/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200117.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, January 17, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 13

                            Headlines

ACCENTURE PLC: Data Security Breach Class Suit Ongoing
ALL WEB LEADS: Deg Sues Over Unsolicited Calls That Violates TCPA
APYX MEDICAL: Bid to Dismiss Pritchard Class Action Underway
AYTU BIOSCIENCE: Kirschenbaum Sues over Defective Proxy Statement
BAOZUN INC: Klein Law Reminds Investors of Class Action

BAUDAX BIO: Bid to Nix Securities Suit vs. Recro Still Pending
BLACKBERRY LTD: Ontario Court Grants Class-Action Certification
BLOOM ENERGY: Faces Roberts, Bolouri Securities Suits in Calif.
BLOOM ENERGY: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Calif.
BROADCOM INC: Feb. 4 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Varjabedian Suit

C2 ENTERPRISES: De La Varga Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
CBDMD INC: Continues to Defend Davis Class Action in California
CELSION CORP: O'Connor Shareholder Derivative & Class Suit Underway
CIRKS CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Ortega Says
CONDOR HOSPITALITY: Plaintiffs to Drop Merger-Related Class Suits

CYS GROUP INC: Chatman Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
EM UNIVERSITY: Parties in Mayerova Suit Seek OK of Consent Decree
EN ENGINEERING: Reply on Rossman's Bid to Certify Due Jan. 23
EVOLENT HEALTH: Stage One Conditional FLSA Class Cert. Granted
FIBROCELL SCIENCE: Merger-Related Stockholder Class Suits Underway

FORT MYERS, FL: Bid for Class Certification Denied as Moot
FRANKLIN COLLECTION: Faces Hoestenbach Suit Over FDCPA Violation
GREEN DOT: Robbins LLP Says Purchaser Has Filed Class Suit
GREENSKY INC: Class Actions Underway in New York over IPO
GREIF INC: Suit over Noxious Odor at Wisconsin Plant Still Ongoing

GRUBHUB INC: Robbins LLP Reminds Investors of Class Action
GUARDIAN PEST SOLUTIONS: Draeger Suit Seeks Overtime Premiums
HALLCON CORP: Mount Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
HUGOTON ROYALTY: Chieftain Settlement Hearing Set for Jan. 20
IDEANOMICS INC: Defending Against Miranda Suit in New York

IROBOT CORPORATION: Frank R. Cruz Files Class Action Lawsuit
JPMORGAN CHASE: Milo Sues Over Denial of HAMP Incentive Payments
LAKE COUNTY, CA: Court Shelves Bid to Certify Class
LANDS' END: Andrews Sues Over Allergic Reaction to Delta Uniforms
MADONNA: Corwin Files 2nd Class Action Over Late Concert

MERCEDES-BENZ: Massive Settlement After Mold Found in HVAC Systems
MERIT MEDICAL: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of Feb. 3 Deadline
MYLAN NV: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of Feb. 14 Deadline
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces LaCour Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA
NETWORK 1: SCWorx Disputes Indemnification Claim

OSMOTICA PHARMA: Still Defends Consolidated Tello & Shumacher Suit
PFI WESTERN: Harris Sues Over Fraudulent Sale Discounting Scheme
PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA: Collective Action Notice Has Court Approval
PROTECTIVE LIFE: Still Defends Advance Trust Class Suit in Alabama
REV GROUP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit over 2017 IPO

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Wiltse Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA
SANDERSON FARMS: 2nd Circuit Upholds Dismissal Order
SANDERSON FARMS: Class Suit in North Carolina Remains Stayed
SANDERSON FARMS: Consumer Class Action in California Underway
SANDERSON FARMS: Maryland Employees Class Action Ongoing

SANDERSON FARMS: Stay in Broiler Chicken Suit Extends Until June 27
SECOND ROUND: Faces Shehadeh Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA
SGS AUTOMOTIVE: Carrol Seeks to Certify Class in TCPA Suit
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: 8 Class Suits Filed over IPO Documents
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Ciccio Suit over False Advertising Underway

SPACE AGE: Certification of Cable Installers Class Sought
SPECTRUM BRANDS: Bid to Nix Dane County Court Class Suit  Pending
SPECTRUM BRANDS: Bid to Nix Wisconsin Consolidated Suit Pending
STADION MONEY: Davis Benefits Claims Row Transferred to Nebraska
SUPER MICRO: Bid to Dismiss NY Trades Council & Hotel Suit Pending

SUPERCUTS INC: Delamarter FCRA Suit Removed to D. Minn.
TD AMERITRADE: 8th Cir. Appeal in Ford Class Suit Still Pending
TD AMERITRADE: Awaits Court OK on Ciuffitelli Class Settlements
THERMO FISHER: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Metzke Says
TRANSDEV SERVICES: Hakeem Seeks to Certify Three Classes

TRIWEST HEALTHCARE: Faces Schwarz Employment Suit in California
WALMART INC: Adolphus Fraud Suit Removed to C.D. California
WALMART INC: Dancy Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Missed Breaks
X FINANCIAL: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
YOGAWORKS INC: Bid to Dismiss Federal Court Suit Underway

ZYARA RESTAURANT: Restaurant Staff Seeks Overtime, Minimum Pay
ZYLA LIFE: Appeal from Dismissal of Securities Suit Still Pending

                        Asbestos Litigation



                            *********

ACCENTURE PLC: Data Security Breach Class Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Accenture PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 19, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit initiated by consumers of
Marriott International, Inc. related to the data security incident
involving unauthorized access to the reservations database of
Starwood Worldwide Resorts, Inc.

On July 24, 2019, Accenture was named in a putative class action
lawsuit filed by consumers of Marriott International, Inc. in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

The complaint alleges negligence by the company, and seeks monetary
damages, costs and attorneys' fees and other related relief,
relating to a data security incident involving unauthorized access
to the reservations database of Starwood Worldwide Resorts, Inc.,
which was acquired by Marriott on September 23, 2016.

Since 2009, the company had provided certain IT infrastructure
outsourcing services to Starwood.

Accenture said, "We believe the lawsuit is without merit and we
will vigorously defend it. We cannot reasonably estimate a range of
loss, if any, at this time."

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

Accenture PLC provides management and technology consulting
services and solutions. The Company delivers a range of specialized
capabilities and solutions to clients across all industries on a
worldwide basis. Accenture operates a network of businesses
provides consulting, technology, outsourcing, and alliances. The
company is based in Dublin, Ireland.

ALL WEB LEADS: Deg Sues Over Unsolicited Calls That Violates TCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zachary Deg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ALL WEB LEADS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. 2:20-at-00042 (E.D. Cal., Jan. 13, 2020), seeks damages
and other remedies resulting 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, and related regulations, specifically the
National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby, invading the Plaintiff's
privacy.

According to the complaint, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff
on the Plaintiff's cellular telephone numbers in an attempt to
solicit the Plaintiff to purchase the Defendant's services. The
Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency
purposes. The Defendant did not possess Plaintiff's "prior express
consent" to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing
system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on its cellular
telephones.

The Plaintiff is a natural person residing in Stockton, California.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant failed to establish and
implement reasonable practices and procedures to effectively
prevent telephone solicitations in violation of the TCPA.

ALL WEB LEADS, INC. is an entity in the internet marketing service
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


APYX MEDICAL: Bid to Dismiss Pritchard Class Action Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
APYX Medical Corporation and Charles D. Goodwin's motion to dismiss
the amended complaint in a class action initiated by plaintiff Kyle
Pritchard remains pending, according to APYX Medical's Form 10-Q
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November
15, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019.

On April 17, 2019, a complaint (the "Complaint") was filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida by
plaintiff Kyle Pritchard, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated against the Company and Charles D. Goodwin
("Goodwin"), the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer
and a member of the Company's Board of Directors, alleging certain
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

On July 16, 2019, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff for the
putative class and approved the lead plaintiff's selection of
counsel.  On or about September 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint (the "Amended Complaint") with the Court.

The Amended Complaint seeks class action status on behalf of all
persons and entities that acquired the Company's securities between
December 21, 2018 and April 1, 2019 and alleges violations by the
Company and Goodwin of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5 thereunder,
primarily related to certain public statements concerning the
Premarket Notification 510(k) submission made to the US Food and
Drug Administration for a new indication for the Company's
J-Plasma(R) technology for use in dermal resurfacing procedures.
The Amended Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, an award of interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, expert
fees and other costs, and equitable relief as the court may deem
just and proper.

On October 3, 2019, the Company and Goodwin filed a Motion to
Dismiss the Amended Complaint.  Plaintiff's opposition to the
motion to dismiss was served on November 4, 2019.

Although the ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined
with certainty, the Company believes that the allegations stated in
the Amended Complaint are entirely without merit.  The Company and
Goodwin intend to defend themselves vigorously in the suit.

The Company said, "In the opinion of management, such claims are
adequately covered by insurance, however, in the event that damages
exceed the aggregate coverage limits of our policy or if our
insurance carriers disclaim coverage, we believe it is possible
that costs associated with this claim could have a material adverse
impact on our consolidated earnings, financial position or cash
flows.  Under the deductible portion of our insurance coverage, we
have accrued US$500,000 for initial defense costs."

APYX Medical Corporation is a medical technology company and the
developer of J-Plasma(R) (marketed and sold under the Renuvion(R)
Cosmetic Technology brand in the cosmetic surgery market), a
patented plasma-based surgical product for cutting, coagulation and
ablation of soft tissue.  The company also leverages its expertise
through original equipment manufacturing (OEM) agreements with
other medical device manufacturers. The company is based in
Clearwater, Florida.


AYTU BIOSCIENCE: Kirschenbaum Sues over Defective Proxy Statement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM KIRSCHENBAUM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AYTU BIOSCIENCE INC.; JOSHUA R.
DISBROW; STEVEN BOYD; GARY CANTRELL; CARL C. DOCKERY; JOHN
DONOFRIO; MICHAEL MACALUSO and KETAN MEHTA, Defendants, Case No.
2019-0984 (Del. Ch., Dec. 10, 2019) is an action arising from
breaches of fiduciary duty by the Aytu Board in connection with the
Board's dissemination of a materially omissive proxy statement,
which solicits stockholder approval in connection with two separate
transactions that have increased Aytu's largest stockholder's
ownership and control of the Company at a time when Aytu's stock is
trading at a depressed price of less than $1.00 per share.

According to the complaint, Armistice Capital, LLC is Aytu's
largest stockholder, and Armistice Capital's Chief Investment
Officer ("CIO") and founder, Steven Boyd ("Boyd"), is a member of
the Aytu Board. Boyd is also a member of the board of directors of
Cerecor Inc. ("Cerecor"), and Armistice Capital is Cerecor's
majority stockholder.

On October 10, 2019, Aytu entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement
with Cerecor pursuant to which the Company agreed to purchase
certain assets, and assume certain liabilities, from Cerecor. In
connection with the Acquisition, Aytu agreed to pay Cerecor
aggregate consideration of approximately $32 million, consisting
of: (i) $4.5 million in cash; (ii) $12.5 million in shares of Aytu
Series G Preferred Stock; and (iii) the assumption of $16.575
million of obligations owed by Cerecor. The Series G Preferred
Stock is convertible into Aytu common stock under certain
conditions.

Separately, on October 11, 2019, Aytu entered into Securities
Purchase Agreements with two investors –– Armistice Capital and
Altium Capital Management, LP -- providing for the issuance and
sale by Aytu of $10.0 million of: (i) shares of Aytu Series F
Convertible Preferred Stock (the "Series F Preferred Stock"), which
are convertible into shares of Aytu common stock under certain
conditions; and (ii) warrants, which are exercisable for shares of
Aytu common stock with an exercise price of $1.25 per share. On
October 16, 2019, Aytu closed the Offering and received net
proceeds of approximately $9.2 million.

On November 4, 2019, Aytu filed a preliminary proxy statement with
the SEC soliciting the requisite stockholder approval of (i) the
Proposals and (ii) a charter amendment that would double the amount
of the Company's authorized shares of common stock.

Subsequently, on November 26, 2019, Aytu filed a Form 8-K with the
SEC reporting that it "reschedule[d] the special meeting of
stockholders tentatively scheduled for December 13, 2019 . . .
until sometime in the first quarter of 2020."

The Proxy is materially deficient that it deprives Aytu
stockholders of any meaningful way to assess the reasonableness of
the process leading to -- or the financial fairness of -- the
Purchase Agreements or the Acquisition. The Proxy fails to
disclose, among other things: a) Anything regarding the process or
negotiations (if any) culminating in the Purchase Agreements or
Acquisition (including whether any measures were implemented by the
Aytu Board to protect against conflicts of interest, and whether
Boyd voted on the approval of the Purchase Agreements or
Acquisition); b) Whether the Board explored any alternatives to the
Purchase Agreements or Acquisition; c) Whether the Board retained
and/or consulted with any financial advisors in connection with the
Purchase Agreements and/or the Acquisition; d) A summary of any
financial analysis prepared by any such financial advisor; e) A
summary of any such financial advisor's prior and present
engagements with Aytu, Armistice Capital, and/or Cerecor, and the
compensation that has been and/or will be received by any such
financial advisor therefrom; or f) The nature and amount of the
compensation payable to any such financial advisor for its services
in connection with the Purchase Agreements and/or the Acquisition.

Aytu BioScience, Inc. operates as a specialty healthcare company.
The Company concentrates on acquiring, developing, and
commercializing products focused primarily on sexual disfunction
disorders, urological cancer, urinary tract infections, and male
infertility. Aytu Bioscience serves patients and customers
worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
         COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
         1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 1120
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Telephone: (302) 984-3800

              - and -

         D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         KASKELA LAW LLC
         18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100
         Newtown Square, PA 19073
         Telephone: (888) 715-1740


BAOZUN INC: Klein Law Reminds Investors of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Baozun Inc. (BZUN). There is no
cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you have
until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint
you as lead plaintiff.

Baozun Inc. (BZUN)
Class Period: Baozun American Depository Receipts between March 6,
2019 and November 20, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 10, 2020

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Baozun Inc.
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (a) Baozun was heavily reliant upon a single brand
partner, Huawei, for the exponential service fee growth it had been
reporting historically, which was in turn fueling its historical
revenue growth; (b) compared to other brands Baozun had as brand
partners, the Huawei work had historically included a lot of
additional add-on service fees, increasing the revenue reported
from Huawei vis-a-via its other brand partners; (c) Huawei, like
other large brands, was actively preparing to bring its online
merchandising in-house, meaning Baozun knew that it was losing a
significant brand partner; and (d) as a result of the foregoing,
the Company was not on track to achieve the financial results and
performance Defendants claimed the Company was on track to achieve
during the class period.

Learn about your recoverable losses in BZUN:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/baozun-inc-loss-submission-form?id=4999&from=1

Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.

Contact:

         J. Klein, Esq.
         Empire State Building
         350 Fifth Avenue
         59th Floor
         New York, NY 10118
         Telephone: (212) 616-4899
         Fax: (347) 558-9665
         Website: www.kleinstocklaw.com
         E-mail: jk@kleinstocklaw.com
[GN]



BAUDAX BIO: Bid to Nix Securities Suit vs. Recro Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the securities class action lawsuit against
Acute Care Business of Recro Pharma, Inc. remains pending in
Pennsylvania, according to Baudax Bio, 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.

On May 31, 2018, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against Recro and certain of Recro's officers and directors in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case
No. 2:18-cv-02279-MMB) that purported to state a claim for alleged
violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10(b)(5) promulgated thereunder, based on statements made by the
Company concerning the NDA for IV meloxicam.  The complaint seeks
unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs.

On December 10, 2018, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
that asserted the same claims and sought the same relief but
included new allegations and named additional officers and
directors as defendants.

On February 8, 2019, Recro filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint in its entirety, which the lead plaintiff opposed on
April 9, 2019.

On May 9, 2019, the Company filed its response and briefing was
completed on the motion to dismiss.

On June 26, 2019, the judge heard oral arguments on the motion to
dismiss.  The judge asked the plaintiffs to file a supplemental
brief, which was completed on August 30, 2019, and Recro submitted
a reply brief on September 27, 2019.

Baudax Bio said, "As part of the Separation, we are assuming all
liabilities related to this litigation from Recro.  We believe that
the lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend
against it.  The lawsuit is in the early stages and, at this time,
no assessment can be made as to its likely outcome or whether the
outcome will be material to us."

Baudax Bio, Inc., a pharmaceutical company, develops and
commercializes innovative products for acute care settings.  The
Company is headquartered in Malvern, Pennsylvania.


BLACKBERRY LTD: Ontario Court Grants Class-Action Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shruti Shekar, writing for the Mobile Syrup, reports that the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice has granted certification for a
class-action lawsuit to proceed with respect to several former
BlackBerry employees.

The employees stated that their work was terminated when BlackBerry
allowed its business partner Ford Motor of Canada to offer new
employment "without providing any offer of continued employment
with BlackBerry."

A press release from the plaintiffs' law firm, Nelligan O'Brien
Payne, indicated that the employees are seeking severance
entitlements from BlackBerry, as well as "aggravated and punitive
damages" for the company's actions.

David Parker, a former employee of BlackBerry, indicated when he
started the action in 2017 that BlackBerry did not offer him any
certainty about his future with the company after going to work for
Ford.

Most of the 300 that are part of the class-action are based in
Waterloo and Ottawa, while others are around Ontario and Nova
Scotia.

If you think you are an employee that suffered, the law firm asks
you to join the class-action. [GN]



BLOOM ENERGY: Faces Roberts, Bolouri Securities Suits in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bloom Energy Corporation continues to defend itself against
securities class suits initiated by Elissa Roberts and by Michael
Bolouri in the federal district court for the Northern District of
California, 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 May 2019, Elissa Roberts filed a class action complaint in the
federal district court for the Northern District of California
against the Company, certain members of the Company's senior
management team, and certain of the Company's directors alleging
violations under Section 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, for alleged misleading statements or omissions in the
Company's Form S-1 Registration Statement filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission in connection with the Company's July 25,
2018 initial public offering.

On September 3, James Hunt was appointed as lead plaintiff and Levi
& Korsinsky was appointed as plaintiff's counsel.

On November 4, 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding
the underwriters in the Company's initial public offering, claims
under Sections 10b and 20a of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and extending the class period to September 16, 2019.

The Company believes the complaint to be without merit and intends
to vigorously defend.

In November 2019, Michael Bolouri filed a class action complaint in
the federal district court for the Northern District of California
against the Company, certain members of the Company's senior
management, certain of the Company's directors and the underwriters
in the Company's initial public offering, alleging violations under
Section 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and
violations under Sections 10b and 20a of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 for alleged misleading statements or omissions in the
Company's Form S-1 Registration Statement filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission in connection with the Company's July 25,
2018 initial public offering and continuing through September 16,
2019.  The Company said, "We believe this is a related case to the
Roberts class action and we will seek to have it so determined and
ultimately consolidated therewith."

