thirteen other
broadcasters conspired to fix prices for commercials to be aired on
broadcast television stations throughout the United States and
engaged in unlawful information sharing, in violation of the
Sherman Antitrust Act.  The consolidated action seeks damages,
attorneys' fees, costs and interest, as well as injunctions against
adopting practices or plans that would restrain competition in the
ways the plaintiffs have alleged.

The Company believes the lawsuits are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself against all such claims.

Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. operates as a television
broadcasting company in the United States. It owns or provides
various programming, operating, sales, and other non-programming
operating services to television stations. The company was founded
in 1986 and is headquartered in Hunt Valley, Maryland.


STAR GROUP: Settlement in Donnenfeld Suit Wins Initial Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Star Group, L.P. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 5, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, that the settlement in the
class action suit entitled, M. Norman Donnenfeld v. Petro, Inc.,
Civil Action Number 2:17-cv-2310-JFB-SIL, against Petro, Inc., has
been granted preliminary approval.

On April 18, 2017, a civil action was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, entitled M.
Norman Donnenfeld v. Petro, Inc., Civil Action Number
2:17-cv-2310-JFB-SIL, against Petro, Inc.

By amended complaint filed on August 15, 2017, the Plaintiff
alleges he did not receive expected contractual benefits under his
protected price plan contract when oil prices fell and asserts
various claims for relief including breach of contract, violation
of the New York General Business Law and fraudulent inducement.

The Plaintiff also seeks to have a class certified of similarly
situated Petro customers who entered into protected price plan
contracts and were denied the same contractual benefits. No class
has yet been certified in this action. The Plaintiff seeks
compensatory, punitive and other damages in unspecified amounts.

On September 15, 2017, Petro filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint as time-barred and for failure to state a cause of
action. On September 12, 2018, the district court granted in part
and denied in part Petro's motion to dismiss. The district court
dismissed the Plaintiff's claims for breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing and fraudulent inducement, but declined to
dismiss the Plaintiff's remaining claims. The district court
granted the Plaintiff leave to amend to attempt to replead his
fraudulent inducement claim.  

On October 10, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint. The second amended complaint attempts to replead a
fraudulent inducement claim and is otherwise substantially similar
or identical to the prior complaint.

On November 13, 2018, Petro moved to dismiss the fraudulent
inducement and unjust enrichment claims in the second amended
complaint.  On January 31, 2019, the court granted the motion and
dismissed the fraudulent inducement and unjust enrichment claims
with prejudice.  

On February 22, 2019, counsel for Petro and the Plaintiff
participated in a mediation which, after arms-length negotiations,
resulted in a memorandum of understanding to settle the litigation,
subject to the completion of confirmatory discovery, negotiation of
a final settlement agreement and court approval.  

In an order dated March 27, 2019, the district court stayed all
discovery deadlines in light of the pending settlement. On May 6,
2019, the Plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement which remains pending before
the court.  

On October 4, 2019, upon consent of all parties, Judge Roslynn R.
Mauskopf assigned the action to Magistrate Judge Steve I. Locke for
final disposition.

On December 4, 2019, the court granted preliminary approval of the
class action settlement.  

Star Group said, "The anticipated settlement is not an admission of
liability or breach to any customers by Petro and the Company
continues to believe the allegations lack merit.  If the settlement
is not approved or finalized for any reason, the Company will
continue to vigorously defend the action; in that case, we cannot
assess the potential outcome or materiality of this matter.  At
this time we cannot assess the potential outcome or materiality of
this matter."

Star Group, L.P., formerly Star Gas Partners, L.P., incorporated on
October 16, 1995, is a service energy provider. The Company is a
home heating oil and propane distributor and services provider. The
Company also sells gasoline and diesel fuel to customers on a
delivery only basis. The Company installs, maintains and repairs
heating and air conditioning equipment, and provides these services
outside its customer base, including service contracts for natural
gas and other heating systems. The company is based in Stamford,
Connecticut.


SUBURBAN PROPANE: Continues to Defend NY & Pennsylvania Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Suburban Propane Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 27,
2019, for the fiscal year ended September 28, 2019, that the
company continues to defend itself from two class lawsuits, one in
New York and the other in Pennsylvania.

The Partnership's operations are subject to operating hazards and
risks normally incidental to handling, storing and delivering
combustible liquids such as propane. The Partnership has been, and
will continue to be, a defendant in various legal proceedings and
litigation as a result of these operating hazards and risks, and as
a result of other aspects of its business.  

