/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200331.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, March 31, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 65

                            Headlines

20E FRAME: Salmeron Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA and NYLL
AARGON COLLECTION: Berkowitz Sues over Debt Collection Practices
ACACIA COMMS: Fee Claim in Merger Related Suits Resolved
AFNI INC: Waller Suit Seeks to Certify Call Center Workers Class
ALLERGAN PLC: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal in Androderm(R) Suit

ALLERGAN PLC: Breast Implant Suits Against Subsidiaries Ongoing
ALLERGAN PLC: Continues to Defend AbbVie Merger-Related Class Suit
ALLERGAN PLC: Discovery Ongoing in Suit Over Breast Implants
ALLERGAN PLC: Unit Still Defends Actonel(R) Related Suits
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Settlement in Passenger Capacity Suit Appealed

AMERICAN CORADIUS: Kress Alleges Violation Under FDCPA
ANTHEM INC: Appeal in Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Suit Pending
ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Bid to Dismiss AOT Holding's Suit Pending
ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Bid to Nix Suit v Golden Peanut Pending
ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Court Defers Ruling on Bid to Dismiss

ASSET RECOVERY: Steil Alleges Violation under FDCPA
B & S CONSOLIDATED: Violates FLSA and AMWA, Tolbert Suit Alleges
BABCOCK & WILCOX: Settlement in Ollila Suit Gets Final Approval
BABY BREZZA: Mixing Machine for Baby Formula Defective, Suit Says
BANK OF AMERICA: Objectors Appeal Accord in Interchange Fee Suit

BANK OF AMERICA: Settlement Reached in Waldrup and Williams Suit
BAUSCH HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Glumetza(R) Related Suit Pending
BAUSCH HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss RICO-Related Class Suit Pending
BAUSCH HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Timber Hill Class Suit Denied
BAUSCH HEALTH: Continues to Defend Securities Suits in Quebec

BIG FISH: Thimmegowda Plaintiffs Seek Injunctive Relief Class
BRENDAN KENNEDY: Faces Bouvier Suit in Delaware Chancery Court
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Defending Against Atkins Class Action
CARROLS RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cummings Alleges
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Kress Files Suit Under FDCPA

CHATHAM LODGING: Settlement Agreements Negotiated in Perez Actions
CHATHAM LODGING: Settlements in Ruffy and Doonan Cases Approved
CLEARONE ADVANTAGE: Showe-Gaither Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
CLIENT SERVICES: Berger Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York
CLIENT SERVICES: Gold Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York

COCONUT FUNDING: Weisberg Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
COHEN-ESREY COMMUNITIES: Velasquez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
CONAGRA BRANDS: Chocolate Products Mislabeled, Davis-Berg Says
CONTINENTAL CREDIT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Katzakian Claims
COOPER-STANDARD: Auto Suppliers' Suits in Canada Dismissed

CORYELL FAMILY: Fails to Pay Lawful Overtime Wages, Williams Says
CRAFT BREW: Faces Anheuser-Busch Merger Related Suits
CVS HEALTH: Trial in Corcoran to Begin This Year
D & A SERVICES: Kim Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
DAVIES MOLDING: Cook Sues over Biometric Data Collection

DISCOVER FINANCIAL: B&R Supermarket Class Action Ongoing
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Bonoan TCPA Class Action Dismissed
DISH NETWORK: Second Notice of Appeal Filed in Krakauer Suit
DISH NETWORK: Still Defends Hallandale Police & Firefighters' Suit
ELI LILLY: Class Suits over Insulin Pricing Voluntarily Dismissed

ELI LILLY: Consolidated Axiron-Related Class Suit Concluded
ELI LILLY: Continues to Defend Actos-Related Class Suits in Canada
ENDO INT'L: Astora Pays for Unresolved Mesh Claims
ENDO INT'L: Continues to Defend Opioid-Related Class Suits
ENDO INT'L: Generic Drug Pricing Litigation Ongoing

EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Skidanenko Seeks to Recover Minimum & OT Wages
FEDEX GROUND: Court OKs Class Certification in Carrow Drivers Suit
FIRSTSIGHT VISION: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Pending
FLOWERS FOODS: Court Approves Settlement of Securities Litigation
FORD MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in Clark ERISA Suit

GEO GROUP: April Trial for Washington Detainees' Suits
GOFORWARD INC: Nisbett Suit Asserts Disabilities Act Breach
GOJO INDUSTRIES: DiBartolo Files Suit in New York
H&D LINDEN: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Chau Suit Claims
HD AND ASSOCIATES: Taylor Suit Certified as Collective Action

HSBC USA: Bid to Dismiss Platinum and Palladium Fix Suit Pending
HSBC USA: Discovery Ongoing in Gold Fix Litigation
HSBC USA: Discovery Ongoing in Silver Fix Litigation
HSBC USA: Still Defends Nypl and Contant Class Suits
IKEA US: Cal. App. Flips Class Certification Denial in Medellin

J R SUSHI 2: Zhang Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
JACK IN THE BOX: Accrues $3.8MM for Marquez Settlement in 1Q 2020
JACK IN THE BOX: Still Defends Gessele Class Suit on Labor Matters
JANUS HENDERSON: VelocityShares Class Suits Still Ongoing
JDM WASHINGTON: Vignola Sues over Apartment Rental Practices

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bid to Dismiss cART Antitrust Suit Pending
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: ZYTIGA(R) Antitrust Class Suit Underway
KARYOPHARM THERAPEUTICS: Securities Suits Over SOPRA Trial Ongoing
KPC HEALTHCARE: Yanez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
LAGENCE INC: Olsen Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act

LENDINGCLUB CORP: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Shron Suit Pending
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Bid to Dismiss Veal Class Action Pending
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Tentative Settlement Reached in Accardo Suit
LIBERTY MEDIA: Court Approves Settlement in Buchanan TCPA Suit
LINCARE INC: Chavez Labor Class Suit Removed to C.D. California

LINCOLN NATIONAL: Bid for Leave to Amend Glover Suit Still Pending
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Iwanski Class Suit vs. FPP Remains Ongoing
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Still Defends COI Litigation in Pennsylvania
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Still Defends Hanks Class Suit vs. Unit, Voya
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Still Faces Consolidated Litigation on COI Rates

LINCOLN NATIONAL: Unit Still Faces Class Action by TVPX ARS
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Vida Longevity Fund Suit vs. Unit Still Ongoing
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Continues to Defend Strougo Class Suit
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Faces City of Marietta Class Suit
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Must Defend Against Steamfitters Union Suit

MASIMO CORP: Trial of Individual Plaintiffs' Claims Set for June 2
MASONITE INT'L: Bid to Narrow Claims in Consumer Suit Still Pending
MDL 1720: Deal Reached with Groups of Opt-Out Plaintiffs
MDL 2804: Dover v. Purdue Pharma Over Opioid Drugs Consolidated
MEDNAX INC: Suit over Anesthesiology Business Dropped

MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Appeal from Brown Class Cert. Ruling Pending
MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Appeal from Cleven Class Cert. Still Pending
MOSAIC COMPANY: Examination in Uberaba EHS Suit Remains Pending
NASCOTE INDUSTRIES: Wilson Sues over Biometric Data Collection
NATIONAL GENERAL: Amended Complaint Filed in Securities Class Suit

NEWMONT CORP: Still Defends Shareholder Action in Ontario
NORTHEAST RADIOLOGY: Faces Cohen Suit in S.D. New York
NVIDIA CORP: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit
OMNICELL INC: Bursick Class Action Concluded
PANDORA MEDIA: Continues to Defend Flo & Eddie's Class Suit

PBF ENERGY: Settlement in Thomas vs. Exxon Mobil Underway
PENN CREDIT: Schmelczer Files FDCPA Suit in New York
PITNEY BOWES: Plaintiff's Time to Appeal Case Dismissal Expires
PREMIERE CREDIT: Gutman Alleges Violation Under FDCPA
PSEG INC: Faces TCPA Class Action in New Jersey

RADIUS GLOBAL SOLUTIONS: Rotger Files Suit Under FDCPA in New York
RELIANT BANCORP: Defending Against Parshall Class Action
REVOLVE GROUP: MoU Inked in California Wage-and-Hour Class Suit
RINGCENTRAL INC: Tentative Settlement Reached in Hurley Class Suit
RIZKA FOOD: Faces Ponce et al. Suit in Richmond, New York

SEABOARD CORP: Bid to Dismiss Pork Antitrust Litigation Underway
SERVICE CORP: Bid for Summary Judgment in Bernstein Suit Granted
SHORE ROAD: Underpays Waiters, Lopez Suit Alleges
SIFCO INDUSTRIES: Posts Another $65,000 Loss in California Suit
SIX FLAGS: Still Faces Class Suit over Staff Overtime, Rest Breaks

SOLCO HEALTHCARE: Removes Shanov Suit to N.D. Illinois
SOUTHERN CREDIT ADJUSTERS: Covarrubia Files Suit in Texas
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Stone Sues Over Electrical Defect in Vehicles
TELADOC HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Reiner Class Suit Pending
TELADOC HEALTH: Unit Continues to Defend Thomas TCPA Class Suit

TRANS UNION LLC: Gottlieb Sues over Background Checks
TWITTER INC: Continues to Defend Against Hasan Class Action
TWITTER INC: Oral Argument on Summary Judgment Set for April 1
UNITED COLLECTION: Listebarger Files FDCPA Suit in Texas
UNUM GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Tenn. Securities Class Suit Underway

USA TECHNOLOGIES: Awaits PA Superior Court to Decide Appealability
USA TECHNOLOGIES: Mediation Ongoing in E.D. Pa. Class Suit
VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Gordon Class Suit
VEREIT INC: American Realty Capital Properties Suit Dismissed
VEREIT INC: Realistic Partners' Class Action Still Ongoing

WALMART INC: Court OKs Conditional Certification in Thomas Lawsuit
WELLS FARGO: Lizana Sues over Foreclosure Practices
WESTLAKE CHEMICAL: Bid to Dismiss Caustic Soda Class Suits Pending
WILLIS TOWERS: 5th Cir. Denies Second Petition for Rehearing
WILLIS TOWERS: Delaware High Court to Hear Appeal in April

WILLIS TOWERS: Must Defend Against Proxy Litigation
ZILLOW GROUP: Shotwell Class Certification Bid Pending
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Continues to Defend Evans Class Action
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Trial in Bid to Dismiss Gregory Suit Pending

                            *********

20E FRAME: Salmeron Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA and NYLL
---------------------------------------------------------------
FELIX SALMERON, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class v. 20E FRAME INC d/b/a ETC. EATERY 341 FRAME INC
d/b/a ETC. EATERY; 552 FRAME INC d/b/a FRAME GOURMET EATERY; PYONG
SU SON; ELLY KIM; and KIYOUNG KIM, Case No. 1:20-cv-01813
(S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2020), seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages due to time shaving, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff brings claims for relief on behalf of all current and
former non-exempt employees (including cashiers, cooks, delivery
persons, food preparers, floor persons, among others) employed by
the Defendants at their eateries on or after the date that is six
years before the filing of the complaint.