Bloom Energy Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells
solid-oxide fuel cell systems for on-site power generation. The
company was formerly known as Ion America Corp. and changed its
name to Bloom Energy Corporation in September 2006. Bloom Energy
Corporation was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in San Jose,
California.


BLOOM ENERGY: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bloom Energy Corporation continues to face a consolidated
securities suit pending in Santa Clara County Superior Court,
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 March 2019, the Lincolnshire Police Pension fund filed a class
action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Santa Clara, against the Company, certain members of the
Company's senior management, certain of the Company's directors and
the underwriters in the Company's initial public offering alleging
violations under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, for alleged misleading statements or omissions in the
Company's Form S-1 Registration Statement filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission in connection with the Company's July 25,
2018 initial public offering.

Two related class action cases were subsequently filed in the Santa
Clara County Superior Court against the same defendants containing
the same allegations; Rodriquez vs Bloom Energy et al. was filed on
April 22, 2019 and Evans vs Bloom Energy et al. was filed on May 7,
2019.

These cases have been consolidated.  Plaintiffs' Consolidated
Amended Complaint was filed with the court on September 12, 2019.

On October 4, 2019, defendants moved to stay the lawsuit pending a
related federal district court action.  The hearing on the motion
to stay was set for December 13, 2019.  Discovery is currently
stayed.

The Company said it believes the complaint to be without merit and
intends to vigorously defend.

Bloom Energy Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells
solid-oxide fuel cell systems for on-site power generation. The
company was formerly known as Ion America Corp. and changed its
name to Bloom Energy Corporation in September 2006. Bloom Energy
Corporation was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in San Jose,
California.


BROADCOM INC: Feb. 4 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Varjabedian Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Broadcom Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 20, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended November 3, 2019, that the hearing to consider
the defendants' motion to dismiss the class action suit entitled,
Gary Varjabedian, et al. v. Emulex Corporation, et al., is set to
be heard on February 4, 2020.

Emulex and its directors, filed motions to dismiss the complaint,
which are set to be heard on February 4, 2020.

On April 8, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. Central District Court, entitled Gary Varjabedian, et al.
v. Emulex Corporation, et al., No. 8:15-cv-554-CJC-JCG.

The complaint names as defendants Emulex Corporation, its
directors, AT Wireless and Emerald Merger Sub, and purported to
assert claims under Sections 14(d), 14(e) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the board of
directors of Emulex failed to provide material information and/or
omitted material information from the Solicitation/Recommendation
Statement on Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC on April 7, 2015 by
Emulex, together with the exhibits and annexes thereto.

The complaint sought to enjoin the tender offer to purchase all of
the outstanding shares of Emulex common stock, as well as certain
other equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 28, 2015, the U.S. Central District Court issued an order
appointing the lead plaintiff and approving lead counsel for the
putative class. On September 9, 2015, plaintiff filed a first
amended complaint seeking rescission of the merger, unspecified
money damages, other equitable relief and attorneys' fees and
costs.

On October 13, 2015, defendants moved to dismiss the first amended
complaint, which the U.S. Central District Court granted with
prejudice on January 13, 2016. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the
"Ninth Circuit Court") on January 15, 2016.

The appeal is captioned Gary Varjabedian, et al. v. Emulex
Corporation, et al., No. 16-55088. On June 27, 2016, the
Plaintiff-Appellant filed his opening brief, on August 17 and
August 22, 2016, the Defendants-Appellees filed their answering
briefs, and on October 5, 2016 Plaintiff-Appellant filed his reply
brief.

The Ninth Circuit Court heard oral arguments on October 5, 2017. On
April 20, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court issued an opinion affirming
in part and reversing in part the decision of the U.S. Central
District Court and remanding Plaintiff-Appellant's claims under
Sections 14(e) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act to the U.S. Central
District Court for reconsideration.

On May 4, 2018, the Defendants-Appellees filed a Petition for
Rehearing En Banc with the Ninth Circuit Court. On July 13, 2018,
Plaintiff-Appellant filed an Opposition to the Petition for
Rehearing En Banc. On September 6, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court
issued an order denying the Petition for Rehearing En Banc. On
October 11, 2018, Defendants-Appellees filed a Petition for a Writ
of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.

On January 4, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari. On
April 23, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the writ of
certiorari as having been improvidently granted. On May 28, 2019,
the Ninth Circuit Court remanded the case back to the U.S. Central
District Court.

On October 6, 2019, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed AT Wireless
from this action. On October 7, 2019, the remaining defendants,
Emulex and its directors, filed motions to dismiss the complaint,
which are set to be heard on February 4, 2020.

Broadcom said, "We believe these claims are all without merit and
intend to vigorously defend these actions."

Broadcom Inc. designs, develops, and supplies a range of
semiconductor devices with a focus on complex digital and mixed
signal complementary metal oxide semiconductor based devices and
analog III-V based products worldwide. The company operates through
four segments: Wired Infrastructure, Wireless Communications,
Enterprise Storage, and Industrial & Other.  Broadcom Inc. is based
in San Jose, California.



C2 ENTERPRISES: De La Varga Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned D'Ana De La Varga, as an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. C2
Enterprises, LLC and Does 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No.
37-2019 00029171, (Cal. Super., October 24, 2019) was removed to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on December 23, 2019 and assigned Case No. 19-cv-02474.

De La Varga claims for relief for C2's alleged failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest periods, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure
to pay final wages and unfair competition during the time Dela
Varga was assigned to the Marine Corps Air Station Miramar.

Defendants cite that the case is a civil action "arising under the
Constitution, laws, or 18 treaties of the United States" as basis
for removal as the station is a federal enclave. [BN]

De La Varga is represented by:

       William B. Sullivan
       Eric K. Yaeckel
       Ryan T. Kuhn
       Andrea J. Torres Figueroa
       SULLIVAN LAW GROUP, APC
       2330 Third Avenue
       San Diego, CA 92101
       Telephone: (619) 702-6760
       Facsimile: (619)702-6761
       E-Mail: helen@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
               yaeckel@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
               ryan@swl1vanlawgroupapc.com
               atorres@sullivanlawgroupapc.com

C2 is represented by:

      Grace Y. Horoupian, Esq.
      FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
      2050 Main Street. Suite 1000
      Irvine, CA 92614
      Telephone: (949) 851-2424
      Facsimile: (949) 851-0151
      E-Mail: ghoroupian@fisherphillips.com

              - and -

      Shaun J. Voigt, Esq.
      Megan E. Walker (SBN 299834)
      FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
      4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000
      San Diego, CA 92121
      Telephone: (858) 597-9600
      Facsimile: (858) 597-9601
      E-Mail: svoigt@fisherphillips.com
              mewalker@fisherphillips.com


CBDMD INC: Continues to Defend Davis Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
cbdMD, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit initiated by Cynthia Davis.

In December 2019, Cynthia Davis filed a purported collective and
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California against the Company and certain of
the Company's competitors alleging violations of the California's
Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law and
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, as well as claims for
Breach of Express Warranties, Breach of Implied Warranty of
Merchantability and Declaratory Relief.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company violated the California Laws
by unlawfully selling and marketing mislabeled products which have
not been approved by the FDA. The Complaint was brought as a
nationwide "collective action," and, alternatively, as a "class
action" under the laws of the State of California.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this action.

cbdMD said, "This case is at an early stage, and the Company is
therefore unable to make a reasonable estimate of the probable loss
or range of losses, if any, that might arise from this matter."

cbdMD, Inc. was originally founded in 2015 as an innovative
branding and marketing company with a focus on lifestyle-based
brands. In December 2018 pursuant to a two-step merger, the company
acquired Cure Based Development LLC following the passage of the
United States Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018, commonly known
as the "Farm Bill", which contained a permanent declassification of
cannabidiol (CBD) as a controlled substance under federal law. As a
result of that transaction, the company owns and operates the
nationally recognized CBD brand cbdMD which now represent the
company's focus and substantially all of its revenues. The company
is based in Charlotte, North Carolina.


CELSION CORP: O'Connor Shareholder Derivative & Class Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Celsion Corporation is facing a derivative and putative class
action lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery
Division, styled O'Connor v. Braun et al., Docket No.
MER-C-000068-19, according to the Company'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.

On September 20, 2019, a purported stockholder of the Company filed
the action against the Company (as both a class action defendant
and nominal defendant), certain officers and directors.

The Shareholder Action alleges breaches of the defendants'
fiduciary based on allegations that the Defendants made or approved
improper statements when seeking shareholder approval of the 2018
Stock Incentive Plan.  The Shareholder Action seeks, among other
things, any damages sustained by the Company as a result of the
defendants' alleged wrongdoing, a declaratory judgment against all
defendants invalidating the 2018 Stock Incentive Plan and declaring
any awards made under the Plan invalid, rescinded, and subject to
disgorgement, an order disgorging the equity awards granted to the
individual defendants under the 2018 Stock Incentive Plan, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Celsion Corporation, a development stage oncology drug company,
focuses on the development and commercialization of directed
chemotherapies, DNA-mediated immunotherapy, and RNA based therapies
for the treatment of cancer. Its lead product candidate is
ThermoDox, a liposomal encapsulation of doxorubicin that is in
Phase III clinical trial for treating primary liver cancer. The
company is also developing GEN-1, a DNA-based immunotherapeutic
product for the localized treatment of ovarian and brain cancers.
Celsion Corporation was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in
Lawrenceville, New Jersey.


CIRKS CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Ortega Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS ORTEGA, individually, and on behalf of all other members of
the public similarly situated v. CIRKS CONSTRUCTION INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No.
CGC-19-581931 (Cal. Super., Dec. 31, 2019), alleges that the
Defendants violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay
overtime and minimum wages, to provide meal periods, to authorize
and permit rest periods, to maintain payroll records, to pay wages
timely upon termination and to provide reporting time pay.

The Defendants employed the Plaintiff as an hourly paid, non-exempt
Service and Maintenance Technician from October 2014 to March 2019.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants out of one of their Northern
California locations in San Leandro, California.

During his employment, the Plaintiff says he typically worked 10
hours or more per day, five days per week, from 6:00 a.m. to 4:00
p.m. The Plaintiff's primary job duties included performing
maintenance work on plumbing and electrical panels, documenting
service/job progress, taking photos and measurements of project
sites as needed, and communicating with supervisors or dispatch
when there was an urgent issue.

The Plaintiff alleges that he and class members were entitled to be
paid at a regular rate of pay, and corresponding overtime rate of
pay, that included as eligible income all income derived from
incentive pay, nondiscretionary bonuses, and/or other forms of
compensation. He contends that the Defendants knew or should have
known that he and class members were entitled to receive at least
minimum wages for compensation and that they were not receiving at
least minimum wages for work that was required to be done
off-the-clock.

The Defendants are a construction company and facility services
provider primarily operating in California and the surrounding
states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark A. Ozzello, Esq.
          Brandon Brouillette, Esq.
          Brooke W. Waldrop, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: Mark.Ozzello@capstonelawyers.com
                  Brandon.Brouillette@capstonelawyers.com
                  Brooke.Waldrop@capstonelawyers.com


CONDOR HOSPITALITY: Plaintiffs to Drop Merger-Related Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Condor Hospitality Trust, 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 named plaintiffs in the
merger-related complaints have agreed to request voluntary
discontinuance of their lawsuits with prejudice as to Plaintiffs
only, and without prejudice as to the putative class, within three
business days of the closing of the transactions contemplated by
the Merger Agreement.

On August 20, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company and each of the Company directors, the
operating partnership, Parent, Merger Sub, Merger OP and NHT in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware under the
caption Graham v. Condor Hospitality Trust, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 1:19-cv-01552.

A second putative class action complaint was filed on August 23,
2019 against the Company and each of the Company directors, the
Operating Partnership, Parent, Merger Sub and Merger OP in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware under the
caption Sabatini v. Condor Hospitality Trust, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 1:19-cv-01564.

On August 26, 2019, a third putative class action was filed against
the Company and each of the Company's directors in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York under
the caption Raul v. Condor Hospitality Trust, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 1:19-cv-07968.

The complaints (collectively, the "Merger Litigation") assert
claims, purportedly brought on behalf of a class of shareholders,
under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and SEC Rule 14a-9, and allege that the preliminary proxy
statement filed by the Company with the SEC on Schedule 14A with
respect to the special shareholders meeting for approval and
adoption of the Merger Agreement contained materially incomplete
and misleading disclosures relating to, in pertinent part,
financial analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor,
financial projections, the sale process leading to the proposed
transactions and potential financial advisor conflicts.

Each of the complaints seek, among other things, injunctive relief
enjoining defendants from taking steps to consummate the proposed
transactions and damages, along with fees and costs.  The
defendants believe that the claims asserted in these suits are
without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously.  

The Company filed a Definitive Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on
August 28, 2019 (the "Definitive Proxy Statement") and mailed to
Company shareholders in connection with the solicitation of proxies
for use at the special meeting of shareholders of the Company held
on September 23, 2019.  While the Company believes that no
supplemental disclosure was required to be made to Definitive Proxy
Statement under applicable law and that the claims asserted in the
Merger Litigation are without merit, in order to avoid the risk of
the Merger Litigation delaying or adversely affecting the Company
merger and to minimize the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent
in litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing,
the Company determined to voluntarily supplement the Definitive
Proxy Statement on September 16, 2019.

The Company said, "The named plaintiffs in the Merger Litigation
("Plaintiffs") have agreed to request voluntary discontinuance of
the Merger Litigation with prejudice as to Plaintiffs only, and
without prejudice as to the putative class, within three business
days of the closing of the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement."


CYS GROUP INC: Chatman Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
------------------------------------------------------
Celetha Chatman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. CYS Group, Inc., Chicago Mutual Real
Estate Group Inc. d/b/a Best Chicago Wholesale Deals and Russell
Walker, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-08401 (N.D. Ill., December 20,
2019), seeks injunctive relief, statutory and treble damages in
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

CYS Group, Inc. operates as Celebrate Your Sexy while Chicago
Mutual Real Estate Group operates as Best Chicago Wholesale Deals.
Russell Walker is the President of Chicago Mutual Real Estate Group
Inc. Both contacted Chatman via SMS on her cellular telephone in an
attempt to solicit their products and/or services using an
automatic telephone dialing system. Chatman did not give her
express consent to be contact in this manner. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael W. Drew, Esq.
      NEIGHBORHOOD LEGAL LLC
      20 N. Clark Suite 3300
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 967-7220
      Email: mwd@neighborhood-legal.com


EM UNIVERSITY: Parties in Mayerova Suit Seek OK of Consent Decree
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MARIE MAYEROVA and ARIANA CHRETIEN,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v.
EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY, JAMES SMITH, SCOTT WETHERBEE, and THE
BOARD OF REGENTS, Case No. 2:18-cv-11909-GCS-RSW (E.D. Mich.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying all claims as a class action for settlement
      purposes pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the
      Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of a class
      defined as:

      All female students and prospective students who enrolled
      at, applied for admission to, or were deterred from
      applying for admission due to the University's alleged sex
      discrimination in allocation of athletic participation
      opportunities or the allocation of athletic financial
      assistance and benefits provided to varsity athletes to,
      Eastern Michigan University since June 15, 2015, as well as
      future female students and prospective students;

   2. preliminarily approving the proposed Consent Decree;

   3. approving the proposed Class Notice; and

   4. setting a date for a "Fairness Hearing" pursuant to
      Rule 23(e)(2).

Plaintiffs Marie Mayerova and Ariana Chretien are female students
and varsity athletes at Defendant Eastern Michigan University
("EMU" or the "University").  They filed suit against the
Defendants on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons
(collectively, the "Student-Athletes") to enforce their rights
under the Fourteenth Amendment, Title IX of the Educational
Amendments of 1972 and Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights
Act.  The Student-Athletes allege that EMU's varsity athletic
programs have not complied with Title IX since at least 2003.  EMU
has agreed to take steps which the Parties agree will constitute
compliance with all applicable federal and state laws.

The Student-Athletes allege that EMU violates Title IX by, among
other things: (1) failing to provide female students with an equal
opportunity to participate in varsity intercollegiate athletics;
(2) failing to provide female student-athletes with equal access to
athletic financial assistance; and (3) failing to provide female
student-athletes with the same or comparable benefits provided to
male student-athletes.  EMU denied the allegations or that any
Title IX violation, discrimination, or violation of constitutional
rights has occurred.

To this end, the Student-Athletes and the Defendants (jointly the
"Parties") have agreed to class certification to enable the Court
to approve a remedy for both the named Plaintiffs and the proposed
class.

After months of negotiations, the parties reached an agreement to
settle the litigation. The proposed Consent Decree resolves each
claim asserted in this lawsuit.

As part of the proposed Consent Decree, EMU "agrees to take
necessary and reasonable steps to achieve sustainable Substantial
Proportionality between the ratio of male to female
student-athletes participating in its varsity sports programs in
comparison to the ratio of male to female full-time undergraduate
students attending the University," and sets forth specific actions
designed to achieve "substantial proportionality" by the end of the
2022-23 academic year.

The proposed Consent Decree also: places limits on EMU's ability to
eliminate any women's sports programs; requires EMU to continue to
sponsor women's tennis; establishes a new women's sport (lacrosse);
and provides a mechanism for expanding support for existing women's
teams.

To monitor compliance, the proposed Consent Decree provides that
the parties will agree upon, and the Court will appoint a
"Referee," requires EMU to provide certain information to the
Referee; and requires the Referee to prepare an annual Report and
Recommendation summarizing the University's compliance with this
Consent Decree.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jill Zwagerman, Esq.
          Beatriz Mate-Kodjo, Esq.
          Lori Bullock, Esq.
          NEWKIRK ZWAGERMAN, PLC
          521 E. Locust Street, Suite 300
          Des Moines, IA 50309
          Telephone: (515) 883-2000
          Facsimile: (515) 883-2004
          E-mail: jzwagerman@newkirklaw.com
                  bmate-kodjo@newkirklaw.com
                  lbullock@newkirklaw.com

               - and -

          Brian E. Koncius, Esq.
          BOGAS & KONCIUS, PC
          31700 Telegraph Road, Suite 160
          Bingham Farms, MI 48025
          Telephone: (248) 502-5001
          E-mail: bkoncius@kbogaslaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian M. Schwartz, Esq.
          Robert T. Zielinski, Esq.
          Megan P. Norris, Esq.
          Jacob Hogg, Esq.
          MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND STONE, P.L.C.
          150 West Jefferson, Suite 2500
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 963-6420
          E-mail: schwartzb@millercanfield.com
                  zielinski@millercanfield.com
                  norris@millercanfield.com
                  hogg@millercanfield.com


EN ENGINEERING: Reply on Rossman's Bid to Certify Due Jan. 23
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Edmond E. Chang rules in the lawsuit entitled Kevin
Rossman v. EN Engineering, LLC, Case No. 1:19−cv−05768 (N.D.
Ill.), that on the Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification, the defense response is due by January 23, 2020.

The Plaintiff's reply is due by February 3, 2020.  The Plaintiff's
motion to seal is provisionally granted.