In this regard, the Partnership's natural gas and electricity
business is currently a defendant in two putative class action
suits in the federal district courts of New York and Pennsylvania.


The complaints allege a number of claims under various consumer
statutes and common law in New York and Pennsylvania regarding
pricing offered to electricity customers in those states.

The complaint in the Pennsylvania action was dismissed in its
entirety by the district court, which dismissal is being appealed
by the plaintiff.  

The complaint in the New York action was dismissed in part by the
district court, but causes of action based on the New York consumer
statute and breach of contract were allowed to proceed.

Based on the nature of the allegations under these suits, the
Partnership believes that the suits are without merit and is
defending each of these suits vigorously.

With respect to these pending suits, the Partnership has
determined, based on the allegations and discovery to date, that no
reserve for a loss contingency is required.

The Partnership is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss
or range of loss, if any, arising from either of these two actions.


Suburban said, "Although any litigation is inherently uncertain,
based on past experience, the information currently available to
the Partnership, and the amount of its accrued insurance
liabilities, the Partnership does not believe that currently
pending or threatened litigation matters, or known claims or known
contingent claims, will have a material adverse effect on its
results of operations, financial condition or cash flow."

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

Suburban Propane Partners, L.P., through its subsidiaries, engages
in the retail marketing and distribution of propane, fuel oil, and
refined fuels. The company operates in four segments: Propane, Fuel
Oil and Refined Fuels, Natural Gas and Electricity, and All Other.
Suburban Energy Services Group LLC serves as a general partner of
Suburban Propane Partners, L.P. The company was founded in 1945 and
is headquartered in Whippany, New Jersey.


TWITTER INC: Barclift Sues over 20% Drop in Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------
KHAFRE BARCLIFT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TWITTER, INC.; JACK DORSEY; and NED SEGAL,
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-07992 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 5, 2019) is a
securities fraud action brought under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased Twitter securities from August 6, 2019
through October 23, 2019, inclusive.

On October 24, 2019, before the market opened, Twitter disclosed
its financial results for the quarter ended September 30, 2019, and
conducted a conference call with investors. Twitter's revenue of
$823.7 million was over 5% lower than analysts' estimate of $874
million. Weaker-than-expected advertising revenues caused this
revenue shortfall.

During the conference call, Defendant Jack Dorsey ("Dorsey"),
Twitter's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), disclosed that software
defects caused by the changes implemented before the beginning of
the Class Period had negatively affected the Company's third
quarter financial results and that the negative effects on
advertising revenue would continue through at least the fourth
quarter of 2019.

On this news, Twitter's shares declined from a closing price of
$38.83 per share on October 23, 2019, to close at $30.75 per share
on October 24, 2019, a decline of $8.08 per share, or over 20%, on
heavier than average trading volume (over 105 million shares
traded).

Twitter, Inc. provides online social networking and microblogging
service. The Company offers users the ability to follow other users
activity, read, and post tweets. Twitter serves customers
worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 405-7190
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


TWITTER INC: Continues to Defend Hasan Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Twitter, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission filed on December 2, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Hasan v.
Twitter, Inc., et al.

On October 29, 2019, a putative class action (captioned Hasan v.
Twitter, Inc., et al.) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company and certain of
the Company's officers alleging violations of securities laws in
connection with the Company's announcements that it had discovered
and taken steps to remediate issues related to certain user
settings designed to target advertising that were not working as
expected and seeking unspecified damages.

The Company disputes the claims and intends to defend the lawsuit
vigorously.

Twitter, Inc. operates as a platform for public self-expression and
conversation in real time. The company offers various products and
services, including Twitter that allows users to consume, create,
distribute, and discover content; and Periscope, a mobile
application that enables user to broadcast and watch video live
with others. Twitter, Inc. was founded in 2006 and is headquartered
in San Francisco, California.

UGI CORP: Agreement Reached in Underfilled Propane Cylinders Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UGI Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 26, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, that the Company has reached
an agreement to resolve the claims of the direct purchaser class of
plaintiffs, subject to court approval.

Between May and October of 2014, purported class action lawsuits
were filed in multiple jurisdictions against the Partnership/UGI
and a competitor by certain of their direct and indirect customers.