The Defendants own and operate two eateries under the trade name
"Etc. Eatery" in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: 212-465-1188
          Facsimile: 212-465-1181


AARGON COLLECTION: Berkowitz Sues over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
STACY BERKOWITZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AARGON COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:20-cv-01016 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2020) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Aargon Agency, Inc. provides mercantile and consumer credit
reporting services. The Company offers national debt recovery, as
well as first party, early out collection, and billing services.
Aargon Agency serves customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ACACIA COMMS: Fee Claim in Merger Related Suits Resolved
--------------------------------------------------------
Acacia Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the parties in
the merger related class action suits have resolved the fee claim
and no fee application will be necessary.

On July 8, 2019, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Cisco Systems, Inc., a
California corporation (the "Parent"), and Amarone Acquisition
Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of the
Parent (the "Merger Sub").

On July 8, 2019, Acacia Communications, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Cisco Systems, Inc., a
California corporation (the "Parent"), and Amarone Acquisition
Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of the
Parent (the "Merger Sub"), providing for the acquisition of the
Company by the Parent through the merger of the Merger Sub with and
into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the
Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Parent.

On August 5, 2019, a lawsuit, captioned Jiang v. Acacia
Communications, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-07267, was
filed against the company and each of its directors in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder against
the defendants for allegedly disseminating a materially incomplete
and misleading preliminary proxy statement in connection with the
proposed merger of Acacia with the Parent and Merger Sub.

On August 5, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit, captioned
O'Brien v. Acacia Communications, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.
1:19-cv-01463, was filed against the company and each of its
directors in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware alleging that the company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties by, among other things, agreeing to the proposed
Merger without taking steps to obtain adequate, fair and maximum
consideration under the circumstances and engineering the proposed
Merger to improperly benefit themselves, the company's management
and/or the Parent without regard for the the company's public
stockholders, and that Acacia and its directors violated Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by disseminating a materially
incomplete and misleading preliminary proxy statement in connection
with the proposed Merger.

On August 6, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit, captioned
Rosenblatt v. Acacia Communications, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.
1:19-cv-01470, was filed against the company and each of its
directors in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware alleging violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder against the
defendants for allegedly disseminating a false and misleading
preliminary proxy statement in connection with the proposed Merger.


On August 7, 2019, a lawsuit, captioned Mac v. Acacia
Communications, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-11706, was
filed against the company and each of its directors in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging
violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
14a-9 promulgated thereunder against the defendants for allegedly
disseminating a materially deficient and misleading preliminary
proxy statement in connection with the proposed Merger.

The plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek various forms of injunctive
and declaratory relief, as well as awards of damages, costs, expert
fees and attorneys' fees.

On August 27, 2019, Acacia and the plaintiffs in the O'Brien
Action, the Rosenblatt Action and the Mac Action entered into a
memorandum of understanding in which these plaintiffs agreed to
dismiss with prejudice their individual claims and to dismiss
without prejudice the class claims asserted in those actions, in
return for the company's agreement to make the supplemental
disclosures set forth under the heading "Supplement to Proxy
Statement" in the company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 27, 2019.

On August 27, 2019, Acacia and the plaintiff in the Jiang Action
agreed in principle that the plaintiff would dismiss with prejudice
his claims asserted in that action, in return for our agreement to
make the Supplemental Disclosures; that agreement was memorialized
in a memorandum of understanding between Acacia and the plaintiff
in the Jiang Action entered into on August 28, 2019.

Pursuant to the memoranda of understanding, the plaintiffs in all
four actions filed notices of voluntary dismissal on September 11,
2019. Pursuant to the memoranda of understanding, the plaintiffs in
these four actions and their counsel reserved their right to file
applications seeking attorney's fees and expenses based upon the
purported benefit they believe was conferred upon Acacia
stockholders by causing the Supplemental Disclosures to be
disseminated, and the company reserved its right to oppose such fee
applications. The parties have resolved the fee claim and no fee
application will be necessary.

Acacia Communications, Inc., incorporated on June 2, 2009, provides
high-speed coherent interconnect products. The company is based in
Maynard, Massachusetts.


AFNI INC: Waller Suit Seeks to Certify Call Center Workers Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as NATALIE WALLER, JUSTIN RACER
ALEXANDRIA BARLEYCORN, LA'QUENZA FRETT, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. AFNI, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-01080-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs move the Court
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for entry of an order:

   1. conditionally certifying proposed collective FLSA class;

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

      "all hourly call-center employees who were employed by
      AFNI, Inc., at any time from February 27, 2017 through the
      final disposition of this matter";

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

   4. requiring Defendant to, within 14 days of this Court's
      order, identify all Putative Class Members by providing a
      list in electronic and importable format, of the names,
      addresses, cell phone numbers, and e-mail addresses of all
      Putative Class Members who worked for Defendant at any
      time from beginning three years immediately preceding the
      filing of the Original Complaint through the present.

Afni is a U.S.-based global contact center company.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and Putative Class are:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Anna M. Ceragioli, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP.
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312 233 1550
          Facsimile: 312 233 1560 f
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  aceragioli@stephanzouras.cm

               - and -

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin Anderson, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  austin@a2xlaw.com

ALLERGAN PLC: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal in Androderm(R) Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit has affirmed the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois's dismissal of the Testosterone
Replacement Therapy Class Action.

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

The suit alleges that the Company's subsidiaries violated various
laws including the federal RICO statute and state consumer
protection laws in connection with the sale and marketing of
Androderm(R), an androgen indicated for replacement therapy in
males for conditions associated with a deficiency or absence of
endogenous testosterone.

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

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

On June 12, 2019, plaintiffs/appellants filed their opening brief
in the Seventh Circuit.

Appellees' Seventh Circuit brief was filed on July 17, 2019 and
oral argument was heard on November 6, 2019. The Seventh Circuit
affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois's dismissal of the case on November 12, 2019.

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


ALLERGAN PLC: Breast Implant Suits Against Subsidiaries Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company subsidiaries
continues to defend class action suits related to Breast Implant

Certain Company subsidiaries are defendants in approximately 38
cases, including several class actions and individual cases filed
on behalf of multiple plaintiffs, alleging that Allergan's textured
breast implants caused women to develop an uncommon cancer known as
breast implant associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma
("BIA-ALCL").  

Some of the lawsuits include claims that the defendants failed to
properly warn against this risk and failed to promptly and properly
report the results of the post-marketing studies relating to these
products and that plaintiffs suffered injuries as a result. Other
lawsuits seek to recover costs related to medical monitoring and
damages for fear of developing BIA-ALCL.  

The federal product liability and "fear of" cases have been
consolidated in an MDL in the U.S. District Court for New Jersey.

There are several additional cases filed in state courts in the
United States and well as provincial courts in Canada.  

On July 24, 2019, Allergan announced a voluntary worldwide recall
of unused BIOCELL textured breast implants and tissue expanders.

Allergan said, "This announcement may impact the number of lawsuits
related to BIA-ALCL filed moving forward."

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


ALLERGAN PLC: Continues to Defend AbbVie Merger-Related Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit related to AbbVie Inc.'s acquisition of
the company.

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

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

The Company has not yet responded to this complaint.  

In addition to the complaint in this action, the Company received a
shareholder demand letter from a shareholder following the issuance
of the preliminary proxy statement filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 12, 2019.  

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

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


ALLERGAN PLC: Discovery Ongoing in Suit Over Breast Implants
------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that discovery is ongoing in
the Breast Implant Securities Class Action.

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

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

The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages.  

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

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

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

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


ALLERGAN PLC: Unit Still Defends Actonel(R) Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company's subsidiary
continues to defend suits related to the bisphosphonate
prescription drug Actonel(R).

A subsidiary of the Company is a defendant in over 500 filed cases
in federal and various state courts, relating to the bisphosphonate
prescription drug Actonel(R). In addition, there are three cases
pending in provincial courts in Canada, two involving single
plaintiffs, and a third on behalf of a purported class of injured
plaintiffs.

The complaints allege, among other things, that Actonel(R) caused
them to suffer osteonecrosis of the jaw ("ONJ") and/or atypical
fractures of the femur.

Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary and injunctive relief,
as well as attorneys' fees.

The Company subsidiary is being indemnified by Sanofi for certain
claims pursuant to an agreement with Sanofi and is being partially
indemnified by the Procter & Gamble Company ("P&G") for ONJ claims
that were pending at the time the Company subsidiary acquired
P&G’s global pharmaceutical business in 2009. Settlements have
been reached that have resolved most of the pending ONJ-related
claims.

Recently, all pending Actonel cases in New Jersey state court were
dismissed without prejudice subject to refilling after the U.S.
Supreme Court issues a decision in Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.
Albrecht, Doc. No. 17-290.  The U.S. Supreme Court issued their
decision on May 20, 2019 and remanded the Merck case to the Third
Circuit.

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


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Settlement in Passenger Capacity Suit Appealed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that three objectors to the
settlement in the class action related to passenger capacity have
taken an appeal from the preliminarily approval order entered by
the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia.

American, along with Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co.,
United Airlines, Inc. and, in the case of litigation filed in
Canada, Air Canada, were named as defendants in approximately 100
putative class action lawsuits alleging unlawful agreements with
respect to air passenger capacity.

The U.S. lawsuits were consolidated in the Federal District Court
for the District of Columbia (the DC Court).

On June 15, 2018, American reached a settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs in the amount of $45 million to resolve all class claims
in the U.S. lawsuits. That settlement was approved by the DC Court
on May 13, 2019.

Three parties who objected to the settlement have appealed that
decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia.

American believes these appeals are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against them.

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

American Airlines Group Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as
a network air carrier. It provides scheduled air transportation
services for passengers and cargo. American Airlines Group Inc. was
founded in 1934 and is headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas.


AMERICAN CORADIUS: Kress Alleges Violation Under FDCPA
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Coradius
International LLC. The case is styled as Elliot Kress, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
American Coradius International LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendant,
Case No. 3:20-cv-03021 (D.N.J., March 18, 2020).

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

American Coradius International LLC is a full service financial
service agency representing banks and finance companies on a
national level.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Raphael Y. Deutsch
   Stein Saks PLLC
   285 Passaic Street
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500
   Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com


ANTHEM INC: Appeal in Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the appeal in the class
action suit entitled, In re Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA
Litigation, has been heard but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit has not decided on the appeal yet.

The company is a defendant in a class action lawsuit that was
initially filed in June 2016 against Anthem, Inc. and Express
Scripts, which has been consolidated into a single multi-district
lawsuit captioned In Re Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The consolidated complaint was filed by plaintiffs against Express
Scripts and us on behalf of all persons who are participants in or
beneficiaries of any ERISA or non-ERISA healthcare plan from
December 1, 2009 to December 31, 2019 in which the company provided
prescription drug benefits through the ESI PBM Agreement and paid a
percentage based co-insurance payment in the course of using that
prescription drug benefit.