"The Court will again review the propriety of sealing when
evaluating the underlying motion, but the Court does note that the
defense (which marked the documents as confidential) must consider
the strict standards for sealing in this Circuit.  Baxter Int'l v.
Abbott Laboratories, 297 F.3d 544, 546−47 (7th Cir. 2002); Union
Oil v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 567−68 (7th Cir. 2000).  It will
not do to over-seal and then force the Court to issue a rule to
show cause why documents were inappropriately sealed," Judge Chang
rules.[CC]


EVOLENT HEALTH: Stage One Conditional FLSA Class Cert. Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Martin Torres, the Plaintiff,
v. Evolent Health LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02887 (N.D.
Ill.), the Hon. Judge Virginia M. Kendall entered an order granting
Plaintiff's unopposed motion for stage one conditional Fair Labor
Standards Act class certification.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on Jan. 6, 2020,
the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for stage one conditional FLSA
class certification and unopposed motion for leave to file first
amended complaint are granted.

A motion hearing set for Jan. 9, 2020, was stricken.

Evolent operates health care supply chain.[CC]

Plaintiff Martin Torres represented by:

     Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
     Law Office Of James X. Bormes, P.C.
     Tel: 312-201-0575
     E-mail: cpsons@bormeslaw.com

          - and -

     Thomas Michael Ryan, Esq.
     Law Offices Of Thomas Ryan
     Tel: 312-726-3400
     E-mail: tom@tomryanlaw.com

          - and -

     James X. Bormes, Esq.
     Law Office Of James X. Bormes
     Tel: 312-201-0575
     E-mail: bormeslaw@sbcglobal.net

Defendant Evolent Health LLC is represented by:

     Joel H. Spitz, Esq.
     Melissa Marie Weiss, Esq.
     Michael Ross Phillips, Esq.
     McGuirewoods LLP
     Tel: 312-849-8185
     E-mail: jspitz@mcguirewoods.com
             mweiss@mcguirewoods.com
             mphillips@mcguirewoods.com


FIBROCELL SCIENCE: Merger-Related Stockholder Class Suits Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fibrocell Science, Inc. is facing putative stockholder class
actions in New York and in Delaware, according to the Company'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.

On October 18, 2019, October 25, 2019, and November 11, 2019,
putative stockholder class actions were filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York styled,
respectively, Gonzalez-Aldama v. Fibrocell Science, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-09659 (S.D.N.Y.) Braschuk v. Fibrocell Science,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-09915 (S.D.N.Y.) and Burnaska v.
Fibrocell Science, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-10450
(S.D.N.Y.).

Additionally, on October 23, 2019, a putative stockholder class
action was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware styled Franchi v. Fibrocell Science, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02001 (D. Del.) (together with the
Gonzalez-Aldama, Braschuk and Burnaska actions, the Stockholder
Actions).

The Stockholder Actions assert claims against the Company and
members of the Company's board of directors (the Individual
Defendants).

The complaints in the Stockholder Actions allege that the Company
and the Individual Defendants violated Section 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act), and
Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose in the
preliminary proxy statement regarding the Merger that the Company
filed with the SEC on Schedule 14-A on October 11, 2019 (the Proxy
Statement) certain financial data regarding the Company, including
certain inputs regarding Canaccord Genuity Group Inc.'s financial
analyses of the Company, and the substance of confidentiality
agreements that may have been executed in relation to the Merger.

The complaint in the Burnaska action also alleges that the Proxy
Statement omitted information regarding alleged conflicts of
interest relating to post-transaction employment of, and benefits
to members of the Company's management.  The complaints in the
Stockholder Actions also allege that the Individual Defendants
violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as control persons who
had the ability to prevent the Proxy Statement from being false and
misleading.  The Stockholder Actions seek, among other things, an
injunction preventing consummation of the Merger, an award of
damages, and an award of costs and expenses, including attorneys'
fees.

On October 30, 2019, plaintiff Braschuk sent a letter to the
Company's counsel demanding that the defendants issue an amendment
to the Proxy Statement that provides additional disclosures that
plaintiff Braschuk alleges were improperly omitted from the Proxy
Statement.

On November 11, 2019, plaintiff Burnaska sent a similar letter the
Company's counsel demanding that the defendants issue an amendment
to the Proxy Statement that provides additional disclosures.

The Company intends to defend against the Stockholder Actions,
however it's reasonably possible that a loss may be incurred.  At
this time, the Company is unable to estimate the potential loss or
range of losses.

Fibrocell Science, Inc. is a cell and gene therapy company focused
on improving the lives of people with rare diseases of the skin and
connective tissue.  The Company is utilizing its proprietary
autologous fibroblast technology to develop personalized biologics
that target the underlying cause of disease.  The Company is
headquartered in Exton, Pennsylvania.


FORT MYERS, FL: Bid for Class Certification Denied as Moot
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DERETHA MILLER, TAMBITHA
BLANKS and WILLIE BLANKS, individually, and on behalf of a class of
persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. THE CITY OF FORT
MYERS, RANDALL P. HENDERSON, JR. and SAEED KAZEMI, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-195-FtM-38NPM (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Sheri
Polster Chappel entered an order on Jan. 6, 2020:

   1. granting Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment
      on Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and dismissing
      the Third Amended Complaint;

   2. denying as moot Defendants' motion for partial summary
      judgment on Plaintiffs' individual state-law claims;

   3. denying as moot Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;

   4. denying Defendants' motion to exclude specific opinions and
      testimony of Plaintiffs' retained expert witness Isidro
      Duque;

   5. denying as moot Plaintiffs' motion to exclude the opinions
      and testimony of Defendants' retained expert Matthew
      Simmons;

   6. denying as moot Defendants' motion to exclude opinions and
      testimony of plaintiffs' retained expert witness Shawn
      Wilson;

   7. denying Plaintiffs' motion to exclude the opinions of
      Christopher Teaf; and

   8. the directing clerk is to enter judgment, terminate all
      pending motions and deadlines, and close the file.

The Court expresses no opinion on the viability of the state-law
claims. Those relate to any past damages Miller and other Dunbar
residents may have suffered from the sludge. The Court merely
concludes Miller failed to show there is an imminent and
substantial endangerment from the removed sludge now or in the
future. If Miller pursues her tort claims, the state court is well
suited to resolve them, the Court says.[CC]

FRANKLIN COLLECTION: Faces Hoestenbach Suit Over FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Franklin Collection
Service, Inc. The case is captioned as John L. Hoestenbach, Jr., on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Franklin
Collection Service, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-01257 (W.D. Tex., Dec.
31, 2019).

The lawsuit demands $500 million in damages for alleged violation
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Franklin Collection is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Susan A. Swete, Esq.
          RHETT HOESTENBACH, PC
          1011 Westlake Drive
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 472-8865
          Facsimile: (512) 328-6911
          E-mail: sswete@aol.com


GREEN DOT: Robbins LLP Says Purchaser Has Filed Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP announces that a purchaser
of Green Dot Corporation (NYSE: GDOT) filed a class action
complaint for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 between May 9, 2018 and November 7, 2019. Green Dot operates
as a financial technology and bank holding company.

Green Dot Corporation (GDOT) Accused of Misleading Shareholders

According to the complaint, in May 2017, Green Dot touted the
success of its new business strategies, highlighting its new
emphasis on direct deposit customers, which were customers that
typically had a higher lifetime value, justifying the switch by
stating "attracting and retaining the right kinds of customers is
actually more important than the number of active customers." Green
Dot continued to affirm the success of its business strategies
until the Company revealed in its first fiscal quarter 2019
conference call that it was experiencing a decline in its legacy
product line and non-direct deposit accounts, acknowledging the
attraction of high-value long-term customers was sometimes at the
expense of "one and done customers." As a result, on June 30, 2019,
Green Dot revealed that its account services segment
"underperformed [its] expectations… in the first half in general
due to a decline in [its] non[-]direct deposit active
accounts…resulting in lower than anticipated prepaid unit sales."
By the end of the relevant period, the stock had declined to $27.42
per share, representing a staggering 63% decline from its closing
price of $74.67 on February 20, 2019.

Green Dot Corporation (GDOT) Shareholders Have Legal Options

Contact us to learn more:
Leo Kandinov
(800) 350-6003
lkandinov@robbinsllp.com
Shareholder Information Form

Robbins LLP is a nationally recognized leader in shareholder rights
law. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in
shareholder derivative and securities class action  lawsuits, and
has helped its clients realize more than $1 billion of value for
themselves and the companies in which they have invested. Click
here to receive free alerts from Stock Watch when companies engage
in wrongdoing.

Contact:

         Leo Kandinov, Esq.
         Robbins LLP
         5040 Shoreham Place
         San Diego, CA 92122
         Tel: (619) 525-3990 or Toll Free (800) 350-6003
         Website: www.robbinsllp.com
         Email: lkandinov@robbinsllp.com
[GN]

GREENSKY INC: Class Actions Underway in New York over IPO
---------------------------------------------------------
GreenSky, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors continue
to face putative securities class actions in connection with the
Company's initial public offering, according to the Company'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.

The Company and certain of its officers and directors, together
with certain underwriters of the Company's IPO, were named in six
putative class actions filed in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, all of which actions have been consolidated (In Re
GreenSky, Inc. Securities Litigation (Consolidated Action), Index
No. 655626/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (the "State Case")), and in two
putative class actions filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, both of which actions also
have been consolidated (In Re GreenSky, Inc. Securities Litigation
(Consolidated Action), Case No. 1:2018-cv-11071-PAE (S.D.N.Y.) (the
"Federal Case" and, together with the State Case, the "Consolidated
Cases")).

The Company and its officers and directors named in the
Consolidated Cases intend to defend themselves vigorously in all
respects in regard thereto.

The Company said, "Under certain circumstances, the Company may be
obligated to indemnify some or all of the other defendants in the
Consolidated Cases.  As the Company has not determined that the
likelihood of loss with respect to the Consolidated Cases is
probable, the Company has not recorded any liability as of
September 30, 2019 with respect to either of such actions."

GreenSky, Inc., a technology company, provides point-of-sale
financing and payment solutions to merchants, consumers, and banks.
It offers a proprietary technology infrastructure that support the
full transaction lifecycle, including credit application,
underwriting, real-time allocation to bank partners, document
distribution, funding, settlement, and servicing functions. The
company was incorporated in 2017 and is headquartered in Atlanta,
Georgia.


GREIF INC: Suit over Noxious Odor at Wisconsin Plant Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Greif, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended October 31, 2019, that the company, together with
Container Life Cycle Management (CLCM), continues to defend a
putative class action suit in Wisconsin concerning one of CLCM's
Milwaukee reconditioning facilities.

On November 8, 2017, the Company, CLCM and other parties were named
as defendants in a punitive class action lawsuit filed in Wisconsin
state court concerning one of CLCM's Milwaukee reconditioning
facilities.

The plaintiffs are alleging that odors from this facility have
invaded their property and are interfering with the use and
enjoyment of their property and causing damage to the value of
their property.

Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages, along
with their legal fees.

The Company and CLCM are vigorously defending themselves in this
lawsuit.

Greif said, "The Company is unable to predict the outcome of this
lawsuit or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses."

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

Greif, Inc. produces and sells industrial packaging products and
services worldwide. It operates through four segments: Rigid
Industrial Packaging & Services; Paper Packaging & Services;
Flexible Products & Services; and Land Management.  The company was
formerly known as Greif Bros. Corporation and changed its name to
Greif, Inc. in 2001. Greif, Inc. was founded in 1877 and is
headquartered in Delaware, Ohio.


GRUBHUB INC: Robbins LLP Reminds Investors of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP reminds investors that a
purchaser of Grubhub, Inc. (NYSE: GRUB) filed a class action
complaint for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 between July 30, 2019 and October 28, 2019. Grubhub provides
an online and mobile platform for restaurant pick-up and delivery
orders in the United States.

Grubhub, Inc. (GRUB) Suffers As Market Dominance Declines

According to the complaint, for many years, Grubhub dominated the
online delivery market, controlling approximately 40% of the market
in early 2018. However, Grubhub's dominance did not go unchallenged
for long, as competitors like DoorDash and Uber Eats entered the
online food delivery space with aggressive marketing tactics that
attracted diners and restaurant partners and diminished Grubhub's
dominant market share. Due to significant private capital and
outside revenue sources, these competitors had the capacity to
provide deep discounting with astoundingly low delivery fees,
igniting a "price war" within the industry. In a futile attempt to
compete, Grubhub convinced restaurant chains to enter into
exclusivity deals, claiming to investors these would allow the
Company to attract "high-quality" customers and dismissing "any
data that suggest[ed] [that the new users were] using multiple
different services or different apps." Ultimately Grubhub's
inability to compete became clear on October 28, 2019, when it
announced deeply disappointing financial results, slashing its 2020
EBITDA by more than 70% below market expectations, citing the
propensity of its customers to use competing platforms. On this
news, Grubhub's stock fell $25.28, more than 40%, to close at
$33.11. The stock still has yet to recover.

Grubhub, Inc. (GRUB) Shareholders Have Legal Options

Contact us to learn more:
Leo Kandinov
(800) 350-6003
LKandinov@robbinsllp.com
Shareholder Information Form

Robbins LLP is a nationally recognized leader in shareholder rights
law. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in
shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits, and
has helped its clients realize more than $1 billion of value for
themselves and the companies in which they have invested. Click
here to receive free alerts from Stock Watch when companies engage
in wrongdoing.

Contact:

         Leonid Kandinov, Esq.
         Robbins LLP
         5040 Shoreham Place
         San Diego, CA 92122
         Tel: (619) 525-3990 or Toll Free (800) 350-6003
         Website: www.robbinsllp.com
         E-mail: LKandinov@robbinsllp.com
[GN]

GUARDIAN PEST SOLUTIONS: Draeger Suit Seeks Overtime Premiums
-------------------------------------------------------------
Curt Draeger, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Guardian Pest Solutions, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 19-cv-01880 (E.D. Wisc., December 23, 2019), seeks unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees,
declaratory and/or injunctive relief and/or any such other relief
pursuant to Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws and the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Guardian is a pest control company where Draeger worked as a
service Specialist for three years. He seeks overtime premium for
those weeks that he rendered in excess of 40 hours in a work week.
[BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      James A. Walcheske, Esq.
      Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
      David M. Potteiger, Esq.
      WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
      15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
      Brookfield, WI 53005
      Phone: (262) 780-1953
      Fax: (262) 565-6469
      Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
             sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
             dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com


HALLCON CORP: Mount Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHERRI MOUNT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HALLCON CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,
RENZENBERGER, INC., a Kansas corporation, and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. CGC-19-581917 (Cal. Super., Dec. 31, 2019),
alleges that the Defendants failed to provide required meal and
rest periods, to pay minimum wage and overtime wages, to pay all
wages due to discharged or quitting employees, to provide accurate
itemized statements, and to indemnify employees for necessary
expenditures incurred in discharge of duties under the California
Labor Code.

The Plaintiff and other persons similarly situated performed work
for Defendants in the state of California.

As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions of the
Defendants, Ms. Mount asserts that she suffered, and continues to
suffer, from loss of earnings.

Hallcon Corporation provides transportation and maintenance
services for public and private transit sectors. Renzenberger,
Inc., is a company that provides transportation services for the
rail industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Taras Kick, Esq.
          Roy K. Suh, Esq.
          Daniel J. Bass, Esq.
          THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
          815 Moraga Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90049
          Telephone: (310) 395 2988
          Facsimile: (310) 395 2088
          E-mail: Taras@kicklawfirm.com
                  Roy@kicklawfirm.com
                  Daniel@kicklawfirm.com


HUGOTON ROYALTY: Chieftain Settlement Hearing Set for Jan. 20
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing on the claims related to the settlement of a royalty class
action lawsuit styled Chieftain Royalty Company v. XTO Energy Inc.
in Coal County District Court, Oklahoma, has been rescheduled for
January 20, 2020, according to Hugoton Royalty Trust's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019.

As previously reported by the Class Action Reporter, a royalty
class action lawsuit was filed against XTO Energy styled Chieftain
Royalty Company v. XTO Energy Inc. in Coal County District Court,
Oklahoma, in December 2010.  XTO Energy removed the case to federal
court in the Eastern District of Oklahoma.  The plaintiffs allege
that XTO Energy wrongfully deducted fees from royalty payments on
Oklahoma wells, failed to make diligent efforts to secure the best
terms available for the sale of gas and its constituents, and
demanded an accounting to determine whether they have been fully
and fairly paid gas royalty interests.  The case was certified as a
class action in April 2012, then decertified in July 2013.

XTO Energy advised the Trustee that it reached a settlement with
the plaintiffs in the Chieftain class action royalty case.

On July 27, 2018 the final plan of allocation was approved by the
court.  Based on the final plan of allocation XTO Energy has
advised the Trustee that it believes approximately US$24.3 million
in additional production costs should be allocated to the Trust.

On May 2, 2018, the Trustee submitted a demand for arbitration
seeking a declaratory judgment that the Chieftain settlement is not
a production cost and that XTO Energy is prohibited from charging
the settlement as a production cost under the conveyance or
otherwise reducing the Trust's payments now or in the future as a
result of the Chieftain litigation.

The hearing on the claims related to the Chieftain settlement has
been rescheduled for January 20, 2020.  Other Trustee claims
related to disputed amounts on the computation of the Trust's net
proceeds for 2014 through 2016 were bifurcated from the issues
regarding XTO's right to charge the Chieftain settlement as a
production cost and will be heard at a later date, which is still
to be determined.

The Company said, "If the approximately US$24.3 million allocated
portion of the Chieftain settlement results in an adjustment to the
Trust's share of net proceeds, it would result in additional excess
costs under the Oklahoma conveyance that would likely result in no
distributions under the Oklahoma conveyance for several years, or
more depending on the results of operations of the underlying
properties, while these additional excess costs are recovered."

Hugoton Royalty Trust is an express trust created under the laws of
Texas pursuant to the Hugoton Royalty Trust Indenture entered into
on December 1, 1998 between XTO Energy Inc. (formerly known as
Cross Timbers Oil Company), as grantor, and NationsBank, N.A., as
trustee.  Southwest Bank is now the trustee of the Trust.


IDEANOMICS INC: Defending Against Miranda Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Ideanomics, 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 continues to face a purported class
action, captioned Jose Pinto Claro Da Fonseca Miranda v.
Ideanomics, Inc., which was filed on July 19, 2019, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit was filed against the Company and certain of its current
and former officers.  

Ideanomics said, "While the Company believes that the Class Action
is without merit and plans to vigorously defend itself against
these claims, there can be no assurance that the Company will
prevail in the lawsuits.  The Company cannot currently estimate the
possible loss or range of losses, if any, that it may experience in
connection with these litigations."

Ideanomics, Inc. operates as a financial technology and asset
digitization services company.  The Company was formerly known as
Seven Stars Cloud Group, Inc.  Ideanomics, Inc. was founded in 2004
and is headquartered in New York, New York.