The class action lawsuits allege, among other things, that the
Partnership and its competitor colluded, beginning in 2008, to
reduce the fill level of portable propane cylinders from 17 pounds
to 15 pounds and combined to persuade their common customer,
Walmart Stores, Inc., to accept that fill reduction, resulting in
increased cylinder costs to retailers and end-user customers in
violation of federal and certain state antitrust laws.  

The claims seek treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees
and costs on behalf of the putative classes.

On October 16, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of these purported class
action cases to the Western Missouri District Court.  

As the result of rulings on a series of procedural filings,
including petitions filed with the Eighth Circuit and the U.S.
Supreme Court, both the federal and state law claims of the direct
customer plaintiffs and the state law claims of the indirect
customer plaintiffs were remanded to the Western Missouri District
Court.  

The decision of the Western Missouri District Court to dismiss the
federal antitrust claims of the indirect customer plaintiffs was
upheld by the Eighth Circuit.

On April 15, 2019, the Western Missouri District Court ruled that
it has jurisdiction over the indirect purchasers' state law claims
and that the indirect customer plaintiffs have standing to pursue
those claims.

On August 21, 2019, the District Court partially granted the
Company's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the
claims of indirect customer plaintiffs from ten states and the
District of Columbia.

On October 2, 2019, the Company reached an agreement to resolve the
claims of the direct purchaser class of plaintiffs, subject to
court approval.

UGI said, "Although we cannot predict the final results of these
pending claims and legal actions, we believe, after consultation
with counsel, that the final outcome of these matters will not have
a material effect on our financial statements."

UGI Corporation distributes, stores, transports, and markets energy
products and related services in the United States and
internationally. The company operates through four segments:
AmeriGas Propane, UGI International, Midstream & Marketing, and UGI
Utilities. UGI Corporation was founded in 1882 and is based in King
of Prussia, Pennsylvania.


UNITED SERVICES: RA Sues Over Use of Rule That Reduces Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
REHABILITATION ASSOCIATES, P.A., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE
ASSOCIATION, Case No. N19C-12-248 RRC (Del. Super., Dec. 30, 2019),
arises from the Defendant's alleged wrongful and illegal use of a
computer rule that reduces insurance claims.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of claimants, whose claims for
medical expenses under Personal Injury Protection (or "PIP")
insurance issued by Defendant United Services Automobile
Association ("USAA") were reduced as a result of USAA's unjustified
and otherwise wrongful and illegal use of a computer rule that
treats all claims the same way, regardless of the facts relevant to
the claim.

The rule at issue is referred as the "Geographic Reduction Rule."
By the Geographic Reduction Rule, USAA sets a pre-determined
arbitrary cap on the amount it will pay for any charge at the "80th
percentile of billed charges for each procedure in each Medicare
defined geographic area," according to the complaint.

USAA's Geographic Reduction Rule violates long-established Delaware
common law that requires an investigation of claims, the Plaintiff
contends. As a result of the Geographic Reduction Rule, USAA deems
any bill above the 80th percentile "unreasonable," without regard
to any factors that USAA must take into consideration under
Delaware law. As a result, USAA denies the claim, and does not pay
the amount that it deems "unreasonable," says the complaint.

Plaintiff Rehabilitation Associates, P.A. (t/a Delaware Back Pain &
Sports Rehabilitation Centers) is a Delaware medical provider that
tendered claims for PIP benefits under subject policies from USAA.

USAA is a Texas-based, reciprocal inter-insurance exchange whose
principal place of business is located at San Antonio, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard H. Cross, Jr., Esq.
          Christopher P. Simon, Esq.
          CROSS & SIMON, LLC
          1105 North Market Street, 9th Floor
          P.O. Box 1380
          Wilmington, DE 19899-1380
          Phone: (302) 777-4200
          Facsimile: (302) 777-4224
          Email: rcross@crosslaw.com
                 csimon@crosslaw.com


VERINT SYSTEMS: Mediation Ongoing in Class Suit Against Unit
------------------------------------------------------------
Verint Systems Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2019, that mediation is ongoing
in the class action suit in Tel Aviv against the company's
subsidiary Verint Systems Limited.

In March 2009, one of the company's former employees, Ms. Orit
Deutsch, commenced legal actions in Israel against the company's
primary Israeli subsidiary, Verint Systems Limited ("VSL") (Case
Number 4186/09) and against its affiliate Comverse Technology, Inc.
(CTI) (Case Number 1335/09).