The plaintiffs allege that the company breached its duties, either
under ERISA or with respect to the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing implied in the health plans, (i) by failing to
adequately monitor Express Scripts' pricing under the ESI PBM
Agreement and (ii) by placing the company's own pecuniary interest
above the best interests of its insureds by allegedly agreeing to
higher pricing in the ESI PBM Agreement in exchange for the
purchase price for our NextRx PBM business, and (iii) with respect
to the non-ERISA members, by negotiating and entering into the ESI
PBM Agreement that was allegedly detrimental to the interests of
such non-ERISA members.

Plaintiffs seek to hold us and Express Scripts jointly and
severally liable and to recover all losses suffered by the proposed
class, equitable relief, disgorgement of alleged ill-gotten gains,
injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs and interest.

In April 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the claims
brought against it, and it was granted, without prejudice, in
January 2018. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which was heard in
October 2018 but has not yet been decided.

Anthem said, "We intend to vigorously defend this suit; however,
its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined."

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

Anthem, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a health
benefits company in the United States. It operates through three
segments: Commercial & Specialty Business, Government Business, and
Other. The company was formerly known as WellPoint, Inc. and
changed its name to Anthem, Inc. in December 2014. Anthem, Inc. was
founded in 1944 and is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.


ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Bid to Dismiss AOT Holding's Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
is seeking to dismiss the class action suit initiated by AOT
Holding AG.  

On September 4, 2019, AOT Holding AG filed a putative class action
under the U.S. Commodities Exchange Act in federal district court
in Urbana, Illinois, alleging that the Company sought to manipulate
the benchmark price used to price and settle ethanol derivatives
traded on futures exchanges.

AOT alleges that members of the putative class suffered "hundreds
of millions of dollars in damages" as a result of the Company's
alleged actions.  

The Company filed a motion to dismiss this suit in November 2019,
and that motion is awaiting decision by the court.

Archer-Daniels-Midland said, "The Company denies liability, and is
vigorously defending itself, in this action. As this action is in
pretrial proceedings, the Company is unable at this time to predict
the final outcome with any reasonable degree of certainty, but
believes the outcome will not have a material adverse effect on its
financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows."

Archer-Daniels-Midland Company procures, transports, stores,
processes, and merchandises agricultural commodities, products, and
ingredients. The Company was founded in 1898 and is headquartered
in Chicago, Illinois.


ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Bid to Nix Suit v Golden Peanut Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the Company
is awaiting a court ruling on the motion to dismiss a class action
suit against subsidiary Golden Peanut.

On September 5, 2019, D&M Farms, Mark Hasty, and Dustin Land filed
a putative class action on behalf of a purported class of peanut
farmers under the U.S. federal antitrust laws in federal court in
Norfolk, Virginia, alleging that the Company's subsidiary, Golden
Peanut, and another peanut shelling company, conspired to fix the
price they paid to farmers for raw peanuts.  

The Company filed a motion to dismiss this suit in October 2019,
and that motion is awaiting decision by the court.

The Company denies liability, and is vigorously defending itself,
in this action.  

Archer-Daniels-Midland said, "As this action is in pretrial
proceedings, the Company is unable at this time to predict the
final outcome with any reasonable degree of certainty, but believes
the outcome will not have a material adverse effect on its
financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows."

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

Archer-Daniels-Midland Company procures, transports, stores,
processes, and merchandises agricultural commodities, products, and
ingredients. The Company was founded in 1898 and is headquartered
in Chicago, Illinois.


ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Court Defers Ruling on Bid to Dismiss
---------------------------------------------------------
ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the court
has further deferred its ruling on the motion to dismiss the class
action suit entitled, In re JAVELIN Mortgage Investment Corp.
Shareholder Litigation (Case No. 24-C-16-001542) for six months.

Nine putative class action lawsuits have been filed in connection
with the tender offer (the "Tender Offer") and merger (the
"Merger") for JAVELIN. The Tender Offer and Merger are collectively
defined herein as the "Transactions."

All nine suits name ARMOUR, the previous members of JAVELIN's board
of directors prior to the Merger (of which eight are current
members of ARMOUR's board of directors) (the "Individual
Defendants") and JMI Acquisition Corporation ("Acquisition") as
defendants.

Certain cases also name RMOUR Capital Management LP (ACM) and
JAVELIN as additional defendants. The lawsuits were brought by
purported holders of JAVELIN's common stock, both individually and
on behalf of a putative class of JAVELIN's stockholders, alleging
that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed
to the plaintiffs and the putative class of JAVELIN stockholders,
including claims that the Individual Defendants failed to properly
value JAVELIN; failed to take steps to maximize the value of
JAVELIN to its stockholders; ignored or failed to protect against
conflicts of interest; failed to disclose material information
about the Transactions; took steps to avoid competitive bidding and
to give ARMOUR an unfair advantage by failing to adequately solicit
other potential acquirors or alternative transactions; and erected
unreasonable barriers to other third-party bidders.

The suits also allege that ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM and Acquisition
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the
Individual Defendants. The lawsuits seek equitable relief,
including, among other relief, to enjoin consummation of the
Transactions, or rescind or unwind the Transactions if already
consummated, and award costs and disbursements, including
reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses.

The sole Florida lawsuit was never served on the defendants, and
that case was voluntarily dismissed and closed on January 20, 2017.
On April 25, 2016, the Maryland court issued an order consolidating
the eight Maryland cases into one action, captioned In re JAVELIN
Mortgage Investment Corp. Shareholder Litigation (Case No.
24-C-16-001542), and designated counsel for one of the Maryland
cases as interim lead co-counsel.

On May 26, 2016, interim lead counsel filed the Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
asserting consolidated claims of breach of fiduciary duty, aiding
and abetting the breaches of fiduciary duty, and waste.

On June 27, 2016, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for failing to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. A hearing was held on the
Motion to Dismiss on March 3, 2017, and the Court reserved ruling.


On September 27, 2019 the court further deferred the matter for six
months.

Each of ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM and the Individual Defendants intends
to defend the claims made in these lawsuits vigorously; however,
there can be no assurance that any of ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM or the
Individual Defendants will prevail in its defense of any of these
lawsuits to which it is a party. An unfavorable resolution of any
such litigation surrounding the Transactions may result in monetary
damages being awarded to the plaintiffs and the putative class of
former stockholders of JAVELIN and the cost of defending the
litigation, even if resolved favorably, could be substantial. Due
to the preliminary nature all of these suits, ARMOUR is not able at
this time to estimate their outcome.

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

ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc. invests in residential mortgage
backed securities in the United States. The company is managed by
ARMOUR Capital Management LP. The company was founded in 2008 and
is based in Vero Beach, Florida.


ASSET RECOVERY: Steil Alleges Violation under FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asset Recovery
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Robert Steil, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Asset
Recovery Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01431-SJF-AYS
(E.D.N.Y., March 18, 2020).

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

Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC is a full service asset recovery
management company that is committed to establishing unmatched
standards of performance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Ste 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 741-4799
   Fax: (516) 706-5055
   Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com

      - and -

   David Michael Barshay, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com



B & S CONSOLIDATED: Violates FLSA and AMWA, Tolbert Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIEL TOLBERT Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly
Situated v. B & S CONSOLIDATED ENTERPRISE, INC., Case No.
4:20-cv-00225-LPR (E.D. Ark., March 2, 2020), alleges that the
Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest and costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees, as a result of the Defendant's failure
to pay the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated overtime
compensation for all hours that they worked in excess of 40 per
workweek.

The Plaintiff was an employee at one of the Defendant's locations
in Little Rock.

B & S is a carrier overseen by the Arkansas Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BABCOCK & WILCOX: Settlement in Ollila Suit Gets Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina, Charlotte Division, issued an Order granting Lead
Plaintiff's Motion for Approval of the Settlement Agreement in the
case captioned ERIC OLLILA, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated Plaintiffs, v. BABCOCK & WILCOX
ENTERPRISES, INC., E. JAMES FERLAND, and JENNY L. APKER,
Defendants. No. 3:17-CV-00109-MOC-DCK. (W.D.N.C.)

On review, the Court finds that the proposed Settlement in the
lawsuit is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, adequate to, and in
the best interests of Lead Plaintiff.  The Court thus enters final
approval of the Class Settlement.
The Court grants final certification of the Settlement Class
consisting of all persons and entities who purchased B&W
publicly-traded common stock on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE),
on other U.S. exchanges or in a U.S. transaction, or who purchased
B&W stock on the NYSE on a when issued basis during the period from
June 17, 2015 through August 9, 2017, inclusive (Settlement
Class).

With respect to the Settlement Class, the Court finds that, for
purposes of effectuating the Settlement, the prerequisites for a
class action under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) have been satisfied.

For purposes of settlement only, Lead Plaintiff Arkansas Teacher
Retirement System is certified as Settlement Class Representative
and Lead Counsel Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP is appointed as Class
Counsel.

The Court further finds and concludes that due and adequate notice
was directed to all Settlement Class Members advising them: (a)
that Lead Counsel would seek an award of attorneys' fees of up to
25% of the Settlement Fund and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses
incurred in connection with the prosecution of the Action not to
exceed $400,000; and (b) that Settlement Class Members had a right
to object to such application(s).  A full and fair opportunity was
given to all persons who are Settlement Class Members to be heard
with respect to the application for the award of attorneys' fees
and expenses.  The Court finds and concludes that the requested fee
award is reasonable and awards attorneys' fees in the amount of 25%
percent of the Settlement Fund, plus reimbursement of Litigation
Expenses totaling $285,805.92, and reimbursement of Lead
Plaintiff's costs and expenses of $1,848.96.  These amounts are to
be paid from the Settlement Fund pursuant to the terms of the
Stipulation.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 19, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/srjl3cw from Leagle.com

Eric Ollila, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by L. Bruce McDaniel, McDaniel &
Anderson, L.L.P, Post Office Box 58186, Raleigh, NC 27658

Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, Plaintiff, represented by
Andrew L. Zivitz - azivitz@ktmc.com -  Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP, pro hac vice, Christine M. Fox  - cfox@labaton.com -
Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Dhamian A. Blue -
dab@bluellp.com - Blue LLP, Donald R. Hall - dhall@kaplanfox.com -
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, pro hac vice, Frederic S. Fox -
ffox@kaplanfox.com - Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, pro hac vice,
Jonathan Gardner - jgardner@labaton.com - Labaton Sucharow, LLP,
pro hac vice, Matthew L. Mustokoff - mmustokoff@ktmc.com - Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac vice & Melinda D. Campbell -
mcampbell@kaplanfox.com - Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, pro hac
vice.  