IROBOT CORPORATION: Frank R. Cruz Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz ("FRC") announces that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors that acquired
iRobot Corporation (NASDAQ: IRBT) securities between November 21,
2016 and October 22, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). iRobot
investors had until December 23, 2019 to file a lead plaintiff
motion.

On April 23, 2019, after the market closed, the Company announced
quarterly revenues that were below analyst expectations and
disclosed increased inventory levels of 140 days in inventory
("DII"), compared to 101 DII the prior year period.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $30.15, or over 23%,
to close at $100.42 per share on April 24, 2019, thereby injuring
investors.

Then, on July 23, 2019, after the market closed, the Company
lowered its full-year guidance, expecting revenue between $1.2
billion and $1.25 billion, from prior guidance between $1.28
billion and $1.31 billion.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $15.12, or nearly 17%,
to close at $74.51 per share on July 24, 2019, thereby injuring
investors further.

On October 22, 2019, after the market closed, the Company lowered
the high-end of its full-year revenue guidance from $1.25 billion
to $1.21 billion, due to its rollback of price increases after a
"suboptimal" customer response. iRobot also reported increased
inventory levels of $248 million or 149 DII, compared the prior
year period of $161 million or 113 DII.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $4.97, or over 9%, to
close at $49.06 per share on October 23, 2019, thereby injuring
investors further.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) iRobot's explosive growth was not based on increased
demand, expanding margins, and product innovations, as it claimed,
but rather based on channel stuffing; (2) the Company attempted to
conceal its actions by acquiring its distributors in Europe and
Asia; (3) these acquisitions were designed to clean up the
company's global inventory and mask falling demand; and (4) that as
a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations,
and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased iRobot securities during the Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than December 23, 2019 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.
If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of
FRC, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California
90067, at 310-914-5007, by email to fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com, or
visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number
of shares purchased.

Contact:

         Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
         The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
         Tel: 310-914-5007
         Website: www.frankcruzlaw.com
         Email: fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
[GN]

JPMORGAN CHASE: Milo Sues Over Denial of HAMP Incentive Payments
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOANNE MILO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Case No. 1:19-cv-07303 (E.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 31, 2019), arises out of the Defendant's improper denial of
incentive payments or mortgage reductions in connection with
mortgage modification pursuant to the Home Affordable Modification
Program.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and putative class
members were entitled to certain incentive payments pursuant to
HAMP ("HAMP Incentive Payments"), but did not receive such HAMP
Incentive Payments because Chase erroneously concluded they were
not eligible for HAMP Incentive Payments based on a consolidation
or modification loan date after January 1, 2009, that was not the
operative origination date, rather than using the operative
origination date prior to January 1, 2009, when the earliest loan
that was consolidated or modified was first taken out.

The HAMP Incentive Payments are one of the key features of HAMP,
rewarding homeowners who enter into HAMP Modifications (and who
meet certain eligibility criteria) with up to $10,000 in mortgage
reductions (up to $1,000 per year for the first five years and a
$5,000 one-time payment at the end of year six) over the first six
years after a HAMP modification.

Chase, however, erroneously interpreted language found in versions
of The Making Home Affordable Program Handbook for Servicers of
Non-GSE Mortgages, ("MHA Handbook") to deny HAMP Incentive Payments
to individuals whose HAMP modification modified a loan that had
been consolidated or modified after January 1, 2009, but where the
first lien originated before January 1, 2009 by virtue of the first
mortgage that was part of the consolidation or modification being
entered into before January 1, 2009, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff contends that Chase improperly denied her and a
potential class of all similarly situated borrowers in the United
States ("Class Members") and a subclass of New York borrowers ("New
York Subclass Members"), who have/had mortgage loans under HAMP
that Chase made, is servicing and/or serviced, and on whose behalf
Chase improperly failed to apply (or to obtain and apply) HAMP
Incentive Payments to reduce their principal mortgage balances, as
required under HAMP, in violation of HAMP requirements, New York
law, federal law, and/or other applicable law.

On April 1, 2012, Ms. Milo and her husband, Michael Riccardi
entered into a HAMP modification mortgage loan on their home
located in Kings County, New York with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

JPMorgan is a federally chartered national banking association that
makes mortgage loans, including HAMP modification loans, to
Plaintiff and others throughout the United States, including New
York, and is located in Columbus, Ohio, with its main office at
1111 Polaris Parkway, Columbus, Ohio 43240.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Antonio Vozzolo, Esq.
          VOZZOLO LLC
          345 Route 17 South
          Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458
          Telephone: (201) 630-8820
          Facsimile: (201) 604-8400
          E-mail: avozzolo@vozzolo.com

               - and -

          Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Esq.
          FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
          29 Broadway, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10006-3205
          Telephone: (212) 952-0014
          E-mail: jkravec@fdpklaw.com


LAKE COUNTY, CA: Court Shelves Bid to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Tapanga Hardeman, et al., the
Plaintiffs, v. County of Lake, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
1:17−cv−08729 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Sharon Johnson
Coleman entered an order taking the motion to certify class under
advisement.

According to the docket entry made by Clerk on Jan. 6, 2019, the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify class is fully briefed, and the Court
shall take it under advisement.

No appearance necessary on Jan. 7, 2020, the Order added.

Plaintiffs, Tapanga Hardeman, Daniel Williams, Lewis Myles, Quenta
Lamar Washington, and Lavonte Murel, on their own behalf and on
behalf of all affected inmates, bring this action against
defendants, County of Lake, Office of the Lake County Sheriff,
Sheriff Mark Curran, Chief David Wathen, and John Doe Officers and
Supervisors for violating the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 1983, pursuant to the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment.
Plaintiffs also seek indemnification from the County of Lake in the
event that the individually named defendants are found liable for
actions performed in the course of their employment.

Lake County is a county located in the north central portion of the
U.S. state of California.[CC]

LANDS' END: Andrews Sues Over Allergic Reaction to Delta Uniforms
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE ANDREWS, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. LANDS' END, INC., and LANDS' END OUTFITTERS,
INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-01066 (W.D. Wisc., Dec. 31, 2019), is
brought against the Defendants for negligence, strict design
defect, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty, and violation of the Magnuson
Moss Warranty Act.

The Plaintiffs are employees of Delta Airlines Lines, Inc. They and
their co-workers ("Delta Employees") work in various capacities--as
flight attendants; Airport Customer Service ticket, ramp and gate
agents; Sky Club workers; Delta Cargo; GSE Maintenance; and Delta
TechOps.

The Plaintiffs are STEPHANIE ANDREWS, JANELLE AUSTIN, PHYLLIS
HEFFELFINGER, KELLI HEIST, VIRGINIA MATHIOS, JANET MURPHREE, DANA
SMITH, HOPE TUCKER, LISA UDDIN-BARNESWRIGHT, MICHELE WARNER, LYNDA
VALDEZ, JOSEPH ABAMONTE, JULIE ABATE, KIMBERLY ABBEY, KERRY
ABRAHAMSEN, RACHEL ABUKHDEIR, CAROL ADAMS-CONNER, KATHY ADAMS,
LENEE' ADKINS, JACQUELINE ALLBRIGHT, AUSTIN ALFORD, LEIANNE
AL-KHAFAJI, JANA ALLAN, CYNTHIA ALLEN, ALMUDENA NICOLE ALVAREZ,
PRESAS ALONSO, BARBARA ALVES, MARINA AMIEVA, LORI ANDERLE, JAMI LYN
ANDERSON, RIKA ANDERSON, JAMIE ANGULO, HILARY ARANA, ROCHELLE
ARCH-HAYOSTECK, NATALIA ARTEMENKO, STACEY ATKINS, ANNMARIE
ANTONELLI, BONNIE AUDSLEY, NINA AVILES, BRANDIS BANKS, DANA BANKS,
DEBRA BARETTA, ANGELA BARTHELEMY, JOHN BECKSTRAND, CORI BEHRENDS,
REBECCA BEIERSDORG, TIA BELBODA, MAURA BENATTI, CINDY BERG, RENEE
BERGLUND, CYNTHIA BERZEL, NICOLE BETSON, JEAN BEVER, KATHLYN BEZ,
POLLY BIASUCCI, MARY BIESSENBERGER, SACHA BIGLER, JANET BLACK,
THERESE BLACKWELL, MORGAN BLISS, FRANCES BLITZ, KATHLEEN BODENE,
ROBIN BODENHEIMER, LORRAINE BOLLA, MARILYN BOWDEN, CHRISTINE
BRABECK, JACLYN BRADLEY, JACOB BRAUCHT, KATHLEEN BREEDLOVE, EILLEEN
BRENNAN, CHERIE BRENNER, KATE BRITT, SHARI BROWN, EMMA BRYANT,
JOYCE BRYANT-BURRUS, DENISE BRYSON, JACQUELINE BUCCI, MARCELLA
BULGER, KAYLA BUONO, PASCALE BURGUENO, MARYY JO BURNS, ERIN BURREY,
PIA BUSCHER, EMILY BUSKEN, CHA HUI CAIN, ANTONIETTA CALDARELLA,
AMANDA CALVERT, CHRISTA CAMPBELL, KATHY CAMPBELL, MARIA CARLISLE,
LAURETTE CARNS, ELIZABETH CASSIDY, DARIS CASON, IDA CASTROGUINN,
KATHERINE CEDOLA, TIFFANY CHALLIS, EVA CHAUVIN, BECKY CHERRY, DEBRA
CHESBRO, EMILY BETH CHEZES, GEORGINA CHU, CAROLINE CIEZ, BREONTA
CLARK, ERIN CLEVELAND, RONDA COCHERELL, KAREN COFFMAN. EMMA COLE,
AUTUMN COLEMAN, JACQUELYN COLLINS, JOSE COLON-VILLANUEVA, CHRISTY
COMBS, CANDACE CONNER KABELA, DONNA CONSTANT, DIANA CONWAY,
KATHLEEN COOPER, MICHAEL CORTIS, KATHLEEN COTNOIR, SUSAN
COUVILLION, MARSHA COWLING, KRYSTLE COWART, DREDRICK COX, LINDA
CREECH, ANGELA CROWELL, RAVEN CURINGTON, CORINNE DALLMAN, LORIE
DANA, ELAINE DAVIS, JO-LYNN DAVIS, KATIE DAVIS, TAMARA DEANGELIS,
ALEXANDRA DELA, JENNIFER DELAPENHA, DIANA DEL-BARRIO, PAULINE
DEMAET, VERONICA DEMAGGIO, SHARON DENNEY, MARSHA DEVANEY, JOANN
DEVENY, NANCY DIAMOND, KAYLA DIBELLA, SUZANNE DIFRAIA-ORTEGA,
TEODORA DIMITROVA, JOANNA DIRIENZO, KAREN DISANTIS, MARGARET
DRISCHLER, NANCY DORMAN, MICHELE DOSS, KATHLEEN DOUGLAS, DAWN
DRAKE, LAURA DREWE, LOUISE DUHAMEL, GENARINA DUNCAN, MADONNA DUNN,
CYNTHIA DURUSHIA, JAN DYSSEGARD, JOHNNY EDWARDS, JAN EGGE, BRENT
EGLAND, SHARON ELBOIM, LISA ERICKSON, ALIXANDRA ERRINGTON, JESSICA
ESPINOSA, BRENDA EVANS, DEBBY EVERS, LAWRENCE FARRER, EVA FARRIS,
NICOLE FAZIO, STEVE FILLMORE, JAMIE FINE, KIMBERLY FITCH, KATHRYN
FLYNN, ASHLEIGH FOOTE, LISA FORTUNA, JILL FOUTS, LORI FOUTY, DEBRA
FRANKLIN, AKANE FREEMAN, BELISSA FUENTES, MYRA FUJI, BETTINA
GARCIA, SUGAR GARCIA-HALL, KATRENA GARSKE, RACHEL GAROUTTE, BAILEY
GARRISON, JACK GAZIS, MICHELLE GENTRY, SARAH GERARD, JANE GERMANN,
KATRINA GILLIAM, KIMBERLY GODBY, JOHN GOLD, MARYJO GONDEK, CYNDEE
GOODMAN, KATHLEEN GRAY, SHANNON GRAY, JENNIFER GREEN, NEVINE
GROULX, CHANDRA GRONVOLD, MELODY GUERRERO, GREGORY GUINN, DEBRA
HADLER, FRANCES HALE, NICHOLAS HALL, KRISTINE HAMMER, CLAUDETTE
HANDKE, DARLA HANSEN, SAMANTHA HARDING, LINDA HALL-SHIPMAN, HILLARI
HARDT, DEBRA HARGIS, SAMRA HARMINDER, KELLY HARRIS, CHRISTINA HART,
SPENCER HAYES, STACY HAYES, TIFFANYANNE HAYES, PAM HAYNES, NELLY
HEIST, SHAWN HENCHAL, JILL HENDRICKS, LAURA HENNING, CINDY
HELD-SZLASA, TANISHA HENRY, SUSAN HENSLEY, AMANDA HEPLER, KIMARA
HERBERT, MAGDA HERMANSEN, CHRISTINE HOADLEY, KATHARINE HODGE, LISA
HOGAN, HEATHER HOLLISTER, ELLEN HOLLOWELL, HEATHER HOTVEDT, KARI
HOUSHOLDER, LINDSEY HOWARD, JEANNIE HOWELL, JULIE HUISMANN, JUMHEE,
HWANG, ADELE IAQUINTA, GIOVANNA INGRAM, JEANNE JACKSON, LAURA
JACKSON, PAULA JACKSON, KAITLYN JAGIELO, KIMBERLY JARY, KAREN JAY,
MIA JESPERSEN, JOEL KINNARD, KARI JOHNKE-HENZLER, BENITA JOHNSON,
URSULA ISIDORE, BRIDGETTE JONES, TAMIKA JONES, AMBER JORDAN, IRENE
KAFTANUK, ANN KALLSEN, KENNETH KAMINSKI, JACKIE KANE, DAVID KAPLAN,
AMANDA KARRICK, CYNTHIA KASMIRSKI, JEAN KATOPODIS, RUTA KAUPIKO,
MARIE KEARSE, BRENDA KERN, CINDY KHA, ADEN KIDANE, TERRI KIDD,
JENNIFER KIM, VIRGINIA KIMBERLAN, JUDIE KIRKLAND, NATASHA KLEPEC,
CAROL KNAIN, REBECCA KOEGER, WENDY KOOPMEINERS, ANNA KOSOVAN, KACI
KOTTEMANN, TERESA KOVARS, KATE KOVARY, KRISTEN KOWALCZYK, ELLEN
KRAMER, JILL KRUPPA, KERRY KRUSE, TSIPORA KUBA, THERESA KUTSCHALL,
RENEE LABBE, JOAN LABOW, MILISSA LACHAUSSEE', CHRISTINE L'ALLIER,
TANA LAMBERT, KAITLYNN LAMOUR, TATYANA LANCASTER, MARGUERITE
LARSEN, LISA LARSON, MARIA LAYGO, JONATHAN LAZENBY, SUSANNA LEE,
GERALDINE LINDSETH, CARISSA LIZOTTE, GERALEE CORONA, KAREN LEHMAN,
ANN MARIE LIBERATORE, LONG LIM, STEPHANIE LITTLE, JENNIFER LONG,
MARTHA LONG, DANA LOVE-LINN, CHRISTY LUNDE, KRISTEN MADDICK, KELLY
MADER, JOSE MALDONADO, DONNETTE MALOCO, DONENE MANNION, JANINE
MARCHILDON, DEBORAH MARSH, ELIZABETH MARZULLO, ELENA MASSIMO,
CONNIE MASSMANN, JAMERE MAXWELL, JOHN MAZUROWSKI, MICHELLE
MCCARRON, DIANE MCCOMBER, CATHERINE MCDONALD, DAWN MCDONNELL,
SHAYLYN MCENTIRE, VICTORIA MCGARRITY, KAITLYN MCINTOSH, SHARON
MCINTOSH, ANNE PENNY MCINTYRE, DEBBIE MCLELLAN, STACEY MCNEIL,
DEBORAH MCNULTY, KIMBERLY MEADOWS, WILLIAM MEEK, DEBORAH MEISELMAN,
BROOKE MESZAROS, ALLISON MILLER, KIMBERLY MILLER, LISA MILLER,
MARGARET MILLER, JOAN TORMEY MILTON, JESSICA MIZRAHI, LYNN MOFFET,
RICHARD MOGAN, LEYDA MOLINA, DIANA MONTGOMERY- BROCK, BROMLEY
MOORE, JILLIAN MOORE, NINA VONDA MORGAN, DEBBIE MOORE, MCLELLAN,
PATRICK MORSE, MELISSA MORRILL-FURMAN, BONNIE MURO, DEBORAH
MURPHY,WANDA MURRAY, AYTEN NADEAU, NABILA NAIBKHEL, TAUFEEQ NASIR,
PAMELA NEALY, ANDREA NECHVATAL, JENEE NEEB, CHERYL NELSON, EVA
NELSON, SUSAN NEWLAND, TRANG NGUYEN, DEANNE NICHELSON, SHERYLANN
NITTI, BETH NORDYKE, MICHELE NOREEN, YVETTE NUGENT, JENNIFER
OBIOFUMA, KRISTINA OLSON, JODY ONDRIEZEK, EVELYN ORGERON, GERDA
ORROCK, PATRICE OTERO, SONYA OURLIN, SILVA OSWALDO, PENNY OWENS,
GINA PAGE-NELSON, PEGGY PARADEAU, ATHENA PARADIS, LAURIE PARKE,
EMMA PARKER, KAYLA PARNELL, STANLEY PARTYKA, NATANIA PAYNE,
KIMBERLY PEDRETTI, JEANETTE PEDRONI, JOANNE PERGOLA, JODI PERGOLA,
KENDRA PERPICH, JEANETTE PEDRONI, SARA PELOWSKI, SUSAN PENCE,
VIRGINIA PEREZ, CHELSEA PERRY, SHERRY PETERS, TINA FONG-PETERSON,
NANCY PETRONE, LINDSAY PHELPS, YANICK PICAULT-CADET, ANITA PIERCE,
JENNIFER PIERCE, BEATRICE PINON, DINA PINOS, CYNDA POLL, ANNA POPE,
ANDREA POWER, SHANA PROVOST, ANTOINETTE QVISTORFF, MELISSSA
RAICHART, ANNILA RAJPATTY-KISSOONDATH, MARY REED, PATTY REGISTER,
CONSTANCE REID, ANNETTE REJINDERS-KESSEL, MARGARET REMUS, JULIE
RICE, ASHLEY ROBERTS, MARY KAY ROBERTS, DEBORAH ROEBER, KRISTIN
ROHLF, DEBORAH RUMPZA, KAYLA RUSSELL, TAMMY RUSTAD, STACEY
RUTHERFORD, BECKY SALLANDER, DANIELLE SANDERS, MARY-ANN SANDS,
JENNIE SANDUSKY, MONICA SANTAMARIA, NAGISA SAUDARGAS, ANGELAMARIA
SCHERILLO, CYNTHIA SEDUSTINE, LISA SEIBERT, ELIZABETH SEYMOUR, LISA
SHACKELFORD, RACHEL SHANKLIN, PAMELA SHELDON, REBECCA SHELDON,
MICHELLE SHERACK, BRENDA SHORKEY, KATIE SIEG, ANDREA SILVAS, AMANDA
SIMMONS, MELYNDA SINSLEY, KENYA SKYTTE, JACQUELYN SMELTER, LISA
METTELKA SMILEY, ANGELA SMITH, CHRISTINE SMITH, EMILY SNELLGROVE,
DEBRA SPAULDING, KAREN SPEASE, STACI SPURLOCK, AYFER STREET, EILEEN
STEIGERWALD, JILL STRIETER, SANDRA SVIGGUM, LYNN SYPNIEWSKY, NANCY
TALARICO-BORASS DEBRA TALBERT, TANIA TAMAYO-HAGAN, REBECCAH TANGEN,
SUSAN TATE, TISHA TAYLOR, TRACY ELIZABETH TAYLOR, DEBORAH KAY
THIRKELSON, HOLLY THOMPSON, SUSAN THOMPSON, DEMARRIO THORTON,
JULIET THURAB, KIMBERLY TOBIN, CHASE TODD, KRISTIN TOMPKINS,
HENRIQUE TORRES, DONNA TOWNS, ANDREA TRZASKA, ANDREA TROUTMAN,
DIANA TRUE, KATHLEEN TSCHISHOW, LINDA TUCKER, TINA TUCKER, DEANNA
TURNER, KATHRYN UDE, JULIANNE LYNN UMALI, TERI UNSWORTH, TIRANA
VAKNIN, VICTOR VALDEZ, ELISSA VALENZANO, WENDY VANDERTUUK, CAROLINE
VANGRIEKEN, COLLEEN VANRISSEGHEM, JOHN VANRISSEGHEM, ROSALYN VEGA,
MALIN VEJFORS, KERRI VREY, COLLEEN VANRISSEGHEM, GRAEME WAGNER,
JESSICA WAGNER, CAROL WALKER, LISA WALKER, WENDE WALKER, TROYE
WASHINGTON-CLANTON, CATHERINE WEIDA, EMILY WESLEY, ROBIN WHALEY,
DIANE WHITE, VANESSA WILBERT, JENNIFER WILLERT, LISA WILLETE, RANDI
WILLETT, APRIL WILHITE, TAMMY WILKINSON, ADREEAN WILLIAMS, KATHY
WILLIAMS, JOHANNA WINKLER, BARBARA WINSLOW, TERRI WINSLOW, LISA
WOODCOCK, NANCY WOODWARD, LEAH WOPIPKA, LINDA WRIGHT, AMY YON,
MARIA YOUNG, BONNIE YOUNKER, ANNA ZALUZHNY and REBECCA ZETNICK.