Also in March 2009, a former employee of Comverse Limited (CTI's
primary Israeli subsidiary at the time), Ms Roni Katriel, commenced
similar legal actions in Israel against Comverse Limited (Case
Number 3444/09).

In these actions, the plaintiffs generally sought to certify class
action suits against the defendants on behalf of current and former
employees of VSL and Comverse Limited who had been granted stock
options in Verint and/or CTI and who were allegedly damaged as a
result of a suspension on option exercises during an extended
filing delay period that is discussed in our and CTI's historical
public filings.

On June 7, 2012, the Tel Aviv District Court, where the cases had
been filed or transferred, allowed the plaintiffs to consolidate
and amend their complaints against the three defendants: VSL, CTI,
and Comverse Limited.

On October 31, 2012, CTI distributed of all of the outstanding
shares of common stock of Comverse, Inc., its principal operating
subsidiary and parent company of Comverse Limited, to CTI's
shareholders (the "Comverse Share Distribution").

In the period leading up to the Comverse Share Distribution, CTI
either sold or transferred substantially all of its business
operations and assets (other than its equity ownership interests in
Verint and in its then-subsidiary, Comverse, Inc.) to Comverse,
Inc. or to unaffiliated third parties.

As the result of these transactions, Comverse, Inc. became an
independent company and ceased to be affiliated with CTI, and CTI
ceased to have any material assets other than its equity interests
in Verint. Prior to the completion of the Comverse Share
Distribution, the plaintiffs sought to compel CTI to set aside up
to $150.0 million in assets to secure any future judgment, but the
District Court did not rule on this motion.

In February 2017, Mavenir Inc. became successor-in-interest to
Comverse, Inc.

On February 4, 2013, Verint acquired the remaining CTI shell
company in a merger transaction (the "CTI Merger"). As a result of
the CTI Merger, Verint assumed certain rights and liabilities of
CTI, including any liability of CTI arising out of the foregoing
legal actions. However, under the terms of a Distribution Agreement
entered into in connection with the Comverse Share Distribution,
the company, as successor to CTI, are entitled to indemnification
from Comverse, Inc. (now Mavenir) for any losses we may suffer in
our capacity as successor to CTI related to the foregoing legal
actions.

Following an unsuccessful mediation process, on August 28, 2016,
the District Court (i) denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify the
suit as a class action with respect to all claims relating to
Verint stock options and (ii) approved the plaintiffs’ motion to
certify the suit as a class action with respect to claims of
current or former employees of Comverse Limited (now part of
Mavenir) or of VSL who held unexercised CTI stock options at the
time CTI suspended option exercises. The court also ruled that the
merits of the case would be evaluated under New York law.

As a result of this ruling (which excluded claims related to Verint
stock options from the case), one of the original plaintiffs in the
case, Ms. Deutsch, was replaced by a new representative plaintiff,
Mr. David Vaaknin. CTI appealed portions of the District Court's
ruling to the Israeli Supreme Court. On August 8, 2017, the Israeli
Supreme Court partially allowed CTI's appeal and ordered the case
to be returned to the District Court to determine whether a cause
of action exists under New York law based on the parties’ expert
opinions.

Following a second unsuccessful round of mediation in mid to late
2018, the proceedings resumed. The plaintiffs have filed a motion
to amend the class certification motion and CTI has filed a
corresponding motion to dismiss and a response. These motions are
now before the court following a third unsuccessful round of
mediation earlier this year.

Verint Systems Inc. provides actionable intelligence solutions
worldwide. Verint Systems Inc. was founded in 1994 and is
headquartered in Melville, New York.


VMWARE INC: Faces Winkler Class Action
--------------------------------------
VMware, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 6, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended November 1, 2019, that the company is facing a class
action suit initiated by Bernard Winkler.

On October 8, 2019, VMware completed the acquisition of Carbon
Black, a developer of cloud-native endpoint protection, in a cash
tender offer for all of the outstanding shares of Carbon Black’s
common stock, at a price of $26.00 per share.

On September 11, 2019, Bernard Winkler, a purported stockholder of
Carbon Black, filed a class action lawsuit against Carbon Black,
the Carbon Black Board and VMware in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act by causing a materially
incomplete and misleading Schedule 14D-9 Recommendation Statement
that was filed with the SEC on September 6, 2019, and against the
Carbon Black Board under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as
control persons.