Daniel Hegeman, Consol Plaintiff, represented by S. Ranchor Harris,
III,  7500 Cadbury Ct, # 303, Raleigh, NC 27615-5720

Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc., E. James Ferland & Jenny L.
Apker, Defendants, represented by Jason R. Outlaw -
jason.outlaw@alston.com - Alston & Bird, LLP, pro hac vice, John
Ludlow Latham - john.latham@alston.com - Alston & Bird, LLP, pro
hac vice, Susan E. Hurd  - susan.hurd@alston.com - Alston & Bird,
pro hac vice & Thomas G. Walker - thomas.walker@alston.com - Alston
& Bird, LLP.

City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System, Movant,
represented by L. Bruce McDaniel , McDaniel & Anderson, L.L.P..


BABY BREZZA: Mixing Machine for Baby Formula Defective, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JON BORGESE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BABY BREZZA ENTERPRISES LLC; THE BETESH
GROUP; and THE BETESH GROUP HOLDING CORPORATION, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01180-VM (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 12, 2020) is an action
against the Defendants for selling and manufacturing defective
automatic mixing machine for baby formula.

Baby Brezza manufactures and sells an automatic mixing machine that
claims to automatically prepare baby formula. These machines have
and continue to be marketed as the Baby Brezza Formula Pro and
Formula Pro Advanced.

Despite selling and marketing the machines as being able to mix
appropriate amounts of water and formula for infants, the machines
do not perform as marketed. These machines routinely mix less
formula than required. As a result, the Plaintiff's child and other
children have received poor nutrition while being fed formula that
was mixed by the machines, leading to associated complications and
injuries.

The Defendants have been aware of the complaints for years but
continued to market the unsafe machines in a manner that
misrepresented their ability to safely and properly mix formula.
The Defendants had received numerous complaints over the years
about these mixing problems and had failed to notify purchasers of
the machines, recall, or take steps to protect innocent children
whose parents were giving them formula mixed in the machines.

Baby Brezza Enterprises LLC provides marketing, licensing, product
development, and manufacturing services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph W. Belluck, Esq.
          BELLUCK & FOX, LLP
          546 Fifth Avenue, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Tel: (212) 681-1575


BANK OF AMERICA: Objectors Appeal Accord in Interchange Fee Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that a number of class
members who objected to the settlement in the class action suit
entitled, In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount
Anti-Trust Litigation have taken an appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit from the lower court ruling
approving the deal.

In 2005, a group of merchants filed a series of putative class
actions and individual actions directed at interchange fees
associated with Visa and MasterCard payment card transactions.

These actions, which were consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York under the caption In re
Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Anti-Trust
Litigation, named Visa, MasterCard, the Corporation, Bank of
America, N.A. (BANA) and other banks as defendants. Plaintiffs
alleged antitrust claims and sought compensatory and treble damages
as well as injunctive relief.

In 2018, defendants reached a settlement of the putative Rule
23(b)(3) damages class. Defendants agreed to pay an additional
amount to participating class members by contribution to the escrow
fund established as part of the settlement previously rejected by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Corporation's additional contribution was not material. The
District Court granted final approval of the settlement in December
2019.

Beginning in January 2020, a number of class members who objected
to the settlement appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.

Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational banking
and financial services corporation headquartered in Charlotte,
North Carolina.


BANK OF AMERICA: Settlement Reached in Waldrup and Williams Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the parties in
Waldrup and Williams, et al. class actions have agreed to resolve
the litigation for an amount that is not material to the
Corporation.

The Corporation, Countrywide and certain affiliates are named as
defendants in two consolidated putative class action lawsuits filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Waldrup and Williams, et al.).

Plaintiffs allege that Countrywide and a former Countrywide
subsidiary, LandSafe Appraisal Services, Inc., arranged for and
completed appraisals that were not in compliance with applicable
laws and appraisal standards. Plaintiffs assert a RICO claim and
seek, among other forms of relief, compensatory and treble damages.


On February 8, 2018, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion
for class certification. On May 22, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit denied defendants' petition for permission to
file an interlocutory appeal of the District Court's ruling
granting class certification.

On January 21, 2020, the parties agreed to resolve the litigation
for an amount that is not material to the Corporation, and which
was fully accrued as of December 31, 2019. The agreement is subject
to court approval.

Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational banking
and financial services corporation headquartered in Charlotte,
North Carolina.


BAUSCH HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Glumetza(R) Related Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion
to dismiss filed in the class action suit entitled, In re Glumetza
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:19-cv-05822-WHA, is pending.

Between August and December 2019, six putative antitrust class
actions and two non-class complaints were filed in the Northern
District of California against the Company, Salix Pharmaceuticals,
Ltd., Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Santarus, Inc. (among other
defendants) (the "California Actions").

One of these class actions has been voluntarily dismissed. Three of
the remaining class actions were filed by plaintiffs seeking to
represent a class of direct purchasers and two of the class actions
were filed by end payer purchasers.

The purported classes of direct purchasers and end payer purchasers
filed consolidated amended complaints on November 25, 2019. The two
non-class complaints were filed by direct purchasers.

These actions have been consolidated and coordinated in In re
Glumetza Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:19-cv-05822-WHA.

In February 2020, an additional non-class complaint was filed in
the Northern District of California and two (2) additional class
actions were filed - one in the Northern District of California and
one in the Southern District of Florida (the "Florida Action")
(collectively, the "February 2020 Actions").

The February 2020 Actions are brought against the same defendants
and allege the same anticompetitive conduct alleged in the
California Actions. The Florida Action has been ordered to be
transferred to the Northern District of California. Both class and
non-class direct purchaser plaintiffs seek damages under federal
antitrust laws and the end payer purchasers seek damages under
state antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment laws.

The lawsuits allege that a 2012 settlement of a patent litigation
regarding Glumetza(R) delayed generic entry in exchange for an
agreement not to launch an authorized generic of Glumetza(R) or
grant any other company a license to do so. The complaints allege
that the settlement agreement resulted in higher prices for
Glumetza® and its generic equivalent both prior to and after
generic entry.

Motions to dismiss the California Actions are fully briefed and set
for oral argument on February 20, 2020.

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

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


BAUSCH HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss RICO-Related Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion
to dismiss the class action suit entitled, In re Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Third-Party Payor Litigation,
No. 3:16-cv-03087, is still pending.

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

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

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

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


The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on February
13, 2017. On March 14, 2017, other defendants filed a motion to
stay the RICO class action pending the resolution of criminal
proceedings against Andrew Davenport and Gary Tanner.

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

On July 30, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On
August 28, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. Briefing on this motion concluded on October 25, 2019.

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

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


BAUSCH HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Timber Hill Class Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the Court
has denied the motion to dismiss the Timber Hill litigation.

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

On June 11, 2018, this action was consolidated with In re Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Securities Litigation, (Case
No. 15-cv-07658). On January 14, 2019, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Timber Hill complaint. Briefing on that
motion was completed on February 13, 2019. On August 15, 2019, the
Court denied the motion to dismiss the Timber Hill action, holding
that this complaint was a legal nullity as a result of the June 11,
2018 consolidation order.

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

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


BAUSCH HEALTH: Continues to Defend Securities Suits in Quebec
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the Quebec
Superior Court has granted the applications of CalSTRS and
BlackRock for leave to pursue their respective actions asserting
claims under the Quebec Securities Act.

In 2015, six putative class actions were filed and served against
the Company and certain current or former officers and directors in
Canada in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec.

These actions are captioned:

(a) Alladina v. Valeant, et al. (Case No. S-1594B6) (Supreme Court
of British Columbia) (filed November 17, 2015);

(b) Kowalyshyn v. Valeant, et al. (CV-15-540593-00CP) (Ontario
Superior Court) (filed November 16, 2015);

(c) Kowalyshyn et al. v. Valeant, et al. (CV-15-541082-00CP)
(Ontario Superior Court) (filed November 23, 2015);

(d) O'Brien v. Valeant et al. (CV-15-543678-00CP) (Ontario Superior
Court) (filed December 30, 2015);

(e) Catucci v. Valeant, et al. (Court File No. 540-17-011743159)
(Quebec Superior Court) (filed October 26, 2015); and

(f) Rousseau-Godbout v. Valeant, et al. (Court File No.
500-06-000770-152) (Quebec Superior Court) (filed October 27,
2015).

The Company is also aware of two additional putative class actions
that were filed with the applicable court but which have not been
served on the Company. These actions are captioned:

(i) Okeley v. Valeant, et al. (Case No. S-159991) (Supreme Court of
British Columbia) (filed December 2, 2015); and

(ii) Sukenaga v Valeant et al. (CV-15-540567-00CP) (Ontario
Superior Court) (filed November 16, 2015), and the factual
allegations made in these actions are substantially similar to
those outlined above.

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

Each of these putative class actions, other than the Catucci action
in the Quebec Superior Court, has been discontinued. In the Catucci
action, on August 29, 2017, the judge granted the plaintiffs leave
to proceed with their claims under the Quebec Securities Act and
authorized the class proceeding. On October 26, 2017, the
plaintiffs issued their Judicial Application Originating Class
Proceedings.

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

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

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

That proceeding is captioned California State Teachers' Retirement
System v. Bausch Health Companies Inc. et al. (Court File No.
500-11-055722-181). The allegations in the proceeding are similar
to those made by the plaintiffs in the Catucci class action and in
the BlackRock opt out proceedings.

On that same date, CalSTRS also served the Company with proceedings
(Court File No. 500-17-106044-186) against the same defendants
asserting claims under the Quebec Civil Code in respect of the same
alleged misrepresentations.

On February 3, 2020, the Quebec Superior Court granted the
applications of CalSTRS and BlackRock for leave to pursue their
respective actions asserting claims under the Quebec Securities
Act.

After a hearing on November 11, 2019, the court approved a
settlement in the Catucci action between the class members and the
Company's auditors.

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

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


BIG FISH: Thimmegowda Plaintiffs Seek Injunctive Relief Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
Churchill Downs Incorporated said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that plaintiffs
in Manasa Thimmegowda v. Big Fish Games, Purchaser, Aristocrat
Leisure Limited, and the Churchill Downs Incorporated, filed a
motion with the district court to certify a class for injunctive
relief only and for a preliminary injunction prohibiting the sale
of virtual casino chips or coins or other virtual tokens or credits
from within Washington or to individuals located in Washington.  

On February 11, 2019, a purported class action styled Manasa
Thimmegowda v. Big Fish Games, Purchaser, Aristocrat Leisure
Limited, and the Company, was filed in the Washington District
Court alleging, among other claims, that "Big Fish Casino," which
is operated by Big Fish Games, violated Washington law, including
the Washington Consumer Protection Act, and seeking, among other
things, return of monies lost, reasonable attorney's fees,
injunctive relief, and treble and punitive damages.

On May 10, 2019, all of the defendants moved to compel arbitration
of the claims, and the Company, the Purchaser and Aristocrat
Leisure Limited also moved to dismiss the action for lack of
personal jurisdiction. On June 13, 2019, defendants moved to stay
discovery pending resolution of those motions. On September 12,
2019, the Washington District Court ordered that the case would be
stayed entirely, pending the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit's ruling on arbitration issues raised in other cases
which may be relevant to the arguments raised in the pending motion
to compel arbitration.