Since May 29, 2018, the Delta Employees have been required to wear
newly-issued work uniforms ("Uniforms") manufactured by Lands' End,
Inc. and Lands' End Business Outfitters. These Uniforms are high
stretch, wrinkle and stain-resistant, waterproof, anti-static, and
deodorizing. Lands' End used various chemical additives and
finishes to achieve these characteristics. The combination of these
additives and finishes has an allergic and sensitizing effect on
the human body, even if those several additives and finishes are
relatively safe in their individual respective quantities, the
Plaintiffs assert.

Since the introduction of the Uniforms, the Plaintiffs allege that
they and many other Delta Employees have suffered a myriad of
health problems as a result of the excessive allergen and
sensitizing properties of the Uniforms. The Plaintiffs contend that
the Delta Employees, who had reactions to the Uniforms did not have
these symptoms prior to the rollout of the Uniforms in such
combination and to such degree, and it was only at and after the
rollout that such symptoms appeared. These health problems were
caused by the Uniforms and continue to this day, the Plaintiffs
tell the Court.

The Plaintiffs seek damages for their personal injuries, pain and
suffering, severe emotional distress, financial or economic loss,
including, medical services and expenses, lost income and other
compensable injuries. The Plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief to
require Lands' End to recall the Uniforms so that they do not
present a continuing risk of toxic exposure. They also ask Lands'
End to establish a monitoring program to periodically assess
whether the Uniforms have or are adversely affecting their health
so that competent and timely treatment may be administered.

Lands' End is an American clothing and home decor retailer founded
in 1963 and based in Dodgeville, Wisconsin, that specializes in
casual clothing, luggage, and home furnishings.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bruce A. Maxwell, Esq.
          TERRELL HOGAN YEGELWEL, P.A.
          233 East Bay Street, 8th Floor
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 632-2424
          E-mail: Maxwell@terrellhogan.com
                  shicks@terrellhogan.com

               - and -

          Donald Winder, Esq.
          WINDER LAW FIRM
          215 S. State Street, Suite 960
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 440-5536
          E-mail: dwinder@winderfirm.com

               - and -

          Jay Urban, Esq.
          URBAN & TAYLOR S.C.
          The Urban Taylor Law Building
          4701 N. Port Washington Road
          Milwaukee, WI 53212
          Telephone: (414) 906-1700
          E-mail: jurban@wisconsininjury.com
                  rscarletta@wisconsininjury.com


MADONNA: Corwin Files 2nd Class Action Over Late Concert
--------------------------------------------------------
Corwin Law, a consumer rights law firm, announces the filing of a
second class action lawsuit against Madonna and Live Nation
Worldwide on behalf of ticket purchasers to Madonna's Madame X
Tour.

If you are a ticket purchaser for the Madame X Tour, you may be
entitled to a refund or other compensation.  We encourage you to
contact Marcus W. Corwin, Esq. at Corwin Law, Boca Raton, Florida
by calling (561) 482-3636 for a free consultation. You may also
contact Corwin Law by email at SeekingJustice@corwinlawfirm.com.

According to the Class Action Lawsuit, Madonna and Live Nation
promoted the Madame X Tour by advertising and selling tickets to
concerts with a commencement time of 8:30 p.m.  As alleged in the
Lawsuit, after arriving late at the commencement of the Madame X
Tour in Brooklyn, New York, Madonna and Live Nation changed the
concert start time from 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. without the consent
of ticket purchasers.  Ticket purchasers were not offered refunds
and the change of the start time diminished the value of the
tickets purchased.  Based on these facts, the lawsuit alleges that
the Defendants' actions (1) breached the agreement Madonna made
with ticket purchasers; (2) gave the Defendants an economic benefit
they were not entitled to at the detriment of ticket purchasers;
and (3) negligently misrepresented the start time of the concerts
to induce purchasers to purchase tickets. The lawsuit also alleges
Madonna and Live Nation breached their contractual agreement with
ticket purchasers by restricting the use of electronic devices
including cell phones at the concerts.  [GN]



MERCEDES-BENZ: Massive Settlement After Mold Found in HVAC Systems
------------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Gray, writing for WSB-TV, reports that more than 2.5 million
Mercedes-Benz owners will soon be getting help with the nasty
smells that can come from their cars' air conditioning units.

Channel 2 investigative reporter Justin Gray broke the story of
this nationwide settlement on Twitter.

For more than two years, Channel 2 Action News has reported on the
issue: luxury cars with an embarrassing problem.

Mold grows in the heating, air conditioning and ventilation system
for various models of Mercedes, and it leads to odors.

Mercedes owner Ketan Patel called it "a pungent, mildew, sweaty,
moldy, sweat sock smell." He's also an attorney. He filed the
class-action lawsuit along with co-counsel.

Now, Mercedes-Benz has agreed to a class-action settlement. More
than 2.5 million vehicles nationwide are covered by it.

The deal is not capped, meaning Mercedes will pay the full amount
owed and continue to make repairs for every car owner, regardless
of how much it ends up costing.

Attorney Annika Martin, Esq. represents car owners in the
class-action suit. She told us: "It provides relief for all the
money they've had to pay to deal with this, because it wasn't
covered under warranty. It also basically provides a warranty
coverage up to the 10-year birthday of the car to deal with it in
the future if it is necessary, and I think that's a big win."

Mercedes and the attorneys for the class have both agreed to this
deal.

A federal judge will have to sign off to make it official.

Then every car owner covered by the agreement will get a notice in
the mail about how to sign up for repairs or to receive money
owed.

The proposed settlement class is defined as a nationwide class of
all current and former owners and lessees of Mercedes-Benz 2008-19
C-Class, 2010-15 GLK Class, 2012-17 CLS-Class, 2010-19 E-Class,
2015-19 GLA-Class, 2013-16 GL Class, 2016-19 GLE-Class, 2017-19
GLS-Class, 2012-15 M-Class and 2016-19 GLC-Class vehicles who
purchased or leased their vehicles in the United States. [GN]




MERIT MEDICAL: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of Feb. 3 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announces that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Merit Medical
Systems, Inc. (MMSI). If you suffered a loss you have until the
lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as
lead plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.

Merit Medical Systems, Inc. (MMSI)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/merit-medical-systems-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=4996&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 3, 2020
Class Period: February 26, 2019 to October 30, 2019

Allegations against MMSI include that: (a) the integrations of
acquired companies Cianna Medical, Inc. and Vascular Insights, LLC,
including their products, sales people, and R&D facilities, had
caused operational disruptions and reduced sales and were months
behind schedule; (b) sales of acquired company products had slowed
substantially due to pre-acquisition pipeline fill, in particular
for Vascular Insights products which, as late as July 2019, had
zero orders during FY19; and (c) in light of the foregoing, the
Company's reported financial guidance for FY19 and FY20 was made
without a reasonable basis.

To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights.

Contact:

         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         39 East Broadway, Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Tel. 212.425.1140
         Fax. 866.699.3880
         E-mail: vw@wongesq.com
[GN]



MYLAN NV: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of Feb. 14 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until February 14, 2020 to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Mylan
N.V. (NasdaqGS: MYL), if they purchased the Company's securities
between May 9, 2018 and May 6, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). This action is pending in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

What You May Do

If you purchased securities of Mylan and would like to discuss your
legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to
recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost
to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at
1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-myl/ to learn more. If
you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by February 14, 2020.

About the Lawsuit

Mylan and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

On May 7, 2019, the Company disclosed disappointing 1Q2019
financial results, including that "North America segment net sales
. . . [were] down 6% on an actual and constant currency basis,
primarily driven by changes in the competitive environment and the
impact of the Morgantown plant remediation activities."

On this news, the price of Mylan's shares plummeted.

The case is Brody v. Mylan N.V. et al, 19-cv-1620.

                 About Kahn Swick & Foti

KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients
– including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors – in seeking recoveries for
investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by
publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California
and Louisiana.

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

Contact:

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

NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces LaCour Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit
Inc. The case is captioned as Thomas LaCour, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nationwide Credit Inc.
and American Express Company, Case No. 3:19-xc-03073 (N.D. Tex.,
Dec. 31, 2019).

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

Nationwide Credit provides customer relationship and accounts
receivable management services. The company offers outsourcing,
including contingency collections, first and third party, customer
relationship management, attorney network, and skip program
services.[BN]


NETWORK 1: SCWorx Disputes Indemnification Claim
------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss Network 1 Financial Securities Inc.'s
indemnification suit against Alliance MMA, Inc. and SCWorx Corp.
remains pending, according to SCWorx Corp.'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.

On March 29, 2019, Network 1 Financial Securities Inc. served a
complaint against Alliance and SCWorx.  Network 1 alleges that
Alliance breached its obligation under Network 1's agreements with
Alliance to indemnify Network 1 for certain costs that Network 1
allegedly incurred in connection with the defense and settlement of
the class action litigation previously instituted against Alliance
and Network 1.  This class action litigation has since been
resolved, as disclosed in the consolidated financial statements
that were filed with the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 22, 2019.
Network 1 has demanded approximately US$135,000 in payment of
alleged damages.  The Company does not believe that it owes the
amount demanded and intends to vigorously defend against these
claims.

On August 9, 2019, SCWorx and Alliance filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint on the grounds that Network 1 is a foreign
corporation that is not authorized to do business in the State of
New York and/or seeking a stay of the action until such time as
Network 1 has obtained such authorization and paid to the State of
New York all fees and taxes, penalties and interest accrued under
the tax law.  The briefing on such motion is complete and the Court
has scheduled oral argument for November 21, 2019.

SCWorx Corp. provides software solutions for the management of
health care providers' foundational business applications. The
company is based in New York, New York.


OSMOTICA PHARMA: Still Defends Consolidated Tello & Shumacher Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc continues to face the consolidated
class action related to its registration statement and prospectus
used for the Company's initial public offering of ordinary shares,
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 April 30, 2019, Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc was served with a
complaint in an action entitled Leo Shumacher, et al., v. Osmotica
Pharmaceuticals plc, et al., Superior Court of New Jersey, Somerset
County No. SOM-L-000540-19.  

On May 10, 2019, a Complaint entitled Jeffrey Tello, et al., v.
Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc, et al., Superior Court of New Jersey,
Somerset County No. SOM-L-000617-19 was filed in the same court as
the Shumacher action.

The complaints name Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc, certain of its
directors and officers and the underwriters of its initial public
offering as defendants in putative class actions alleging
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
related to the disclosures contained in the registration statement
and prospectus used for the Company's initial public offering of
ordinary shares.

On July 22, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint
consolidating the two actions, reiterating the previously pled
allegations and adding an additional individual defendant.

Osmotica Pharmaceuticals said, "The Company disputes the
allegations in the complaints and intends to vigorously defend
against the action.  However, this litigation matter is still in an
early stage and there is no assurance that we will be successful in
our defense or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund
any settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of the action,
which could adversely affect the Company's results of operations
and financial condition.  At this time there is no loss that is
probable or reasonably estimatable."

Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc, an integrated biopharmaceutical
company, develops, manufactures, and commercializes specialty
products that target markets with underserved patient populations.
Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc is headquartered in Bridgewater, New
Jersey.


PFI WESTERN: Harris Sues Over Fraudulent Sale Discounting Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
HOLLIE HARRIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. PFI WESTERN STORES, INC., a Missouri corporation, and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 8:19-cv-02521-JVS-ADS (C.D. Cal.,
Dec. 31, 2019), alleges that PFI Western engaged in a scheme to
defraud its customers by perpetually discounting merchandise sold
in its e-commerce retail store, in violation of California's Unfair
Competition Laws, California's False Advertising Laws and the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that PFI Western consistently advertises
merchandise with a false "Regular Price" and a corresponding "Your
Price," or sale price, immediately next to or below the item. The
"Regular Price" is printed with a "strikethrough," communicating to
the consumer that the "Regular Price" is a former price of the item
that is now being offered at a substantial discount. The "Your
Price" conveys to the customer a deeply discounted price at which
the item is presently being offered for sale.

However, the Plaintiff asserts, at no time are the products ever
offered for sale anywhere at the "Regular Price." The "Regular
Price" is merely a false reference price, which PFI Western
utilizes to deceptively manufacture a deeply discounted sale price
referred to as the "Your Price" on the merchandise sold in PFI
Western's e-commerce retail store during the Class period, the
Plaintiff adds.

According to the complaint, the practice is not accidental. Rather,
the practice is a fraudulent scheme intended to deceive consumers
into making purchases they otherwise would not have made; and/or
paying substantially more for merchandise consumers believed was
heavily discounted and thus, worth more than its actual value.

The Plaintiff contends that she was damaged in her purchase because
the Defendant's false reference price discounting scheme inflated
the true market value of the item she purchased. She seeks monetary
damages, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief from
Defendant arising from its deceptive business practice.

The Defendant sells a variety of name brand and exclusively branded
western wear, including boots, shoes, western-style clothing, hats,
saddles, and other horse riding equipment in its e-commerce store
to consumers throughout California and the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          Scott G. Braden, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          1350 Columbia Street, Ste. 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619 762 1910
          Facsimile: 619 756 6991
          E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com
                  sbraden@carlsonlynch.com


PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA: Collective Action Notice Has Court Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as PAULA HARBISON, VALERIE
SANTOSUOSSO, and CHARLEY WHISENHUNT, On Behalf of THEMSELVES and
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. PHILIPS NORTH
AMERICA LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00955 (M.D. Tenn.),
the Hon. Judge William Z. Campbell entered an order on Jan. 6,
2020:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' unopposed motion and stipulation
      regarding conditional certification and notice to putative
      collective action members;

   2. approving for distribution the Notice and Consent Form, to
      potential opt-in Plaintiffs and shall be used to opt into
      the action;

   3. directing Defendant, within 21 days of the date the Order,
      to provide to Plaintiffs' counsel an Excel spreadsheet
      containing the name, last known mailing address(es), last
      known e-mail address(es), dates of employment, and
      location(s) of employment for each current or former
      collections employee of Philips who worked for Philips in
      the United State at any time since October 28, 2016, who
      were paid on a salaried basis without overtime compensation
      for hours over 40 in a workweek, and who did not work in a
      supervisory or management capacity (Class List);

   4. directing Plaintiffs and their counsel to cause Notice and
      Consent Forms to issue to potential opt-in plaintiffs via
      U.S. Mail and e-mail within seven days of receipt of the
      Class List at their initial expense without prejudice to
      seek reimbursement and shall include a self-addressed,
      postage-prepaid envelope with the initial mailing.

   5. directing the Plaintiffs and their counsel to re-issue the
      Notice and Consent Form to those mailing addresses returned
      undeliverable, or upon request by a potential opt-in
      Plaintiff; and

   6. directing Potential opt-in Plaintiffs to opt-in to the
      litigation within 60 days from the mailing and e-mailing of
      the Notice and Consent Forms. Any Consent Form postmarked on

      or before 60 days from the date of the mailing of the Notice

      and Consent Forms, or transmitted to Plaintiffs' counsel via

      e-mail, text message, or facsimile on or before such date,
      shall be deemed timely.

Philips North America designs and manufactures products for
consumers, commercial professionals.[CC]

PROTECTIVE LIFE: Still Defends Advance Trust Class Suit in Alabama
------------------------------------------------------------------
Protective Life Insurance Company continues to defend itself
against a putative class action suit styled, Advance Trust & Life
Escrow Services, LTA, as Securities Intermediary of Life Partners
Position Holder Trust v. Protective Life Insurance Company, Case
No. 2:18-CV-01290, according to the Company'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.

This putative class action was filed on August 13, 2018 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Plaintiff alleges that the Company required policyholders to pay
unlawful and excessive cost of insurance charges.  Plaintiff seeks
to represent all owners of universal life and variable universal
life policies issued or administered by the Company or its
predecessors that provide that cost of insurance rates are to be
determined based on expectations of future mortality experience.

The plaintiff seeks class certification, compensatory damages,
pre-judgment and post judgment interest, costs, and other
unspecified relief.

The Company is vigorously defending this matter and cannot predict
the outcome of or reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of
loss that might result from this litigation.

Protective Life Insurance Company, a stock life insurance company,
provides financial services through the production, distribution,
and administration of insurance and investment products primarily
in the United States. The company operates through Life Marketing,
Acquisitions, Annuities, Stable Value Products, and Asset
Protection segments. The company was founded in 1907 and is based
in Birmingham, Alabama. Protective Life Insurance Company is a
subsidiary of Protective Life Corporation.