As relief, the complaint seeks, among other things, rescission of
the proposed transaction or rescissory damages, an accounting by
defendants for all damages caused to the plaintiff and the class,
and the award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

Approximately seven similar lawsuits were filed in various district
courts around the country.

To date, no plaintiff has filed a motion seeking an injunction or
taken any other substantive action. The Company is unable at this
time to assess whether or to what extent it may be found liable
and, if found liable, what the damages may be, and believes a loss
is not probable and reasonably estimable.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against this matter.

VMware, Inc. originally pioneered the development and application
of virtualization technologies with x86 server-based computing,
separating application software from the underlying hardware. The
Company offers products that addresses a range of IT problems which
includes cost and operational inefficiencies, business continuity,
software lifecycle management, and desktop management. The company
is based in Palo Alto, California.


WAN HAO RESTAURANT: Zhang Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Xing Di Zhang, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. WAN HAO RESTAURANT INC d/b/a Royal Queen and d/b/a The
Real KTV; CONNIE YING ZHANG LIANG GAO, JI TI YANG, GUI YANG, ANDY
"DOE" and "JOHN" ZHENG, Case No. 1:19-cv-07266 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 29,
2019), is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed
widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in pattern
and practice of failing to pay its employees, including the
Plaintiff, minimum wage for each hour worked and overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to work as a Mechanic,
Handyman, Security Guard and did Miscellaneous works for the
Defendants at Royal Queen.

WAN HAO RESTAURANT INC., d/b/a Royal Queen and d/b/a The Real KTV,
is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the
State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Phone: (718) 762-1324


WEST COAST: Faces Pena Labor Suit in Sacramento California
----------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
West Coast Convenience, LLC. The case is captioned as Israel Pena,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. WEST COAST CONVENIENCE, LLC; VINTNERS DISTRIBUTORS,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00270377-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super.,
Sacramento Cty., Dec. 3, 2019).

West Coast Convenience, LLC is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by David Yeremian, Esq.


WILLIAMS INDUSTRIAL: 5th Cir. Affirms Shareholder Case Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has issued
a per curiam decision affirming the District Court's dismissal of a
consolidated action, which included Budde v. Global Power Equipment
Group Inc., according to Williams Industrial Services Group Inc.'s
Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 14, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2019.

Williams Industrial said, "The Company prevailed in a putative
shareholder class action, which was captioned Budde v. Global Power
Equipment Group Inc. and filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas naming the Company and certain former
officers as defendants.  This action and another action were filed
on May 13, 2015 and June 23, 2015, respectively and, on July 29,
2015, the court consolidated the two actions and appointed a lead
plaintiff.  Following the District Court's dismissal with prejudice
on September 11, 2018, Plaintiffs appealed the decision to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  The Fifth
Circuit held oral arguments on August 5, 2019.  Just 18 days later,
on August 23, 2019, the Fifth Circuit issued a per curiam decision
affirming the District Court's dismissal."

The Company further disclosed that the plaintiffs had until
November 21, 2019, to petition for certiorari review by the Supreme
Court of the United States.

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

Williams Industrial Services Group Inc. provides general and
specialty construction, maintenance and modification, and plant
management support services to the nuclear, hydro and fossil power
generation, pulp and paper, refining, petrochemical, and other
process and manufacturing industries. The company was formerly
known as Global Power Equipment Group Inc. and changed its name to
Williams Industrial Services Group Inc. in June 2018. Williams
Industrial Services Group Inc. was founded in 1998 and is based in
Tucker, Georgia.


ZENTAO INC: Shen Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Yuezeng Shen, and Hongliang Lin, on their own behalf and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. ZENTAO INC d/b/a Sushi Republic;
and ZENTAO NY LLC d/b/a Sushi Republic; YUAN XIANG CHEN, ZHENPING
LI, "JOHN" WANG, "JANE 01 DOE", and "JANE 02 DOE", Case No.
2:19-cv-07269 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 30, 2019), is brought against the
Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed
widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in pattern
and practice of failing to pay its employees, including the
Plaintiffs, minimum wage for each hour worked and overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek, says the
complaint.

tHE Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants to work as an Oil
Wok and as a Kitchen Worker.

ZENTAO NY LLC, d/b/a Sushi Republic, is a domestic business
corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
          Leanghour Lim, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Phone: (718) 762-1324



                            *********

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 2020. 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 ***