After the case was stayed, a dispute arose regarding communication
between Big Fish Games and its users related to revised terms of
use. On November 19, 2019, the District Court granted plaintiffs'
motion relating to the communications pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(d), and on December 19, 2019, the District Court
approved a revised communication proposed by defendants. Both
parties have appealed issues related to the communication orders to
the Ninth Circuit.

On February 20, 2020, while the case was stayed, and before
completing discovery and before resolution of motions to compel
arbitration, plaintiffs filed a motion with the District Court to
certify a class for injunctive relief only and for a preliminary
injunction prohibiting the sale of virtual casino chips or coins or
other virtual tokens or credits from within Washington or to
individuals located in Washington.

The Company is working to vigorously defend this matter, and
believes that there are meritorious legal and factual defenses
against plaintiff’s allegations and requests for relief.

Churchill Downs Incorporated operates as a racing, gaming, and
online entertainment company in the United States. It operates
through Racing, Casinos, Online Wagering, and Other Investments and
Corporate segments. Churchill Downs Incorporated was founded in
1928 and is headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky.


BRENDAN KENNEDY: Faces Bouvier Suit in Delaware Chancery Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brendan Kennedy, et
al. The suit is styled as Catherine Bouvier, et al. v. Brendan
Kennedy, et al., Case No. 2020-0154-KSJM (Del. Ch., Mar. 2, 2020).


The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Kathaleen St. Jude
McCormick.

The lawsuit alleges breach of fiduciary duties.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
          ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
          3801 Kennett Pike Bldg. C, Ste. 305
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 504-4957
          Facsimile: (302) 397-2681
          E-mail: pandrews@andrewsspringer.com


BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Defending Against Atkins Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
26, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the
company has been named as a defendant in a purported class action
suit entitled, Leroy and Geraldine Atkins v. Brighthouse Life
Insurance Company, Brighthouse Financial, Inc., et al. (U.S.
District Court, District of Nevada, filed November 18, 2019).

Plaintiffs have filed a purported class action lawsuit against
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company, Brighthouse Financial, Inc.,
MetLife, Inc. and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company relating to
the pension closeout business.

Plaintiffs allege that annuity benefits were due but have not been
paid. Plaintiffs also allege they were not able to obtain
information as to the group annuity contract and the benefit other
than what was on a benefit election form.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all annuitants and their
designated beneficiaries who were due annuity payments pursuant to
group annuity contracts purchased from defendants by sponsors of
employer provided defined benefit plans. Plaintiffs allege the
defendants failed to timely contact, notify and pay overdue annuity
benefits and interest to retirees.

The complaint alleges breach of contract, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing (contract and tort), unjust
enrichment, conversion and breach of fiduciary duty.

The Company intends to vigorously defend the matter.

Brighthouse Life Insurance Company offers a range of individual
annuities and individual life insurance products.  It is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Brighthouse Holdings, LLC, which is a
direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Brighthouse Financial, Inc.


CARROLS RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cummings Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE CUMMINGS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CARROLS RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.; and CARROLS
LLC, Defendants, Case 5:20-cv-00149-LEK-ML (N.D.N.Y., Feb. 11,
2020) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Cummings was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt
employee.

Carrols Restaurant Group Inc. operates as a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, owns and operates a chain of
fast food restaurants. Carrols Restaurant Group serves customers
worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Kress Files Suit Under FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cavalry Portfolio
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Elliot Kress, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cavalry
Portfolio Services, LLC, Cavalry SPV I, LLC and John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-03176 (D.N.J., March 24, 2020).

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

Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC is one of the largest junk debt
buyers in the nation. Cavalry buys up old charged-off debt from
credit card companies, doctors' offices, cell phone companies,
retailers and even other debt buyers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Raphael Y. Deutsch
   Stein Saks PLLC
   285 Passaic Street
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500
   Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com



CHATHAM LODGING: Settlement Agreements Negotiated in Perez Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chatham Lodging Trust said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that settlement agreements
have been negotiated in Perez class actions and currently await
approval by the applicable courts.

Island Hospitality Management LLC (IHM) is a defendant in the
following series of interrelated class action lawsuits: Perez et
al. v. Island Hospitality Management III LLC et al. (United States
District Court for the Central District of California, Case No.
2:18-cv-04903-DMG-JPR) filed on March 15, 2018, Cruz v. Island
Hospitality Management III LLC (Santa Clara County Superior Court
Case No. 19CV353655) filed on August 19, 2019, Leon et al. v.
Island Hospitality Management III LLC (Orange County Superior Court
Case No. 30-2019-01050719-CU-OE-CXC) filed on April 2, 2019, and
Vela v. Island Hospitality Management LLC et al. (San Diego County
Superior Court, Case No. 37-2019-0003525) filed on July 9, 2019
(collectively the "Perez class actions").

The Perez class actions also relate to hotels operated by IHM in
the state of California and owned by affiliates of the Company and
the NewINK JV, and/or certain third parties. The complaints allege
various wage and hour law violations based on alleged violation of
certain California statutes regarding rest and meal breaks and wage
statements. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, money damages,
penalties, and interest. Settlement agreements have been negotiated
and currently await approval by the applicable courts.

As of December 31, 2019, included in accounts payable and accrued
expenses is $0.6 million which represents an estimate of the
Company's total exposure to the Perez class actions based on
standard indemnification obligations under hotel management
agreements with IHM.

Chatham Lodging Trust is a self-advised, publicly-traded real
estate investment trust focused primarily on investing in upscale,
extended-stay hotels and premium-branded, select-service hotels.
The company is based in West Palm Beach, Florida.


CHATHAM LODGING: Settlements in Ruffy and Doonan Cases Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chatham Lodging Trust said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that a settlement
agreement has been negotiated and approved by the applicable courts
in the class action suits entitled, Ruffy, et al., v. Island
Hospitality Management, LLC, et al. Case No. 16-CV-301473; and
Doonan, et al., v. Island Hospitality Management, LLC, et al. Case
No 18-CV-325187.

The nature of the operations of the Company's hotels exposes those
hotels, the Company and the Operating Partnership to the risk of
claims and litigation in the normal course of their business.
Island Hospitality Management Inc. (IHM) is currently a defendant
in several class action lawsuits pending in the state of
California.

The first class action lawsuit was filed in the Santa Clara County
Superior Court on October 21, 2016 under the title Ruffy, et al, v.
Island Hospitality Management, LLC, et al. Case No. 16-CV-301473
("Ruffy") and the second class action lawsuit was filed on March
21, 2018 under the title Doonan, et al, v. Island Hospitality
Management, LLC, et al. Case No 18-CV-325187 ("Doonan").

The class actions relate to hotels operated by IHM in the state of
California and owned by affiliates of the Company and the NewINK
JV, and/or certain third parties. The complaint alleges various
wage and hour law violations based on alleged misclassification of
certain hotel managerial staff and violation of certain California
statutes regarding incorrect information contained on employee
paystubs.

The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, money damages, penalties,
and interest.

A settlement agreement has been negotiated and approved by the
applicable courts for Ruffy and Doonan.

As of December 31, 2019, included in accounts payable and accrued
expenses is $0.1 million which represents an estimate of the
Company's total exposure to the Ruffy and Doonan litigations based
on standard indemnification obligations under hotel management
agreements with IHM.

Chatham Lodging Trust is a self-advised, publicly-traded real
estate investment trust focused primarily on investing in upscale,
extended-stay hotels and premium-branded, select-service hotels.
The company is based in West Palm Beach, Florida.


CLEARONE ADVANTAGE: Showe-Gaither Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Victoria Showe-Gaither, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Clearone
Advantage, LLC and 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, was
transferred from the Superior Court of California County of Los
Angeles with the assigned Case No. 20STCV07009 to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California (Western Division -
Los Angeles) on March 18, 2020, and assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-02562.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer
Credit.

ClearOne Advantage is one of the largest full-service debt
settlement and resolution companies within the financial services
field operating nationwide.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

   Sharon A Urias, Esq.
   Greenspoon Marder LLP
   1875 Century Park East Suite 1850
   Los Angeles, CA 90067
   Tel: (480) 306-5458
   Fax: (480) 360-5459
   Email: sharon.urias@gmlaw.com




CLIENT SERVICES: Berger Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services, Inc.
The case is styled as Deborah Berger, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Client Services, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01433-RRM-ARL (E.D.N.Y., March 18,
2020).

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

Client Services, Inc. (CSI) is a financial services provider which
represents clients in recovering delinquent account balances.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Ste 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 741-4799
   Fax: (516) 706-5055
   Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com

      - and -

   David Michael Barshay, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com


CLIENT SERVICES: Gold Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services, Inc.
The case is styled as Shevy Gold, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Client Services, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-02379 (S.D.N.Y., March 18, 2020).

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

Client Services, Inc. (CSI) is a financial services provider which
represents clients in recovering delinquent account balances.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David Michael Barshay, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Ste 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 741-4799
   Fax: (516) 706-5055
   Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com

      - and -

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com


COCONUT FUNDING: Weisberg Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Weisberg, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. COCONUT FUNDING, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-02778 (C.D. Cal., March
25, 2020), arises from the unlawful actions of the Defendant in
negligently placing unsolicited automated calls to the Plaintiff's
cellular phone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

The Defendant violated the TCPA by using an automatic telephone
dialing system ("ATDS") to place marketing calls on consumers'
mobile phones with non-emergency advertising and marketing without
prior express written consent. At no time prior to this call did
the Plaintiff provide the Defendant with his prior express written
consent to receive automatic robocalls by using an automatic
telephone dialing system. In fact, prior to the call at issue, the
Plaintiff registered his cellular number with the National Do Not
Call Registry, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an individual, who resided in Los Angeles,
California.

Coconut Funding is a financial company offering "alternative
business finance" and "experience" for businesses, offering "most
flexible and affordable funding solutions".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: 800.400.6808
          Facsimile: 800.520.5523
          Email: ak@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Yana A. Hart, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Phone: (619) 233-7770
          Fax: (619) 297-1022
          Email: yana@kazlg.com


COHEN-ESREY COMMUNITIES: Velasquez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dariona Velasquez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. COHEN-ESREY COMMUNITIES, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00720-C
(N.D. Tex., March 25, 2020), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the federal Portal-to-Portal Pay Act for the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff time and one-half her
regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a seven-day
workweek.

The Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of 40 hours in numerous
seven-day workweeks as an employee of the Defendant. However, the
Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff time and one-half her regular
rate of pay for all of those hours worked over 40 in each and every
seven-day workweek in the time period relevant to the Plaintiff's
claims, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked as a leasing agent at an apartment complex in
Dallas County for the Defendant from April 2019 to July 2019.