REV GROUP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit over 2017 IPO
--------------------------------------------------------------
REV Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended October 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated class action related to the company's January
2017 initial public offering.

A consolidated federal putative securities class action and a
consolidated state putative securities class action are pending
against the company and certain of its officers and directors, each
on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the company's common
stock in or traceable to the Company's January 2017 IPO and of
purchasers in the company's secondary offering of common stock in
October 2017, as well as, for the federal action, purchasers from
October 10, 2017 through June 7, 2018.

The actions also name certain of the underwriters for the Company's
IPO or secondary offering as defendants.

The federal and state courts each consolidated multiple separate
actions pending before them, the first of which was filed on June
8, 2018. The actions allege certain violations of the Securities
Act of 1933 and, for the federal action, the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

Collectively, the actions seek certification of the putative
classes asserted and compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and
costs.

The underwriter defendants have notified the company of their
intent to seek indemnification from the company pursuant to the IPO
underwriting agreement in regard to the claims asserted with
respect to the IPO, and the company expects the underwriters to do
the same in regard to the claims asserted with respect to the
October 2017 offering.

Two purported derivative actions, which have since been
consolidated, were also filed in federal court in Delaware in 2019
against the company's directors (with the company as a nominal
defendant), premised on allegations similar to those asserted in
the consolidated federal securities litigation.

REV Group said, "We and the other defendants intend to continue
defending these lawsuits vigorously. Additional lawsuits may be
filed and, at this time, we are unable to predict the outcome of
the lawsuits, the possible loss or range of loss, if any,
associated with the resolution of the lawsuits, or any potential
effect that it may have on us or our operations."

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

REV Group, Inc. designs, manufactures, and distributes specialty
vehicles in the United States, Canada, Europe, Africa, the Middle
East, Latin America, the Caribbean, and internationally. It
operates through three segments: Fire & Emergency, Commercial, and
Recreation. REV Group, Inc. was formerly known as Allied Specialty
Vehicles, Inc. and changed its name to REV Group, Inc. in November
2015. The company is headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Wiltse Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY WILTSE, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York Business
Corporation, Case No. 3:19-cv-01489-TJC-PDB (M.D. Fla., Dec. 31,
2019), seeks to recover overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

In November 2014, the Defendant hired Mr. Wiltse to work as a
non-exempt Field Sales manager ("FSM"). The Plaintiff was a
non-exempt employee of the Defendant, and was paid an annual
salary. From at least November 2014 and continuing through January
2017, Defendant failed to compensate Mr. Wiltse at a rate of one
and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a single work week, the lawsuit says.

Throughout his employment, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant
deprived him of proper overtime compensation for his hours worked
in excess for 40 hours each work week. He contends that he should
be compensated at the rate of one and one-half times his regular
rate for those hours that he worked in excess of 40 hours per work
week, as required by the FLSA.

Samsung Electronics manufactures electronic products. The company
offers televisions, digital cameras, cell phones, storage devices,
home appliances, security systems, smartwatches, and computer
products. Samsung Electronics America serves customers
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) WORKERS
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
          E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com


SANDERSON FARMS: 2nd Circuit Upholds Dismissal Order
----------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 19, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended October 31, 2019, that the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the decision
of the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granting the defendants' motion to dismiss.

Sanderson Farms, Inc.; Joe F. Sanderson, Jr., the Chairman of the
Registrant's Board of Directors and its Chief Executive Officer;
and D. Michael Cockrell, director and Chief Financial Officer, were
named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed on
October 28, 2016, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

On March 30, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
adding Lampkin Butts, director, Chief Operating Officer, and
President, as a defendant, and on June 15, 2017, the lead plaintiff
filed a second amended complaint.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made statements in the
Company's SEC filings and press releases, and other public
statements, that were materially false and misleading in light of
the Company's alleged, undisclosed violation of the federal
antitrust laws. The complaint also alleges that the material
misstatements were made in order to, among other things,
"artificially inflate and maintain the market price of Sanderson
Farms securities."

The complaint alleges the defendants thereby violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, including Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
and, for the individual defendants, Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, and seeks damages, interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

On January 19, 2018, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss and entered judgment for the defendants. On January 31,
2018, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeal was fully
briefed, and the Court of Appeals heard oral argument on August 31,
2018.

On December 10, 2019, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District
Court's decision granting the defendants' motion to dismiss.

Sanderson Farms, Inc., an integrated poultry processing company,
produces, processes, markets, and distributes fresh, frozen, and
prepared chicken products in the United States. Sanderson Farms,
Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Laurel,
Mississippi.


SANDERSON FARMS: Class Suit in North Carolina Remains Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 19, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended October 31, 2019, that the class action suit
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina remains stayed pending resolution of the action in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

On January 27, 2017, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its subsidiaries
were named as defendants, along with four other poultry producers
and certain of their affiliated companies, in a putative class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Oklahoma.

On March 27, 2017, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its subsidiaries were
named as defendants, along with four other poultry producers and
certain of their affiliated companies, in a second putative class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Oklahoma.

The Court ordered the suits consolidated into one proceeding, and
on July 10, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the defendants
unlawfully conspired by sharing data on compensation paid to
broiler farmers, with the purpose and effect of suppressing the
farmers' compensation below competitive levels. The consolidated
amended complaint also alleges that the defendants unlawfully
conspired to not solicit or hire the broiler farmers who were
providing services to other defendants.

The consolidated amended complaint seeks treble damages, costs and
attorneys' fees.

On September 8, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, on October 23, 2017, the plaintiffs filed their
response, and on November 22, 2017, the defendants filed a reply.
On January 19, 2018, the Court granted the Sanderson Farms
defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
The motion to dismiss the complaint filed in the Eastern District
of Oklahoma on its merits is pending as to the remaining
defendants.

On February 21, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a substantially similar
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina against Sanderson Farms and its
subsidiaries and another poultry producer.

The plaintiffs subsequently moved to consolidate this action with
the Eastern District of Oklahoma action in the Eastern District of
Oklahoma for pre-trial proceedings, with the defendants in support
thereof. That motion was denied.

On July 13, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit in
the Eastern District of North Carolina, and briefing was completed
on September 4, 2018. On January 15, 2019, the Court granted in
part the defendants' motion to dismiss and stayed the action in the
Eastern District of North Carolina pending resolution of the action
in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. No discovery has taken place
to date.

Sanderson Farms said, "We intend to defend this case vigorously;
however, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this action. If
the plaintiffs were to prevail, the Company could be liable for
damages, which could have a material, adverse effect on our
financial position and results of operations."

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

Sanderson Farms, Inc., an integrated poultry processing company,
produces, processes, markets, and distributes fresh, frozen, and
prepared chicken products in the United States. Sanderson Farms,
Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Laurel,
Mississippi.


SANDERSON FARMS: Consumer Class Action in California Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 19, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended October 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit initiated by purchasers of one or
more Sanderson chicken products in the prior four years.

On October 11, 2019, three named plaintiffs, Daniel Lentz, Pam La
Fosse, and Marybeth Norman filed, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, a nationwide class
action against Sanderson Farms, Inc. on behalf of a putative class
of all individuals and businesses throughout the United States who
purchased one or more Sanderson chicken products in the prior four
years.

The lawsuit alleges that the named plaintiffs and other class
members purchased Sanderson chicken products based on misleading
representations in Sanderson's advertising.

Specifically, the plaintiffs in this case allege that Sanderson's
advertising (including, but not limited to, on its website,
television commercials, radio advertisements, social media, print
magazines, billboards, and trucks) misleads consumers into
believing that (i) Sanderson's chickens were not given antibiotics
or other pharmaceuticals, (ii) the chickens were raised in a
"natural" environment, (iii) there is no evidence that the use of
antibiotics or other pharmaceuticals in poultry contributes to the
evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and (iv) Sanderson's
chicken products do not contain antibiotic or pharmaceutical
residues.

Plaintiffs allege that (i) Sanderson "routinely" feeds antibiotics
and pharmaceuticals to its chickens, (ii) Sanderson raises its
chickens indoors in "unnatural" indoor conditions amounting to
"intensive confinement" and without natural light (iii) there is
"extensive" reliable evidence that the use of antibiotics in
poultry contributes to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and (iv)
Sanderson's chickens have been found to contain antibiotic and
pharmaceutical residue. The Complaint asserts five causes of action
under California and North Carolina law.

The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief directing Sanderson to
correct its practices and to comply with consumer protection laws
nationwide. The plaintiffs also seek monetary, compensatory,
statutory, and punitive damages, as well as attorneys' and experts'
fees, costs, and expenses.

Sanderson has not yet responded to the Complaint. Sanderson's
response is due on December 20, 2019.

Sanderson said, "We intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously;
however, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this action. If
the plaintiffs were to prevail, the Company could be liable for
damages, which could have a material, adverse effect on our
financial position and results of operations."

Sanderson Farms, Inc., an integrated poultry processing company,
produces, processes, markets, and distributes fresh, frozen, and
prepared chicken products in the United States. Sanderson Farms,
Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Laurel,
Mississippi.


SANDERSON FARMS: Maryland Employees Class Action Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 19, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended October 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated class action suit in Maryland initiated by
the non-supervisory production and maintenance employees.

On August 30, 2019, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its Foods and
Processing Divisions, as well as seventeen other poultry producers
and their affiliates; Agri Stats, Inc.; and Webber, Meng, Sahl and
Company, Inc. ("WMS"), were named in a putative class action filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
To date, three other nearly identical putative class action
complaints, each seeking to represent the same putative class, have
been filed.

The complaints, brought on behalf of non-supervisory production and
maintenance employees at broiler chicken processing plants, allege
that the defendants unlawfully conspired by agreeing to fix and
depress the compensation paid to them, including hourly wages and
compensation benefits, from January 1, 2009 to the present.

The plaintiffs claim that broiler producers shared competitively
sensitive wage and benefits compensation information in three ways:
(1) attending in-person meetings in Destin, Florida; (2) receiving
Agri Stats reports, as well as surveys taken and published by WMS;
and (3) directly exchanging wage and benefits information with
plant managers at other defendant broiler producers. Plaintiffs
allege that this conduct violated the Sherman Antitrust Act.

On November 12, 2019, the Court ordered that the four putative
class action complaints would be consolidated for all pretrial
purposes. The Court ordered plaintiffs to file their consolidated
complaint on or before November 14, 2019. Defendants' motions to
dismiss the consolidated complaint were filed on November 22, 2019.
Briefing was scheduled to be completed on or before February 28,
2020; however, on November 26, 2019, plaintiffs notified defendants
that they intend to file an amended consolidated complaint.

Additional motions to dismiss likely will follow, after which the
parties will wait for a decision on the defendants' motion to
dismiss from the trial court.

Sanderson said, "We intend to defend these cases vigorously;
however, the Company cannot predict the outcome of these actions.
If the plaintiffs were to prevail, the Company could be liable for
damages, which could have a material, adverse effect on our
financial position and results of operations."

Sanderson Farms, Inc., an integrated poultry processing company,
produces, processes, markets, and distributes fresh, frozen, and
prepared chicken products in the United States. Sanderson Farms,
Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Laurel,
Mississippi.


SANDERSON FARMS: Stay in Broiler Chicken Suit Extends Until June 27
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 19, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended October 31, 2019, that the Court overseeing
the class action lawsuit entitled, In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust
Litigation, has extended the stay until June 27, 2020.

Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, Sanderson Farms,
Inc. and its subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with 13
other poultry producers and certain of their affiliated companies,
in multiple putative class action lawsuits filed by direct and
indirect purchasers of broiler chickens in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The complaints allege that the defendants conspired to unlawfully
fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of broiler chickens,
thereby violating federal and certain states' antitrust laws, and
also allege certain related state-law claims.

The complaints also allege that the defendants fraudulently
concealed the alleged anticompetitive conduct in furtherance of the
conspiracy.

The complaints seek damages, including treble damages for the
antitrust claims, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys' fees.

The Court has consolidated all of the direct purchaser complaints
into one case, and the indirect purchaser complaints into two
cases, one on behalf of commercial and institutional indirect
purchaser plaintiffs and one on behalf of end-user consumer
plaintiffs. The cases are part of a coordinated proceeding
captioned In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation.

On October 28, 2016, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs
filed consolidated, amended complaints, and on November 23, 2016,
the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed second amended
complaints.

On December 16, 2016, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs separated
into two cases. On that date, the commercial and institutional
indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, and
the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

On January 27, 2017, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaints in all of the cases, and on November 20, 2017,
the motions to dismiss were denied.

On February 7, 2018, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed their
third amended complaint, adding three additional poultry producers
as defendants. On February 12, 2018, the end-user consumer
plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint, in which they also
added three additional poultry producers as defendants, along with
Agri Stats. On February 20, 2018, the commercial and institutional
indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their fourth amended complaint.
On November 13, 2018, the commercial and institutional indirect
purchaser plaintiffs filed their fifth amended complaint, adding
three additional poultry producers as defendants. On November 28,
2018, the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed their third amended
complaint. On January 15, 2019, the direct purchaser plaintiffs
filed their fourth amended complaint, and the commercial and
institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their sixth
amended complaint.

Both the direct purchaser plaintiffs and the commercial and
institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs added two new poultry
producers as defendants, as well as Agri Stats. On April 29, 2019,
the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed their fourth amended
complaint. The parties are currently engaged in discovery, subject
to the limited stay.

Between December 8, 2017 and September 13, 2019, additional
purported direct-purchaser entities individually brought
thirty-three separate suits against 19 poultry producers, including
Sanderson Farms, and Agri Stats in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, the United States District
Court for the District of Kansas, the United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas, and the United States
District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.

These suits allege substantially similar claims to the direct
purchaser class complaint described above; certain of the suits
additionally allege related state-law and common law claims, and
related claims under federal and Georgia RICO statutes. Those suits
filed in the Northern District of Illinois are now pending in front
of the same judge as the putative class action lawsuits.

On June 26, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to transfer the
case filed in the District of Kansas to the Northern District of
Illinois, and that motion was granted on September 13, 2018. On
June 7, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion to transfer the case
filed in the Western District of Arkansas to the Northern District
of Illinois, and that motion was granted on June 11, 2019. On July
24, 2019, one of the defendants filed a motion to transfer the case
filed in the District of Puerto Rico to the Northern District of
Illinois, and that motion was granted on July 25, 2019.

On July 22, 2019, the Company moved to dismiss in part those
direct-purchaser complaints that allege claims under federal and
Georgia RICO statutes against it. The motion was fully briefed on
September 20, 2019, and a hearing on the motion is scheduled for
December 18, 2019.

On October 18, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss the case filed by
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico on its behalf and on behalf of its
citizens. The motion will be fully briefed on January 21, 2020. The
parties are currently engaged in discovery, subject to the limited
stay. It is possible additional individual actions may be filed.

The Company is aware that certain plaintiffs' counsel in In re
Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation received from the United
States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, a subpoena that
included a request to produce all discovery in the case to a grand
jury.

On June 27, 2019, the Court in In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust
Litigation permitted the United States Department of Justice to
intervene in the case, as well as ordered certain discovery stayed
until September 27, 2019.

Before the discovery stay expired on September 27, 2019, the United
States Department of Justice asked the Court in In re Broiler
Chicken Antitrust Litigation to extend the discovery stay for an
additional six months. On September 25, 2019, the Court granted the
additional stay of not less than three months. On October 16, 2019,
after further consideration, the Court extended the stay until June
27, 2020.

The Company received a grand jury subpoena in connection with the
United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division
investigation on September 9, 2019. The Company is complying with
the subpoena and producing documents as requested.

Sanderson said, "We intend to continue to defend the lawsuits
vigorously; however, the Company cannot predict the outcome of
these actions. If the plaintiffs were to prevail, the Company could
be liable for damages, which could have a material, adverse effect
on our financial position and results of operations."

Sanderson Farms, Inc., an integrated poultry processing company,
produces, processes, markets, and distributes fresh, frozen, and
prepared chicken products in the United States. Sanderson Farms,
Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Laurel,
Mississippi.


SECOND ROUND: Faces Shehadeh Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Second Round Sub,
LLC. The case is captioned as Alia Shehadeh on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Second Round Sub, LLC and
Blitt & Gaines, P.C., Case No. 1:19-cv-08525 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 31,
2019).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Harry D. Leinenweber.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Defendants are debt collection agencies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Celetha Chatman, Esq.
          Michael Jacob Wood, Esq.
          COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD.
          20 North Clark Street, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 757-1880
          E-mail: cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com
                  mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com

               - and -

          Mario Kris Kasalo, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF M. KRIS KASALO, LTD.
          20 North Clark Street, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 726-6160
          E-mail: mario.kasalo@kasalolaw.com


SGS AUTOMOTIVE: Carrol Seeks to Certify Class in TCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as TAYLOR CARROLL, individually
and on behalf of the Class, the Plaintiff, vs. SGS AUTOMOTIVE
SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00537-SDD-RLB (M.D.
La.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an Order:

   1. certifying the following class:

      Prerecorded Message Class:

      "all persons in the United States to whom, between October
      16, 2013 and May 17, 2017, SGS North America, Inc. ("SGS")
      made an artificial or prerecorded telephone message using
      its dialing system, at a telephone number supplied by
      American Honda Finance Corporation ("AHFC") to SGS, which
      was identified as a home number and resulted in Status ID
      codes on SGS’s records of "801 -- Left message on answering

      machine -- Home" and/or "1201 -- Left message with other –

      Home," regarding vehicles that were the subject of a vehicle

      lease signed between the dates of October 1, 2009 and
      September 30, 2013. Excluded from the class are all judges
      and court personnel employed by the Court assigned to this
      matter, and all officers, directors, and employees of
      Defendant.

      and/or the following joint/alternative class:

      Cell Phone Class:

      "all persons or entities in the United States to whom,
      between October 16, 2013 and May 17, 2017, SGS North
      America, Inc. ("SGS") made an artificial or prerecorded
      telephone message from its dialing system, at a telephone
      number supplied by American Honda Finance Corporation
      ("AHFC") to SGS, which was designated on SGS’s records with

      Status ID codes of "801 – Left message on answering machine

      -- Home," "802 -- Left message on answering machine --
      Work," "1201 – Left message with other -- Home," or "1202
--
      Left message with other -- Work" and was a cellular
      telephone number, regarding vehicles that were the subject
      of a vehicle lease that was signed between the dates of
      October 1, 2009 and September 30, 2013. Excluded from the
      class are all judges and court personnel employed by the
      Court assigned to this matter, and all officers, directors,
      and employees of Defendant.;

   2. appointing Taylor Carroll as the class representative; and

   3. appointing Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

SGD Automotive was founded in 1980. The company's line of business
includes providing the inspection and weighing of goods in
connection with transportation or in the operation of fixed
facilities for motor vehicle transportation.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher K. Jones, Esq.
          JOHN P. WOLFF, III, Esq.
          KEOGH, COX & WILSON, LTD
          701 Main Street
          Baton Rouge, LA 70802
          Telephone: (225) 383-3796
          Facsimile: (225) 343-9612
          E-mail: jwolff@keoghcox.com
                  cjones@keoghcox.com

               - and -

          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          Scott E. Brady, Esq.
          BOHRER LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Telephone: (225) 925-5297
          E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
                 scott@bohrerbrady.com

SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: 8 Class Suits Filed over IPO Documents
-----------------------------------------------------------
SmileDirectClub, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that it is facing
eight purported stockholder action complaints related to its
initial public offering disclosures.

In September and October 2019, a number of purported stockholder
class action complaints were filed against the Company, members of
its board of directors, certain of its current officers, and the
underwriters of its IPO.

The following eight complaints have been filed through November 14:
Mancour v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19-1169-IV (TN Chancery Court
filed 9/27/19), Vang v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19c2316 (TN Circuit
Court filed 9/30/19), Fernandez v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19c2371
(TN Circuit Court filed 10/4/19), Wei Wei v. SmileDirectClub, Inc.,
19-1254-III (TN Chancery Court filed 10/18/19), Andre v.
SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19-cv-12883 (E.D. Mich. filed 10/2/19),
Ginsberg v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19-cv-09794 (S.D.N.Y. filed
10/23/19), Ginsberg v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19-cv-962 (M.D. Tenn.
filed 10/29/19), Nurlybayev v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19-177527-CB
(Oakland County, MI Circuit Court filed 10/30/19).

The complaints all allege, among other things, that the
registration statement filed with the SEC on August 16, 2019, and
accompanying amendments, and the Prospectus filed with the SEC on
September 13, 2019, in connection with the Company's initial public
offering were inaccurate and misleading, contained untrue
statements of material facts, omitted to state other facts
necessary to make the statements made not misleading, and omitted
to state material facts required to be stated therein.

The complaints seek unspecified money damages, other equitable
relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.  All of the actions are in
the preliminary stages.

The Company denies any alleged wrongdoing and intends to vigorously
defend against these actions.

SmileDirectClub, Inc. operates a teledentistry platform that
provides members with a customized clear aligner therapy treatment
in the United States and internationally. The company manages the
end-to-end process, which include marketing, aligner manufacturing,
fulfillment, treatment by a doctor, and monitoring through
completion of their treatment proprietary with a network of
approximately 240 state licensed orthodontists and general dentists
through its teledentistry platform, SmileCheck. It offers aligners,
impression kits, whitening gels, and retainers. The company was
founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee.


SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Ciccio Suit over False Advertising Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
SmileDirectClub, Inc. is facing a putative class action on behalf
of a consumer and three orthodontists in Tennessee related to the
Company's advertising, according to the Company'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.

In September 2019, a putative class action on behalf of a consumer
and three orthodontists was brought against the Company in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Ciccio, et al.
v. SmileDirectClub, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00845 (M.D.
Tenn.).  The Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of warranty, false
advertising under the Lanham Act, common law fraud, and various
state consumer protection statutes relating to the Company's
advertising.

The Company recently filed a motion to compel individual
arbitration pursuant to a mandatory arbitration provision in the
Company's terms of service, a motion to dismiss all of the other
claims, and a motion for sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for false statements made in the
complaint.

Litigation is in the pleading stage and discovery has not yet
commenced.  The Company denies any alleged wrongdoing and intends
to vigorously defend against this action.

SmileDirectClub, Inc. operates a teledentistry platform that
provides members with a customized clear aligner therapy treatment
in the United States and internationally. The company manages the
end-to-end process, which include marketing, aligner manufacturing,
fulfillment, treatment by a doctor, and monitoring through
completion of their treatment proprietary with a network of
approximately 240 state licensed orthodontists and general dentists
through its teledentistry platform, SmileCheck. It offers aligners,
impression kits, whitening gels, and retainers. The company was
founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee.


SPACE AGE: Certification of Cable Installers Class Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as GENEVIVE GARZA, Individually
and on behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, the PLAINTIFF, vs.
SPACE AGE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., and CREATIVE BROADBAND SOLUTIONS,
LLC, the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 5:19-cv-700-FB-HJB (W.D. Tex.), the
Parties ask the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying this class for notice purposes
      only:

      "all Cable Installers who performed services for Broadband
      Solutions and were paid on a piece-rate basis since January
      1, 2017."

   2. approving Plaintiff's form of Notices and Consents;

   3. directing Defendants to produce to Plaintiff's counsel the
      names, addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses of
      all persons in the conditional class in an electronic and
      searchable spreadsheet format (such as Excel) within seven
      days after the Court enters an order granting the motion;

   4. approving distribution of appropriate Notices and Consents
      by U.S. Mail and Email and the signing of Consents
      electronically;

   5. directing Plaintiff to send notice via U.S. Mail and
      Email within seven days after Defendants produce contact
      information to the class;

   6. directing Plaintiff to send the Reminder Postcard thirty
      days after initial mailing to the putative class members who

      have not responded to the Notice; and

   7. setting the period in which to allow for putative class
      members to opt-in to the case to be 50 days after Plaintiff
      sends the notices.

Plaintiff brought the suit on behalf of all Cable Installers of
Defendants who were paid on a piece-rate basis, to recover alleged
overtime wages and other alleged damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the lawsuit says.

Space Age provides telecommunication services. The company installs
residential and commercial triple plays, trouble calls, VOIP, and
MDU rewires, as well as constructs aerial and underground, fiber
splicing, trap, and DTA projects. Creative Broadband is doing
business in cable television. The company was established in 2010
and incorporated in Texas.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

Attorneys for Space Age Communications, INC., are:

          Samuel S. Allen, Esq.
          Jon Mark Hogg, Esq.
          JACKSON WALKER LLP
          135 W. Twohig, Suite C
          San Angelo, TX 76903
          Telephone: (325) 481-2558
          Facsimile: (325) 481-2571
          E-mail: sallen@jw.com

               - and -

          Jay K. Rutherford, Esq.
          JACKSON WALKER LLP
          777 Main Street, Suite 2100
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 334-7200
          Facsimile: (817) 334-7290
          E-mail: jrutherford@jw.com

Attorneys for Creative Broadband Solutions, LLC are:

          David M. Evans, Esq.
          750 East Mulberry, Suite 407
          San Antonio, TX 78212
          Telephone: 210 880 4606
          E-mail: david@dmeacl.com

SPECTRUM BRANDS: Bid to Nix Dane County Court Class Suit  Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended class action
complaint filed in the Circuit Court of Dane County, Wisconsin,
against Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc., among other defendants,
remains pending, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 15, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019.

On August 16, 2019, an amended class action complaint, superseding
a complaint filed earlier in 2019, was filed in the Circuit Court
of Dane County, Wisconsin against the Company and certain of the
Company's current and former directors and officers.

The complaint alleges that certain financial statements
incorporated into the registration statement contained
misstatements in violation of the Securities Act of 1933.

The plaintiff is seeking to represent all persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock pursuant
to the registration statement that was issued in connection with
the Company's merger with its subsidiary, Spectrum Brands Legacy,
Inc., completed on July 13, 2018.  The complaint also seeks an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages, interest, rescission or
damages, attorneys' and expert fees, and costs.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
October 3, 2019 with briefing to be completed by December 2019.
The Company believes the suit is without merit and intends to
defend it vigorously.


SPECTRUM BRANDS: Bid to Nix Wisconsin Consolidated Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss an amended consolidated class action complaint
filed in Wisconsin remains pending, according to Spectrum Brands
Holdings, Inc.'s Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 15, 2019, for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2019.

On July 12, 2019, an amended consolidated class action complaint,
superseding complaints filed earlier in 2019, was filed in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
by The Public School Teachers' Pension & Retirement Fund of Chicago
and the Cambridge Retirement against Spectrum Brands Legacy, Inc.
("Spectrum Legacy"), Andreas Rouve (Spectrum Brands Legacy, Inc.'s
former Chief Executive Officer) and Douglas Martin (Spectrum Brands
Legacy, Inc.'s former Chief Financial Officer and the Company's
former Chief Financial Officer).

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making misrepresentations and omissions
concerning operations at the Company's facilities in Dayton, Ohio
and Edgerton, Kansas and that, as a result, Spectrum Legacy's
financial statements were materially inaccurate.  The amended
complaint also adds HRG Group, Inc. ("HRG") as a defendant and
asserts additional claims against the Company on behalf of a
purported class of HRG shareholders.  The class period of the
consolidated amended complaint is from January 26, 2017 to November
19, 2018, and plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, interest, attorneys' and expert fees, and costs.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on August 26,
2019 and briefing was concluded as of November 6, 2019.  The
Company believes the suit is without merit and intends to defend it
vigorously.


STADION MONEY: Davis Benefits Claims Row Transferred to Nebraska
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Kimberly Davis, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff,
v. Stadion Money Management, LLC, and United of Omaha Life
Insurance Company, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00119 (M.D. N.C.,
January 25, 2019) was transferred to the United States District
Court for the District of Nebraska on December 20, 2019, and
assigned Case No. 19-cv-00556.

Stadion provides a managed account service to participants in
employer-sponsored retirement plans. Davis worked for Palace
Entertainment in Greensboro, North Carolina and Riverhead, New
York, and participated in its 401(k) retirement plan. The Palace
Plan offered investments through a United of Omaha group variable
annuity contract, and also included Stadion's managed account
service. Davis was a participant in Stadion's managed account
service until March 2013, at which time Davis received a
distribution of the benefits in her account from the Palace Plan
and Stadion canceled her service.

Davis asserts claims for breach of the fiduciary duties of loyalty
and prudence, failure to monitor fiduciaries, prohibited
transactions with a party-in-interest and prohibited transactions
with a fiduciary and seeks to recover losses caused by Defendants'
violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      F. Hill Allen, Esq.
      THARRINGTON SMITH, LLP
      Raleigh, NC 27602-1151
      Telephone: (919) 821-4711
      Facsimile: (919) 829-1583
      E-mail: hallen@tharringtonsmith.com

              - and -

      Kai H. Richter, Esq.
      Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
      Paul Lukas, Esq.
      Brandon T. McDonough, Esq.
      Brock J. Specht, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER PLLP
      4600 IDS Center, 80S 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 256-3200
      Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
      Email: krichter@nka.com
             cengstrom@nka.com
             lukas@nka.com
             bmcdonough@nka.com
             bspecht@nka.com


SUPER MICRO: Bid to Dismiss NY Trades Council & Hotel Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
SuperMicro Computer Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 19, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2019, that the company's motion
to dismiss filed in the class action suit headed by the New York
Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc.
Pension Fund, is pending.

On February 8, 2018, two putative class action complaints were
filed against the company, its CEO, and its former CFO in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (Hessefort
v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-00838 and United
Union of Roofers v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., et al., No.
18-cv-00850).

The complaints contain similar allegations, claiming that the
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
due to alleged misrepresentations and/or omissions in public
statements regarding recognition of revenue.

The court subsequently appointed New York Hotel Trades Council &
Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund as lead
plaintiff and it filed an amended complaint naming the company's
Senior Vice President of Investor Relations as an additional
defendant.

On June 21, 2019, plaintiff filed a further amended complaint
naming the company's former Senior Vice President of International
Sales, Corporate Secretary, and Director as an additional
defendant.

On July 26, 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss which
remains pending.

SuperMicro said, "We believe the allegations filed are without
merit, and intend to vigorously defend against the lawsuit."

SuperMicro Computer Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and sells
application-optimized server systems and components based on a
modular and open-standard architecture. Customers can order server
solutions with levels of processing power, input/output bandwidth,
and memory capacity tailored for their specific application needs.
Super Micro Computer was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in
San Jose, California.


SUPERCUTS INC: Delamarter FCRA Suit Removed to D. Minn.
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Christopher Delamarter, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Supercuts,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 27-CV-19-19280 (D. Minn., November 19,
2019), was removed from the District Court for the Fourth Judicial
District for the State of Minnesota, Hennepin County, to the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota on December 23,
2019, and assigned Case No. 19-cv-03158.

Delamarter sued Supercuts for violations of the Fair and Accurate
Credit Transactions Act when more than the last five digits of his
credit card number was reflected in a receipt in one of his
transactions at the point of sale or transaction from a
Supercuts-branded salon, thus exposing him to credit card fraud
and/or identity theft.

Supercuts claims that Plaintiff's complaint presents a cause of
action created by federal law, and may be removed. [BN]

Supercuts is represented by:

      Ruth N. Dapper, Esq.
      Christopher M. Young, Esq.
      Julie A. Gryce, Esq.
      DLA PIPER LLP (US)
      401 B Street, Suite 1700
      San Diego, CA 92101-4297
      Telephone: (619) 699-2700
      Facsimile: (619) 699-2701
      Email: Ruth.Dapper@dlapiper.com
             Christopher.Young@dlapiper.com
             Julie.Gryce@dlapiper.com


TD AMERITRADE: 8th Cir. Appeal in Ford Class Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal in the case, Roderick Ford (replacing Gerald Klein) v.
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al., is still pending in the
U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, according to TD Ameritrade's
Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 15, 2019, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019.

In 2014, five putative class action complaints were filed regarding
TD Ameritrade, Inc.'s routing of client orders and one putative
class action was filed regarding Scottrade, Inc.'s routing of
client orders.  Five of the six cases were dismissed and the United
States Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, affirmed the dismissals in
those cases that were appealed.

The one remaining case is Roderick Ford (replacing Gerald Klein) v.
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:14CV396 (U.S.
District Court, District of Nebraska).  In the remaining case,
plaintiff alleges that, when routing client orders to various
market centers, defendants did not seek best execution, and instead
routed clients' orders to market venues that paid TD Ameritrade,
Inc. the most money for order flow.  Plaintiff alleges that
defendants made misrepresentations and omissions regarding the
Company's order routing practices.  The complaint asserts claims of
violations of Section 10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule
10b-5.  The complaint seeks damages, injunctive relief, and other
relief.  Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which
defendants opposed.

On July 12, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and a
recommendation that plaintiff's motion for class certification be
denied.  Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's
findings and recommendation, which defendants opposed.

On September 14, 2018, the District Judge sustained plaintiff's
objections, rejected the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and
granted plaintiff's motion for class certification.

On September 28, 2018, defendants filed a petition requesting that
the U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, grant an immediate appeal
of the District Court's class certification decision.  The U.S.
Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, granted defendants' petition on
December 18, 2018.  Briefing on the appeal is complete.

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce have filed amicus curiae briefs in support
of the Company's appeal.  The Company intends to vigorously defend
against this lawsuit and is unable to predict the outcome or the
timing of the ultimate resolution of the lawsuit, or the potential
loss, if any, that may result.

TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation provides securities brokerage and
related technology-based financial services to retail investors and
traders, and independent registered investment advisors (RIAs) in
the United States. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation provides its
services primarily through the Internet, a network of retail
branches, mobile trading applications, interactive voice response,
and registered representatives through telephone. The company was
founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska.


TD AMERITRADE: Awaits Court OK on Ciuffitelli Class Settlements
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the Lawrence Ciuffitelli class action are awaiting
court approval of their settlement deal, according to TD Ameritrade
Holding Corporation's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 15, 2019, for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2019.

An amended putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Oregon in Lawrence Ciuffitelli
et al. v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, EisnerAmper LLP, Sidley Austin
LLP, Tonkon Torp LLP, TD Ameritrade, Inc., and Integrity Bank &
Trust, Case No. 3:16CV580, on May 19, 2016.  A second amended
putative class action complaint was filed on September 8, 2017, in
which Duff & Phelps was added as a defendant.  The putative class
includes all persons who purchased securities of Aequitas
Commercial Finance, LLC and its affiliates on or after June 9,
2010.  Other groups of plaintiffs have filed non-class action
lawsuits in Oregon Circuit Court, Multnomah County, against these
and other defendants.

FINRA arbitrations have also been filed against TD Ameritrade, Inc.
The claims in these actions include allegations that the sales of
Aequitas securities were unlawful, the defendants participated and
materially aided in such sales in violation of the Oregon
securities laws, and material misstatements and omissions were
made.

While the factual allegations differ in various respects among the
cases, plaintiffs' allegations include assertions that: TD
Ameritrade, Inc. customers purchased more than US$140 million of
Aequitas securities; TD Ameritrade, Inc. served as custodian for
Aequitas securities; recommended and referred investors to
financial advisors as part of its advisor referral program for the
purpose of purchasing Aequitas securities; participated in
marketing the securities; recommended the securities; provided
assurances to investors about the safety of the securities; and
developed a market for the securities.  In the Ciuffitelli putative
class action, plaintiffs allege that more than 1,500 investors were
owed more than US$600 million on the Aequitas securities they
purchased.

On August 1, 2018, the Magistrate Judge in that case issued
findings and a recommendation that defendants' motions to dismiss
the pending complaint be denied with limited exceptions not
applicable to the Company.  TD Ameritrade, Inc. and other
defendants filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings and
recommendation, which plaintiffs opposed.

On September 24, 2018, the District Judge issued an opinion and
order adopting the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendation.

In May 2019, TD Ameritrade, Inc. settled all of the non-class
action claims then pending for an immaterial amount paid by its
insurers.  Plaintiffs and defendants Tonkon Torp and Integrity Bank
entered into agreements to settle the claims in the Ciuffitelli
case on a class basis for an aggregate amount of US$14.6 million
subject to Court approval.  Following a mediation, on July 9, 2019,
plaintiffs and the remaining defendants in the Ciuffitelli case
reached an agreement to settle the claims on a class basis for
US$220 million subject to Court approval.  If the Court approves
the settlement, TD Ameritrade, Inc. will contribute US$20 million
and its insurers US$12 million of the aggregate settlement amount.

On July 15, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and a
recommendation that the District Judge preliminarily approve the
class settlements.

On August 7, 2019, the District Judge issued an order adopting the
Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendation on preliminary
approval.

A settlement hearing was scheduled for November 26, 2019.

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

TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation provides securities brokerage and
related technology-based financial services to retail investors and
traders, and independent registered investment advisors (RIAs) in
the United States. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation provides its
services primarily through the Internet, a network of retail
branches, mobile trading applications, interactive voice response,
and registered representatives through telephone. The company was
founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska.


THERMO FISHER: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Metzke Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLEY METZKE, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INC., a Delaware
Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
CGC719-581914 (Cal. Super., Dec. 31, 2019), accuses the Defendants
of violating the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to provide
required meal periods, to provide required rest periods, to pay
overtime wages and minimum wage, to pay all wages due to discharged
or quitting employee, to provide accurate itemized statements, and
to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures incurred in
discharge of duties, all in violation of the California Labor
Code.

The Plaintiff is a female resident of the State of California and a
former employee of the Defendants. She and other persons similarly
situated performed work for the Defendants in the County of San
Francisco.

As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions of the
Defendants, Ms. Metzke asserts she suffered, and continues to
suffer from loss of earnings.