The Defendant provides residential leasing services in Texas and
states other than Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER VAUGHT PLLC
          1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: (214) 251-4157
          Facsimile: (214) 261-5159
          Email: vaught@txlaborlaw.com


CONAGRA BRANDS: Chocolate Products Mislabeled, Davis-Berg Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH DAVIS-BERG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONAGRA BRANDS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2020CH01710 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Feb. 11, 2020) is an
action against the Defendant's unlawful sales and marketing of its
22.23 ounce and 38.27 ounce canister of Swiss Miss Milk Chocolate
Hot Chocolate.

According to the Plaintiff, the 22.23 ounce canister states that it
makes "18 servings" of hot chocolate per canister. The 38.27 ounce
canister states that it makes "13 servings" of hot chocolate per
canister. This is contrary to the actual fact that the canisters
make only 15 and 25 whole servings, respectively.

Conagra Brands, Inc. manufactures and markets packaged foods for
retail consumers, restaurants, and institutions. The Company offers
meals, entrees, condiments, sides, snacks, specialty potatoes,
milled grain ingredients, dehydrated vegetables and seasonings, and
blends and flavors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carl V. Malmstrom
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
          FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
          111 W. Jackson St., Suite 1700
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 984-0000
          Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
          E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com

               - and –

          Jeffrey M. Smith, Esq.
          Matthew M. Guiney, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
          FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 545-4653
          E-mail: smith@whafh.com
                  guiney@whafh.com


CONTINENTAL CREDIT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Katzakian Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN KATZAKIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CONTINENTAL CREDIT CONTROL, INC.; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case 1:20-cv-00223-NONE-BAM
(E.D. Cal., Feb. 11, 2020) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice
of making unsolicited calls.

Continental Credit Control, Inc. is a debt collection company.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COOPER-STANDARD: Auto Suppliers' Suits in Canada Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Cooper-Standard Holdings Inc.said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Nishikawa
Rubber Company, the parent of the 60% equity interest of Nishikawa
Cooper LLC ("NISCO"), has entered into settlement agreements,
releasing NISCO and Cooper Standard Holdings Inc. and certain of
its subsidiaries from the class action suits initiated by numerous
automotive suppliers and the courts in Ontario, Quebec, and British
Columbia approved the settlement agreement in those cases and
dismissed the cases.

In 2016, a putative class action complaint alleging conspiracy to
fix the price of body sealing products used in automobiles and
other light-duty vehicles was filed in Ontario, Canada followed by
similar complaints filed in British Columbia and Quebec in 2018 and
2019, respectively, against numerous automotive suppliers,
including Cooper Standard Holdings Inc. and certain of its
subsidiaries (together the "CS Defendants") and its joint venture,
Nishikawa Cooper LLC ("NISCO").

The Company believes the claims asserted against it and NISCO were
without merit and intended to vigorously defend against the claims;
however, Nishikawa Rubber Company, the parent of the 60% equity
interest of NISCO, entered into settlement agreements, releasing
NISCO and the CS Defendants from the relevant cases.

During 2019, each of the courts in Ontario, Quebec, and British
Columbia approved the settlement agreement in those cases and
dismissed the cases against NISCO and the CS Defendants.

Cooper-Standard Holdings Inc., through its subsidiary, Cooper-
Standard Automotive Inc., designs, manufactures, and sells sealing,
fuel and brake delivery, fluid transfer, and anti- vibration
systems worldwide.  It operates in four segments: North America,
Europe, Asia Pacific, and South America. The Company was founded in
1960 and is headquartered in Novi, Michigan.


CORYELL FAMILY: Fails to Pay Lawful Overtime Wages, Williams Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Williams, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. CORYELL FAMILY HEALTH, Case No. 6:20-cv-00223-ADA-JCM
(W.D. Tex., March 25, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act for judgment and damages as a result of the
Defendant's failure to pay lawful overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 per week.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked in excess of 40
hours per week on a regular, typical basis while working for the
Defendant. During weeks in which the Plaintiff worked over 40
hours, the Defendant paid an improper overtime rate because the
Defendant determined the regular rate of pay solely based on
employees' hourly rate, without including the value of the
nondiscretionary bonuses that the Defendant provided to the
Plaintiff.

The Defendant knew or showed reckless disregard for whether its
actions violated the FLSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
certified nursing assistant ("CNA") from March 2015 to March 2020.

The Defendants own and operate a health services company, including
a nursing home.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CRAFT BREW: Faces Anheuser-Busch Merger Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------
Craft Brew Alliance Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated February 18, 2020, that
the company is facing several class action suits related to
Anheuser-Busch merger.

Craft Brew Alliance, Inc. ("CBA") previously announced its entry
into the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of November 11,
2019, by and among the Company, Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company ("A-B"), and Barrel Subsidiary,
Inc., a Washington corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary
of A-B ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with
and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the
Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of A-B.

In connection with the Merger, the Company filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission a definitive proxy statement on
January 21, 2020.

As disclosed in the Proxy Statement, on January 3, 2020, a lawsuit
relating to the Merger was filed in the Superior Court of
Washington, King County, a purported class action complaint brought
on behalf of a putative class of the Company's shareholders,
captioned Kost et al. v. Craft Brew Alliance, Inc., et al., Case
No. 20-2-00389-1 SEA.

As also disclosed in the Proxy Statement, on January 14, 2020, a
second purported class action complaint brought on behalf of a
putative class of the Company's shareholders, captioned Birkby et
al. v. Craft Brew Alliance, Inc., et al., Case No. 20CV02867, was
filed in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of
Multnomah.

Following the filing of the Proxy Statement and prior to the filing
of this Current Report on Form 8-K, four additional complaints were
filed, alleging substantially similar claims:

Sabatini et al. v. Craft Brew Alliance, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-00138, filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware on January 29, 2020 on behalf of a putative
class of the Company's shareholders (the "Sabatini Action"),
Halberstam v. Craft Brew Alliance, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-01243, filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on February 7, 2020 on behalf of an
individual shareholder (the "Halberstam Action"), Michael Roberts
et al. v. Craft Brew Alliance, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-00208, filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware on February 12, 2020 on behalf of a putative
class of the Company's shareholders (the "Michael Roberts Action"),
and Dennis Roberts v. Craft Brew Alliance, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-00337, filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado on February 10, 2020 on behalf of an
individual shareholder.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in the
above-referenced actions are without merit and that no supplemental
disclosure is required under applicable law. However, in order to
moot unmeritorious disclosure claims, to avoid the risk of the
actions delaying or adversely affecting the Merger and to minimize
the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, without
admitting any liability or wrongdoing, the Company has determined
to voluntarily supplement the Proxy Statement as described in this
Current Report on Form 8-K.

In light of the supplemental disclosures, plaintiffs in the Kost,
Sabatini, Halberstam, and Michael Roberts Actions have agreed to
dismiss their individual claims with prejudice, and plaintiffs in
the Kost, Sabatini, and Michael Roberts Actions have agreed to
dismiss their class claims without prejudice.

Nothing in this Current Report on Form 8-K shall be deemed an
admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable
laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein. To the contrary,
the Company specifically denies all allegations in the actions,
including allegations that any additional disclosure was or is
required, and believes that the supplemental disclosures contained
herein are immaterial.

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://bit.ly/2xYE579.

Craft Brew Alliance Inc. operates breweries that offers a wide
assortment of beers. The Company owns and operates production
breweries with adjacent restaurants and pubs in parts of the United
States. The company is based in Portland, Oregon.


CVS HEALTH: Trial in Corcoran to Begin This Year
------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the class action suit
entitled, Corcoran et al. v. CVS Health Corporation (U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California), is proceeding to a
trial on a six-state class basis, and trial is scheduled to occur
in 2020.  

Corcoran et al. v. CVS Health Corporation (U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California) and Podgorny et al. v. CVS
Health Corporation (U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois) were filed against the Company in July and September
2015. The cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.

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

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

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

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

In June 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed the U.S. District Court's grant of summary judgment and
reversed the U.S. District Court’s narrowing of the requested
class.

The Corcoran case is proceeding to a trial on a six-state class
basis, and trial is scheduled to occur in 2020.

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

The Company is defending itself against these claims.

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



D & A SERVICES: Kim Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against D & A Services, LLC
of IL. The case is styled as Dong S Kim, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. D & A Services, LLC
of IL, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01436 (E.D.N.Y., March 18,
2020).

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

D & A Services, LLC of IL is a collection agency located in
Chicago, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Ste 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 741-4799
   Fax: (516) 706-5055
   Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com

      - and -

   David Michael Barshay, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com



DAVIES MOLDING: Cook Sues over Biometric Data Collection
--------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDRA COOK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DAVIES MOLDING, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2020L00248 (Ill. Cir., Dupage Cty., Feb. 25, 2020) alleges
violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA").

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff suffered damages
resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendants in collecting,
storing and using the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated
individuals' biometric identifiers, and biometric information
(referred to collectively at times as "biometrics") without
obtaining informed written consent or providing the requisite data
retention and destruction policies, in direct violation of BIPA.

Davies Molding, L.L.C. manufactures custom plastic components. The
Company produces plastic knobs, handles, cases, and other plastic
components. Davies Molding serves customers in the United States.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peters S. Lubin, Esq.
          LUBIN AUSTERMUEHLE, P.C.
          360 West Butterfield Road, Suite 325
          Elmhurst, IL 60126
          Telephone: (630) 333-0333
          E-mail: peter@l-a.law
                patrick@l-a.law


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: B&R Supermarket Class Action Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Discover Financial Services said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, B&R Supermarket,
Inc., d/b/a Milam's Market, et al. v. Visa, Inc. et al.

On March 8, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company, other credit card networks, other issuing banks, and EMVCo
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(B&R Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Milam's Market, et al. v. Visa, Inc.
et al.) alleging a conspiracy by defendants to shift fraud
liability to merchants with the migration to the EMV security
standard and chip technology.

Plaintiffs assert joint and several liability among the defendants
and seek unspecified damages, including treble damages, attorneys'
fees, costs and injunctive relief. In May 2017, the Court entered
an order transferring the entire action to a federal court in New
York that is presiding over certain related claims that are pending
in the actions consolidated as MDL 1720.

On March 11, 2018, the Court entered an order denying the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification without prejudice to
filing a renewed motion. Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for
class certification on July 16, 2018.

Defendants filed their Opposition to Class Certification on March
15, 2019; a hearing date is yet to be scheduled.

Discover Financial said, "The Company is not in a position at this
time to assess the likely outcome or its exposure, if any, with
respect to this matter, but will seek to vigorously defend against
all claims asserted by the plaintiffs."

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

Discover Financial Services operates as a credit card issuer and
electronic payment services company. The Company issues credit
cards and offers student and personal loans, as well as savings
products such as certificates of deposit and money market accounts.
Discover Financial Services manages automated teller machine
networks. The company is based in Riverwoods, Illinois.


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Bonoan TCPA Class Action Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
Discover Financial Services said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the class action
suit entitled, Bonoan v. Discover Financial Services, has been
dismissed.

On September 20, 2019, a putative class action was filed against
the Company in the Northern District of Illinois (Bonoan v.
Discover Financial Services) alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act. The plaintiff alleges the Company placed
telephone calls to wrong or reassigned cellular telephone numbers
without consent.

The plaintiff seeks an injunction, statutory damages, treble
damages, reasonable attorney fees, costs and expenses.

The case was dismissed on November 8, 2019.

Discover Financial Services operates as a credit card issuer and
electronic payment services company. The Company issues credit
cards and offers student and personal loans, as well as savings
products such as certificates of deposit and money market accounts.
Discover Financial Services manages automated teller machine
networks. The company is based in Riverwoods, Illinois.


DISH NETWORK: Second Notice of Appeal Filed in Krakauer Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
DISH Network Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that DISH Network
L.L.C. filed a second notice of appeal in the the "Krakauer
Action", relating to the district court's orders on the claims
administration process to identify, and disburse funds to,
individual class members.

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

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

On May 22, 2017, the Court ruled that the violations were willful
and knowing, and trebled the damages award to $1,200 for each call
made in violation of TCPA. On April 5, 2018, the Court entered a
$61 million judgment in favor of the class.  

DISH Network L.L.C. appealed and on May 30, 2019, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. On October 15,
2019, DISH Network L.L.C. filed a petition for writ of certiorari,
requesting that the United States Supreme Court agree to hear a
further appeal, but it denied the petition on December 16, 2019.  

On January 21, 2020, DISH Network L.L.C. filed a second notice of
appeal relating to the district court's orders on the claims
administration process to identify, and disburse funds to,
individual class members.

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


DISH NETWORK: Still Defends Hallandale Police & Firefighters' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
DISH Network Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, City of
Hallandale Beach Police Officers' and Firefighters' Personnel
Retirement Trust v. Ergen, et al., Case No. A-19-797799-B.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


ELI LILLY: Class Suits over Insulin Pricing Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the plaintiffs in In
re Insulin Pricing Litigation, in the U.S. District Court of New
Jersey, MSP Recovery Claims, Series, LLC et al. v. Sanofi Aventis
U.S. LLC et al., and Prof'l Drug Co., Inc. & FWK Holdings, LLC v.
Novo Nordisk Inc. et al., have voluntarily dismissed their
lawsuit.

The company, along with Sanofi and Novo Nordisk, are named as
defendants in a consolidated purported class action lawsuit, In re.
Insulin Pricing Litigation, in the U.S. District Court of New
Jersey relating to insulin pricing.

Plaintiffs seek damages under various state consumer protection
laws and the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization
Act (federal RICO Act).

Separately, the company, along with Sanofi and Novo Nordisk, are
named as defendants in MSP Recovery Claims, Series, LLC et al. v.
Sanofi Aventis U.S. LLC et al., in the same court, seeking damages
under various state consumer protection laws, common law fraud,
unjust enrichment, and the federal RICO Act.

Also, in the same court, the company, along with Sanofi and Novo
Nordisk, had been named as defendants in a purported class action
lawsuit, Prof'l Drug Co., Inc. & FWK Holdings, LLC v. Novo Nordisk
Inc. et al., seeking damages under the federal and New Jersey RICO
Acts.

Plaintiffs in that matter voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit in
January 2020.

Eli Lilly and Company discovers, develops, manufactures, and
markets pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company operates in
two segments, Human Pharmaceutical Products and Animal Health
Products. Eli Lilly and Company was founded in 1876 and is
headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.


ELI LILLY: Consolidated Axiron-Related Class Suit Concluded
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's
ruling, concluding the consolidated class action suit related to
Axiron.

The company was named as a defendant in approximately 50 Axiron
personal injury/product liability lawsuits in the U.S. involving
approximately 50 plaintiffs. In some of the cases, other
manufacturers of testosterone are named as co-defendants.

All of these lawsuits have been consolidated in a federal MDL in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The
cases generally allege cardiovascular and related injuries.

The company have reached agreement on a settlement framework that
provides for a comprehensive resolution of all of these personal
injury claims alleging cardiovascular and related injuries from
Axiron treatment. The company have also been engaged in litigation
with Medical Mutual of Ohio (MMO), which filed a class action
complaint against multiple manufacturers of testosterone products,
including Lilly, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, on behalf of third-party payers who paid for
those products and is seeking damages under the Federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

MMO's motion for class certification was denied, and in February
2019, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of
defendants, dismissing MMO's lawsuit with prejudice. In November
2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed
the District Court's ruling, concluding this case.

Eli Lilly and Company discovers, develops, manufactures, and
markets pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company operates in
two segments, Human Pharmaceutical Products and Animal Health
Products. Eli Lilly and Company was founded in 1876 and is
headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.


ELI LILLY: Continues to Defend Actos-Related Class Suits in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend class action suits in Canada related to personal injuries
caused by Actos.

The company is named along with Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd.
and Takeda affiliates (collectively, Takeda) as a defendant in four
purported product liability class actions in Canada related to
Actos, which the company commercialized with Takeda in Canada until
2009, including one in Ontario (Casseres et al. v. Takeda
Pharmaceutical North America, Inc., et al.), one in Quebec (Whyte
et al. v. Eli Lilly et al.), one in Saskatchewan (Weiler v. Takeda
Canada Inc. et al.), and one in Alberta (Epp v. Takeda Canada Inc.
et al.).

In general, plaintiffs in these actions alleged that Actos caused
or contributed to their bladder cancer.

Eli Lilly said, "We believe these lawsuits are without merit, and
we and Takeda are defending against them vigorously."

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

Eli Lilly and Company discovers, develops, manufactures, and
markets pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company operates in
two segments, Human Pharmaceutical Products and Animal Health
Products. Eli Lilly and Company was founded in 1876 and is
headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.


ENDO INT'L: Astora Pays for Unresolved Mesh Claims
---------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Astora Women's Health
LLC has funded the settlement covering unresolved claims by
Canadian women implanted with an AMS vaginal mesh device in
February 2020.

Since 2008, the company and certain of its subsidiaries, including
American Medical Systems Holdings, Inc. (AMS) (subsequently
converted to Astora Women's Health Holding LLC and merged into
Astora Women's Health LLC and referred to herein as AMS and/or
Astora), have been named as defendants in multiple lawsuits in
various state and federal courts in the U.S. (including a federal
multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia), and in Canada, Australia and
other countries, alleging personal injury resulting from the use of
transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat pelvic organ
prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI).

Plaintiffs claim a variety of personal injuries, including chronic
pain, incontinence, inability to control bowel function and
permanent deformities, and seek compensatory and punitive damages,
where available.

The company and certain plaintiffs' counsel have entered into
various Master Settlement Agreements (MSAs) and other agreements to
resolve up to approximately 71,000 filed and unfiled mesh claims
handled or controlled by the participating counsel in the U.S.
These MSAs and other agreements were entered into at various times
between June 2013 and the present, were solely by way of compromise
and settlement and were not in any way an admission of liability or
fault by the company or any of its subsidiaries.

All MSAs are subject to a process that includes guidelines and
procedures for administering the settlements and the release of
funds. In certain cases, the MSAs provide for the creation of
Qualified Settlement Funds (QSFs) into which the settlement funds
will be deposited, establish participation requirements and allow
for a reduction of the total settlement payment in the event
participation thresholds are not met. Funds deposited in QSFs are
considered restricted cash and/or restricted cash equivalents.

Distribution of funds to any individual claimant is conditioned
upon the receipt of documentation substantiating product use, the
dismissal of any lawsuit and the release of the claim as to us and
all affiliates. Prior to receiving funds, an individual claimant
must represent and warrant that liens, assignment rights or other
claims identified in the claims administration process have been or
will be satisfied by the individual claimant. Confidentiality
provisions apply to the settlement funds, amounts allocated to
individual claimants and other terms of the agreement.

In October 2019, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved a
class action settlement covering unresolved claims by Canadian
women implanted with an AMS vaginal mesh device. Astora funded the
settlement in February 2020.

Endo International plc manufactures and sells generic and branded
pharmaceuticals in the United States, Canada, and internationally.
The company was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in Dublin,
Ireland.


ENDO INT'L: Continues to Defend Opioid-Related Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company and its
subsidiaries continues to defend opioid-related class action suits.


Since 2014, multiple U.S. states and other governmental persons or
entities and private plaintiffs in the U.S. and Canada have filed
suit against the company and/or certain of its subsidiaries,
including Endo Health Solutions Inc. (EHSI), Endo Pharmaceuticals
Inc (EPI),  Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (PPI), Par Pharmaceutical
Companies, Inc. (PPCI), Endo Generics Holdings, Inc. (EGHI),
Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Generics Bidco I, LLC and DAVA
Pharmaceuticals, LLC, and in Canada, Paladin Labs Inc. (Paladin),
as well as various other manufacturers, distributors, pharmacies
and/or others, asserting claims relating to defendants' alleged
sales, marketing and/or distribution practices with respect to
prescription opioid medications, including certain of our products.


As of February 18, 2020, the cases in the U.S. of which the company
was aware include, but are not limited to, approximately 20 cases
filed by or on behalf of states; approximately 2,700 cases filed by
counties, cities, Native American tribes and/or other
government-related persons or entities; approximately 280 cases
filed by hospitals, health systems, unions, health and welfare
funds or other third-party payers and approximately 160 cases filed
by individuals.

Certain of the cases have been filed as putative class actions. The
Canadian cases include an action filed by British Columbia on
behalf of a proposed class of all federal, provincial and
territorial governments and agencies in Canada that paid
healthcare, pharmaceutical and treatment costs related to opioids,
as well as three additional putative class actions, filed in
Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia, seeking relief on behalf of
Canadian residents who were prescribed and/or consumed opioid
medications.

Many of the U.S. cases have been coordinated in a federal MDL
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio. Other cases are pending in various federal or state courts.
The cases are at various stages.

The first MDL trial, relating to the claims of two Ohio counties
(Track One plaintiffs), was set for October 2019 but did not go
forward after most defendants settled. EPI, EHSI, PPI and PPCI
executed a settlement agreement with the Track One plaintiffs in
September 2019 which provided for payments totaling $10 million and
up to $1 million of VASOSTRICT(R) and/or ADRENALIN(R).

Under the settlement agreement, the Track One plaintiffs may be
entitled to additional payments in the event of a comprehensive
resolution of government-related opioid claims. The settlement
agreement was solely by way of compromise and settlement and was
not in any way an admission of liability or fault by the company or
any of its subsidiaries. Certain state court cases are scheduled
for trial in 2020, with the first of these trials currently
scheduled to begin in March. Most other cases remain at the
pleading and/or discovery stage.

The complaints in the cases assert a variety of claims, including
but not limited to statutory claims asserting violations of public
nuisance, consumer protection, unfair trade practices,
racketeering, Medicaid fraud and/or drug dealer liability laws
and/or common law claims for public nuisance,
fraud/misrepresentation, strict liability, negligence and/or unjust
enrichment.