Thermo Fisher is an American biotechnology product development
company located in Waltham, Massachusetts, and was created in 2006
by the merger of Thermo Electron and Fisher Scientific.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Taras Kick, Esq.
          Roy K. Suh, Esq.
          Daniel J. Bass, Esq.
          THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
          815 Moraga Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90049
          Telephone: (310) 395-2988
          Facsimile: (310) 395-2088
          E-mail: Yaras@kicklawfirm.com
                  Roy@kicklawfirm.com
                  Daniel@kicklawfirm.com


TRANSDEV SERVICES: Hakeem Seeks to Certify Three Classes
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CHAUENGA M. HAKEEM on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC.; TRANSDEV NORTH AMERICA, INC.; TRANSDEV;
TRANSDEV, INC.; and DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-02161-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on
March 26, 2020, for an order:

   1. certifying the action as a class action pursuant to the
      Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3); and

   2. certifying three classes consisting of:

      -- Minimum Wage Class:

      "all current and former hourly, non-exempt drivers employed
      by Defendant Transdev Services, Inc. in California at any
      time between March 1, 2015, through the date of a signed
      order certifying the class who underwent mandatory drug
      testing."

      -- Wage Statement Class consisting of three subclasses:

      a. Derivate of Minimum Wage Subclass:

         "all current and former hourly non-exempt drivers
         employed by Defendant Transdev Services, Inc. in
         California at any time between March 1, 2018 and the date

         the court signs an order certifying a class who underwent

         mandatory drug testing"

      b. Pay Raise Subclass:

         "all current and former hourly, non-exempt drivers
         employed by Defendant Transdev Services, Inc. in
         California at any time between March 1, 2018 and the date

         the court signs an order certifying a class who received
         a pay raise resulting in their wage statements reflecting

         inaccurate overtime rates of pay"; and

      c. Vacation Wages Subclass:

         "all current and former hourly, non-exempt drivers
         employed by Defendant Transdev Services, Inc. in
         California at any time between March 1, 2018 and the date

         the court signs an order certifying a class who received
         wage statements reflecting inaccurate vacation/pto
         wages"; and

      -- Final Wage Class:

      "all current and former hourly, non-exempt drivers employed
      by Defendant Transdev Services, Inc. in California at any
      time between March 1, 2016, through the date of a signed
      order certifying the class who underwent mandatory drug
      testing."

   3. appointing herself as Class Representative; and

   4. appointing Joseph Lavi, Vincent C. Granberry, and Joshua
      Webster of Lavi & Ebrahimian, LLP and Sahag Majarian II of
      The Law Offices of Sahag Majarian II as Class Counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Joseph Lavi, Esq.
           Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
           Joshua Webster, Esq.
           LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
           8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
           Beverly Hills, CA 90211
           Telephone: (310) 432-0000
           Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
           E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                   vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
                    jwebster@lealwfirm.com

                - and -

           Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
           LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
           18250 Ventura Boulevard
           Tarzana, CA 91356
           Telephone: (818) 609-0807
           Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
           E-mail: sahagii@aol.com

TRIWEST HEALTHCARE: Faces Schwarz Employment Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Triwest Healthcare
Alliance Corp. The case is captioned as Marion Schwarz and Other
members of the general public similarly situated v. Triwest
Healthcare Alliance Corp., a Delaware corporation and Does 1-100,
Case No. 34-2019-00272292-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Dec. 31, 2019).

The suit alleges violation of employment related laws.

Triwest Healthcare is a Phoenix, Arizona based corporation that
manages health benefits under the United States Department of
Veterans Affairs VAPCCC program in Regions 3, 5, and 6. On October
1, 2018, TriWest's contract for VAPCCC was expanded to cover
Regions 1, 2, and 4.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          751 N Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 101
          Pasadena, CA 91103-3069
          Telephone: (818) 230-7502
          Facsimile: (818) 230-7259
          E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com


WALMART INC: Adolphus Fraud Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Jeremiah Adolphus individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Walmart Inc. and
Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 19STCV28638, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Division-Los Angeles) on Dec. 31, 2019.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-10983-JFW-AFM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge John F. Walter.

The suit alleges fraud related laws demanding $5 million in
damages.

Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas. The company
was founded by Sam Walton in 1962 and incorporated on October 31,
1969.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq.
          Thomas Edward Wheeler, Esq.
          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC
          21550 Oxnard Street Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (323) 306-4234
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: abacon@toddflaw.com
                  twheeler@toddflaw.com
                  tfriedman@toddflaw.com

Walmart Inc. is represented by:

          Lisa M. Simonetti, Esq.
          Alexander L. Linhardt, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          1840 Century Park East Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121
          Telephone: (424) 204-7700
          Facsimile: (424) 586-7800
          E-mail: simonettil@gtlaw.com
                  linhardta@gtlaw.com


WALMART INC: Dancy Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Missed Breaks
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tamara Dancy, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Walmart Inc., Wal—Mart Associates, Inc. and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 19CV360648, Cal. Super.,
December 23, 2019), seeks unpaid overtime wages and interest
thereon, redress for failure to authorize or permit required meal
periods, statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage
statements, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation
wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon
separation of employment, failure to maintain time-keeping records,
injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's
fees, costs and interest under California Labor Code and applicable
Industrial Wage Orders.

Wal-Mart Inc. and Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. operates a retail
establishment where Dancy worked as an assistant store manager and
was classified as an exempt employee from around June 2013 t0 early
2018. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Taras Kick, Esq.
      Roy K. Suh (SBN No. 283988)
      Daniel J. Bass (SBN N0. 287466)
      THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
      815 Moraga Drive
      Los Angeles, CA 90049
      Telephone: (310) 395-2988
      Facsimile: (310) 395-2088
      Email: taras@kicklawfirm.com
             roy@kicklawfirm.com
             daniel@kicklawfirm.com


X FINANCIAL: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against X Financial, Inc. (XYF) and certain of its officers. The
class action, filed in United States District Court, for the
Eastern District of New York, and docketed under 19-cv-06908, is on
behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired X Financial American Depositary Shares ("ADSs")
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's September 19, 2018
initial public offering (the "IPO") seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased X Financial ADSs pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's September 19, 2018 IPO, you have
until February 7, 2020, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S.
Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and number of shares purchased.

X Financial is a finance technology company based in Shenzhen,
China. The Company operates a peer-to-peer ("P2P") platform that
matches borrowers and lenders. The Company's primary source of
revenue is the fees it charges for facilitating and processing
loans between the two groups on its platform.

X Financial facilitates two primary types of loans. The Company's
Xiaoying Card Loan ("card loan") product is a credit card balance
transfer product. The Company describes card loans as "our flagship
product targeting prime borrowers." X Financial derived 36.7% of
its revenues in 2017 from card loans, making it the Company's
largest product. X Financial offers its card loan product in
amounts, or "ticket sizes," from RMB2,000 to RMB60,000.

X Financial's Xiaoying Preferred Loan ("preferred loan") is a
product marketed primarily to small- and medium-sized enterprises
("SMEs"). Preferred loans, the Company's second largest product,
accounted for 22.6% of the Company's revenues in 2017. The Company
offers its preferred loans at a variety of ticket sizes, typically
depending on the type of investor, but generally between RMB100,000
and RMB600,000, making preferred loans significantly larger than
card loans.

The Complaint alleges that the company's Registration Statement was
negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements
of material fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make
the statements made not misleading and was not prepared in
accordance with the rules and regulations governing its
preparation. Specifically, the Registration Statement made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
the Company's total loan facilitation amount was not growing, but
rather was contracting; (ii) the number of investors actively using
X Financial's platform was shrinking; (iii) demand from SMEs for
the Company's preferred loans was plummeting; (iv) the Company's
preferred loans had performed so poorly that it had begun
drastically scaling back its preferred loans in the first quarter
of 2018, several months before the IPO, and was in the process of
phasing out such loans completely; (v) demand for the Company's
card loans was also plummeting; (vi) the revenue and loan
facilitation growth provided in the Registration Statement leading
up to the IPO was achieved by relaxed credit and due diligence
standards, under which the Company had underwritten tens of
millions of dollars' worth of poor quality loans that suffered from
a disproportionately high risk of default as compared to the
Company's earlier loan vintages; (vii) the Company was suffering
from accelerated delinquency rates from poor quality loans that it
had underwritten in the first, second, and third quarters of 2018,
which had caused the Company's delinquency rate to sharply rise;
(viii) the Company's product mix had significantly deteriorated;
(ix) the Company's net revenue was on track to decline by 22%
during the third quarter of 2018; and (x) as a result, the
Registration Statement was materially false and/or misleading and
failed to state information required to be stated therein.

On November 20, 2018, X Financial held its first earnings call
after the IPO to discuss its financial results. As executives
explained on the call, the negative operational and financial
results reported in the day's press release had been caused by
market and other problems that had long preceded the IPO. Defendant
Tang, for example, blamed the "decline in loan facilitation" on
"the lows we saw in July when the market turmoil was at a peak" and
said that the "[n]umber-one driver" was "the lack of funding during
the July and August time." He confirmed that X Financial and its
executives had access to this adverse information as it unfolded,
stating we are "able to manage our risk on a very much real-time
basis." Speaking specifically about preferred loans, defendant Tang
told investors that demand for loans had dried up even earlier,
prompting significant reductions in preferred loans "over the last
three quarters" (i.e., the last nine months), stating: "Then on the
preferred loan, because of the operating environment for SME owners
are very difficult these days, and our preferred loan did suffer a
higher-than-expected loss than our earlier estimate. And as a
result, actually, over the last three quarters, we have been
consistently reduced our [sic] preferred loan business."

During the November 20, 2018 earnings call, analysts questioned X
Financial's executives about the rapidly contracting preferred
loans and rising delinquency rates. In response, they conceded that
low demand and "very high" delinquency rates for X Financial's
preferred loans had produced a cascading effect that torpedoed the
Company's overall financial results. As these executives explained,
plummeting demand and high default rates had, in turn, forced the
Company to make the "big [strategy change] to . . . scale down the
preferred loan business." Scaling down preferred loans, meanwhile,
had prompted "a change in product mix resulting from a significant
increase in the proportion of revenue generated by Xiaoying Card
Loan." The pivot to depending on card loans had, in turn, caused a
reduction in X Financial's "average loan ticket size by 20% to even
25%" and also caused further increases in the Company's overall
delinquency rate, as card loans by nature represented significantly
higher risks.

In subsequent financial reports, X Financial has confirmed that the
problems described above started before the IPO. For example, on a
March 19, 2019 earnings call to discuss the Company's fourth
quarter and fiscal year 2018 results, defendant Cheng affirmed that
X Financial's loan volume had been declining "since [the] middle of
last year," which had caused declines in the Company's ticket
size.

On April 25, 2019, X Financial filed its annual report for 2018 on
Form 20-F. The report contained a chart entitled "Delinquency Rate
by Vintage of Xiaoying Preferred Loan," which illustrated the
dramatic increase in delinquency rates leading up to and during the
IPO-including in first, second, and third quarters of 2018-and that
such negative trends were accelerating.

Then on May 21, 2019, during X Financial's earnings call to discuss
the Company's first quarter 2019 results, defendant Tang admitted
that X Financial was unlikely to achieve significant loan or
revenue growth because its preferred loan business had failed "over
the last year" and that the Company was shelving the entire
business.

On November 22, 2019, X Financial's ADSs closed at $1.74 per ADS.
This price represented an 81.68% decline from the $9.50 per share
price at which X Financial's ADSs had been sold to the investing
public in the IPO.

As of the date this complaint was filed, X Financial's ADSs
continue to trade below the $9.50 per share IPO price.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and
Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the
areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.
Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the
class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the
Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting
for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class
members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN]



YOGAWORKS INC: Bid to Dismiss Federal Court Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants' motions to dismiss the Inter-Local Pension Fund
GCC/IBT class action suit is still pending, according to YogaWorks,
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.

Four substantially similar putative class action complaints were
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Los Angeles, captioned Salazar v. YogaWorks, Inc., et al. (filed
November 26, 2018); Johnson v. YogaWorks, Inc., et al. (filed
December 19, 2018); Lowinger v. YogaWorks, Inc. et al. (filed
December 21, 2018); and Mirza v. YogaWorks, Inc., et al. (filed
January 17, 2019).  These four state court actions were
consolidated into the Salazar case by the Court on April 17, 2019
and assigned to Judge Maren Nelson for all purposes.  ("State Court
of Action").  Additionally, two putative class action complaints,
substantially similar to the state court securities actions,
captioned Cohen v. YogaWorks, Inc., et al. (filed December 27,
2018) and Dellinger v. YogaWorks, Inc., et al. (filed February 8,
2019) were filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Central California.  

On March 21, 2019, the federal court actions were consolidated, and
Inter-Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT's were appointed as Lead Plaintiff
("Federal Court Action").  The State Court Action and Federal Court
Action were brought by purported stockholders of YogaWorks alleging
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 for alleged misstatements
and omissions in offering documents related to YogaWorks' IPO that
took place on August 11, 2017.  The lawsuits name as defendants
YogaWorks, certain of its current and former officers and
directors, YogaWorks' majority shareholder, and certain
underwriters of YogaWorks' IPO.

On July 31, 2019, the Court conducted a case management conference
in the State Court Action in which it denied each of the
plaintiffs' dueling motions to appoint lead counsel, and ordered
that plaintiffs' counsels work together.  A consolidated complaint
was filed by those plaintiffs on August 21, 2019.  The defendants
are currently not obligated to respond to the operative complaint
in the State Securities Class Action pursuant to a stipulated order
issued on August 27, 2019 by Judge Maren Nelson.  Under the ordered
stipulation, the State Securities Class Action is stayed until the
earlier of the following: (i) the Federal Securities Class Action
is dismissed with prejudice as to each defendant, or (ii) the
federal court, upon resolving the pending motions to dismiss, finds
that the complaint in the Federal Securities Class Action states a
claim.

In the Federal Court Action, Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended
Consolidated Complaint on May 21, 2019 and Defendants filed motions
to dismiss on July 23, 2019; Plaintiffs' opposition to the motions
to dismiss was filed on September 24, 2019; Defendants filed
replies in support of their motion(s) to dismiss on November 12,
2019; and the hearing on Defendants' motion(s) to dismiss is set
for December 9, 2019 at 1:30 p.m.

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

The Company said, "The outcomes of the legal proceedings are
inherently unpredictable, subject to significant uncertainties, and
could be material to YogaWorks' financial condition, results of
operations, and cash flows for a particular period.  YogaWorks
intends to vigorously defend the claims asserted against it."

YogaWorks, Inc. operates yoga studios under the YogaWorks and Yoga
Tree brand names in the United States. It primarily provides yoga
classes, workshops, teacher training programs, and yoga-related
retail merchandise. The company was formerly known as YWX Holdings,
Inc. and changed its name to YogaWorks, Inc. in April 2017.
YogaWorks, Inc. was founded in 1987 and is headquartered in Culver
City, California.


ZYARA RESTAURANT: Restaurant Staff Seeks Overtime, Minimum Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Raul Garcia and Luis Sapon, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.  Zyara Restaurant Corp.,
Khaleel Kateeb and John Doe, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-07208,
(E.D. N.Y., December 23, 2019) seeks to recover overtime
compensation for work in excess of forty hours per week,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law.

Defendants operate as a Middle Eastern cuisine restaurant located
at 25-53 Steinway Street, Astoria, New York where Garcia and Sapon
worked as grillers from in or around July 2018 until in or around
August 2019. They claim minimum wages, overtime for hours rendered
in excess of 40 hours per week and redress for working through
their breaks and for not receiving wage statements. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Sackowitz, Esq.
      KATZ MELINGER PLLC
      280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 460-0047
      Facsimile: (212) 428-6811
      Email: ajsackowitz@katzmelinger.com


ZYLA LIFE: Appeal from Dismissal of Securities Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zyla Life Sciences (f/k/a Egalet Corporation) disclosed in its Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the appeal from
a district court's order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss
the consolidated class action suit in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania is still pending.

On January 27, 2017 and February 10, 2017, respectively, two
putative securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that named as
defendants Egalet Corporation and former officers Robert S. Radie,
Stanley J. Musial and Jeffrey M. Dayno (the "Officer Defendants"
and together with Egalet Corporation, the "Defendants"). These two
complaints, captioned Mineff v. Egalet Corp. et al., No.
2:17-cv-00390-MMB and Klein v. Egalet Corp.  et al., No.
2:17-cv-00617-MMB, assert securities fraud claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") on behalf of putative classes of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Egalet Corporation securities
between December 15, 2015 and January 9, 2017 and seek damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and other expenses.  

On May 1, 2017, the Court entered an order consolidating the two
cases (the "Securities Class Action Litigation") before it,
appointing the Egalet Investor Group (consisting of Joseph
Spizzirri, Abdul Rahiman and Kyle Kobold) as lead plaintiff and
approving their selection of lead and liaison counsel.  

On July 3, 2017, the plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended
complaint, which named the same Defendants and also asserted claims
for purported violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.  Plaintiffs brought their claims individually and on
behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares of Egalet between November 4, 2015 and
January 9, 2017 inclusive.  The consolidated amended complaint
based its claims on allegedly false and/or misleading statements
and/or failures to disclose information about the likelihood that
ARYMO ER would be approved for intranasal abuse-deterrent labeling.
The Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint
on September 1, 2017 (the "Motion to Dismiss"), the plaintiffs
filed their opposition on October 31, 2017, and the Defendants
filed their reply on December 8, 2017.  The Court heard oral
arguments on the Motion to Dismiss on February 20, 2018 and entered
an order pursuant to which the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave
to file a second amended complaint on March 6, 2018.  The
Defendants responded on March 20, 2018 and the plaintiffs filed
their reply on March 27, 2018.  The Court heard oral arguments on
the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint
on July 12, 2018.  

On August 2, 2018, the Court granted the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss and dismissed the Securities Class Action Litigation with
prejudice.  

On August 31, 2018, plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal with
the United States Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit.  

On November 7, 2018, the Defendants filed a notice of suggestion of
bankruptcy and unopposed motion to stay the appeal as to the
Officer Defendants (the appeal was automatically stayed as to the
Company upon the Chapter 11 filing).  

On February 6, 2019, the Officer Defendants filed a Notice of
Lifting of Automatic Stay of Proceedings and Discharge of
Subordinated Claims, as plaintiffs' claim against the Company was
extinguished as part of the bankruptcy, which restarted the
appellate process.  

On April 22, 2019, plaintiffs filed their brief with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  Defendants filed
their brief on May 22, 2019 and Plaintiffs filed their reply on
June 12, 2019.

The Company disputes the allegations in the lawsuit and intends to
defend these actions vigorously.  The Company cannot determine the
likelihood of, nor can it reasonably estimate the range of, any
potential loss, if any, from these lawsuits.

Zyla Life Sciences, a commercial-stage life sciences company,
focuses on the development and marketing of various treatments for
patients and healthcare providers. It has a portfolio of various
treatments for various types of pain and inflammation. The company,
formerly known as Egalet Corporation, was founded in 2010 and is
headquartered in Wayne, Pennsylvania.


                        Asbestos Litigation


                            *********

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 ***