The claims are generally based on alleged misrepresentations and/or
omissions in connection with the sale and marketing of prescription
opioid medications and/or alleged failures to take adequate steps
to identify and report suspicious orders and to prevent abuse and
diversion. Plaintiffs generally seek declaratory and/or injunctive
relief; compensatory, punitive and/or treble damages; restitution,
disgorgement, civil penalties, abatement, attorneys' fees, costs
and/or other relief.

Endo said, "We will continue to vigorously defend the foregoing
matters and to explore other options as appropriate in our best
interests. Similar matters may be brought by others or the
foregoing matters may be expanded. We are unable to predict the
outcome of these matters or to estimate the possible range of any
losses that could be incurred. Adjustments to our overall liability
accrual may be required in the future, which could have a material
adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows."

Endo International plc manufactures and sells generic and branded
pharmaceuticals in the United States, Canada, and internationally.
The company was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in Dublin,
Ireland.


ENDO INT'L: Generic Drug Pricing Litigation Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the court overseeing
the multi-district litigation involving alleged price-fixing of
generic drugs has issued various case management and substantive
orders, including orders denying certain motions to dismiss.
Discovery is ongoing.

Since March 2016, various private plaintiffs and state attorneys
general have filed cases against the company's subsidiary Par
Pharmaceutical, Inc. (PPI) and/or, in some instances, the Company,
Generics Bidco I, LLC, DAVA Pharmaceuticals, LLC and/or Par
Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. (PPCI), as well as other
pharmaceutical manufacturers and, in some instances, other
corporate and/or individual defendants, alleging price-fixing and
other anticompetitive conduct with respect to generic
pharmaceutical products.

These cases, which include proposed class actions filed on behalf
of direct purchasers, end-payers and indirect purchaser resellers,
as well as non-class action suits, have generally been consolidated
and/or coordinated for pretrial proceedings in a federal MDL
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

The various complaints and amended complaints generally assert
claims under federal and/or state antitrust law, state consumer
protection statutes and/or state common law regarding certain of
the company's products, and seek damages, treble damages, civil
penalties, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, costs
and attorneys' fees.

Some claims are based on alleged product-specific conspiracies and
other claims allege broader, multiple-product conspiracies. Under
these overarching conspiracy theories, plaintiffs seek to hold all
alleged participants in a particular conspiracy jointly and
severally liable for all harms caused by the alleged conspiracy,
not just harms related to the products manufactured and/or sold by
a particular defendant.

The MDL court has issued various case management and substantive
orders, including orders denying certain motions to dismiss, and
discovery is ongoing.

The company will continue to vigorously defend the foregoing
matters and to explore other options as appropriate in our best
interests. Similar matters may be brought by others or the
foregoing matters may be expanded.

Endo said, "We are unable to predict the outcome of these matters
or to estimate the possible range of any losses that could be
incurred. Adjustments to our overall liability accrual may be
required in the future, which could have a material adverse effect
on our business, financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows."

Endo International plc manufactures and sells generic and branded
pharmaceuticals in the United States, Canada, and internationally.
The company was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in Dublin,
Ireland.


EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Skidanenko Seeks to Recover Minimum & OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yekaterina Skidanenko, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. EQUINOX HOLDINGS, INC. and ABC CORPORATION
1-25 (fictitious parties), Case No. 1:20-cv-01550 (E.D.N.Y., March
25, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid minimum wages, spread of
hours and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and New York Labor Law.

As a result of the policies and procedures promulgated by the
Defendants, the Plaintiff was compelled to work more than 40 hours
each week for the benefit of the Defendants, but was only paid for
fraction of the hours worked, says the complaint. The Defendant
also failed to compensate the Plaintiff and members of the FLSA
Collective at one and one-half times the employee's wage for all
hours worked in excess of 40 during any workweek.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a personal trainer
at the Tier 1 level.

Equinox Holdings, Inc. is a luxury fitness company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
          225 Broadway, 3rd floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 323-6980
          Facsimile: (212) 233-9238
          Email: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com


FEDEX GROUND: Court OKs Class Certification in Carrow Drivers Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an Opinion and Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification in the case captioned Michael CARROW, Michael
FENNELL, and Nicholas STEFANOU, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE
SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Civil No. 16-3026 (RBK/JS), (D.N.J.).

Plaintiffs are delivery drivers who contend that they were
employees of Defendant FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc. (FedEx),
FedEx contends that they were only employees of separate
corporations that contracted with FedEx. Plaintiffs contend that
Defendant controls the drivers such that they are its employees
rather than independent contractors. Plaintiffs claim that
Defendant wrongfully withheld from Plaintiffs' wages amounts for
workers' compensation, employment taxes, and business expenses like
vehicle insurance, vehicle maintenance, the business support
package and other expenses.

Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class on their NJWPL
claim:  All persons who: (1) entered into a FedEx Ground or Home
Delivery Operating Agreement, either personally or through a
corporate entity; (2) drove a vehicle on a full-time basis to
provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the
Operating Agreement in any week from April 13, 2010 to June 1, 2017
(the Class Period); (3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the
state of New Jersey and (4) who first signed an Operating Agreement
after October 15, 2007, or excluded themselves from the certified
class in Tofaute v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., No. 05-595
(N.D. Ind).

While making deliveries for FedEx, drivers use an electronic
scanner to record their progress throughout the day.  The data
includes the time that the driver first activates the scanner each
day, indicating that they are on duty, and the time that the driver
ceases scanner activity for the day, indicating that they are off
duty.  Assuming that the time between the initial scan and the
final scan represents the period of time in which the driver was
working, Plaintiffs' expert, David M. Breshears, was able to
identify 215 putative class members who worked thirty or more hours
per week in at least one week during the class period.

Defendant's principal objection to Breshears's approach is that the
drivers may not have been working during the entire period between
the initial scan and the final scan rather, they may have been
taking breaks or running personal errands.  Although the scanner
data is extensive, it obviously cannot account for what each driver
was doing during every minute of every day throughout the class
period.  But the concern that the drivers could take a break or run
personal errands during their on duty time really strikes at the
merits of Plaintiffs' claims, as it collapses onto the issue of
whether Defendant exercised actual control over the drivers'
conduct.  That is, Defendant wants to engage in an abstract debate
about what it means to work, which is not the purpose of the
ascertainability requirement, the Court notes.

Given that Plaintiffs can objectively show the duration of the
drivers on duty time, this issue does not raise ascertainability
concerns, the Court opines.

Defendant is also concerned that because the class definition only
requires drivers to have been working full-time in a given week,
class members will float in and out of the class over time. Again
Defendant is collapsing the merits onto the ascertainability
inquiry; it may be that the class members' employment status
depends on the number of hours they worked each week, but whether
the class members are later found to be employees or independent
contractors does not present any bar to identifying who they are at
this time.  As such, the methodology proposed by Breshears
demonstrates that the class can be defined by objective criteria
and there is an administratively feasible mechanism for determining
which class members meet the class definition.
In order to remove any ambiguity, the class definition shall be
amended to specify that full-time basis means thirty or more hours.

The class action requirement of numerosity is presumed if the
potential number of plaintiffs exceeds 40.  The proposed class
consists of 215 individuals.  As such, numerosity is satisfied, the
Court finds.

The Court notes that as in the case, an action is brought under
Rule 23(b)(3), Rule 23(a)(2)'s commonality requirement is subsumed
by the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3).  Thus, the
predominance discussion also accounts for the commonality
requirement.

Also, Rule 23(a)(3) requires the plaintiff to show that the claims
or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims
or defenses of the class.  When comparing the claims of the
representative plaintiffs and the class as a whole, courts must
address three distinct, though related, concerns: (1) the claims of
the class representative must be generally the same as those of the
class in terms of both (a) the legal theory advanced and (b) the
factual circumstances underlying that theory (2) the class
representative must not be subject to a defense that is both
inapplicable to many members of the class and likely to become a
major focus of the litigation and (3) the interests and incentives
of the representative must be sufficiently aligned with those of
the class.

In this case, the second and third concerns pose little issue for
Plaintiffs, the Court notes.  Defendant has not identified any
defenses that apply to Plaintiffs that do not apply to the class as
a whole, nor any reason why the interests and incentives of the
representative plaintiffs would differ markedly from the rest of
the class, and the Court on its own can see no issue on either
front.

Rather, Defendant's objection lies with the first concern.
Although the representative Plaintiffs undisputedly articulate the
same legal theory as the rest of the class that Defendant
misclassified its drivers as independent contractors and illegally
took deductions from their wages Defendant highlights several
factual differences between the representative Plaintiffs and the
class as a whole.  These include: (1) that the representative
Plaintiffs never expanded beyond a single route; (2) that they
rarely or never employed others to drive their route; and  (3) that
they drove more hours than other class members.

The claims of the representative plaintiffs concern the same
Operating Agreements (OAs) and the same types of deductions as the
remaining class members, and Defendant has not highlighted any ways
in which its conduct towards the representative Plaintiffs differed
from its conduct towards the rest of the class.  The typicality
requirement in satisfied, the Court finds.

The fourth requirement of Rule 23(a) on adequacy requires a
plaintiff to show that as class representative, she will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class.  This adequacy
requirement has two components: (1) whether counsel is qualified,
experienced, and able to conduct the litigation and (2) whether any
conflicts of interest exist between the named parties and the class
they seek to represent.  Although Defendant does not raise an
adequacy argument, the Court must still satisfy itself that the
requirement is met.

The Court finds that the representative Plaintiffs and their
counsel will fairly and adequately represent the class.  Plaintiffs
Carrow, Stephanou, and Fennell are pursuing claims on the same
legal theory as the other members of the class, and all seek
damages directly from Defendant.  Similarly, Plaintiffs' counsel
has substantial experience litigating wage and hour class actions,
particularly on behalf of delivery drivers.  

With that, all the Rule 23(a) requirements are satisfied, and the
Court turns to the more demanding requirements of Rule 23(b).

In order for a Rule 23(b)(3) class to be certified, issues common
to the class must predominate over individual issues such that the
class is sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by
representation.  On Plaintiffs' theory, there are two common issues
tying the class members together: (1) if the class members were
Defendant's employees under the ABC test and (2) if the settlement
payments from Defendant to the CSPs were Plaintiffs' wages under
N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.1(c).

As to the "ABC Test", in cases concerning the alleged
misclassification of delivery drivers in other jurisdictions using
ABC tests, federal courts have repeatedly found common evidence
sufficient to satisfy all three prongs of the test.  To satisfy
Prong A of the New Jersey test, the employer must show both that it
did not have a contractual right of control and that it did not
exercise actual control.  The first part of this inquiry will
center on interpreting the OA, the substantive provisions of which
were the same for all class members.  As such, assessing
Defendant's right of control is clearly provable through common
evidence.  The second part of the inquiry, looking at control in
fact, may in certain cases require an individualized inquiry.
However, Plaintiffs have demonstrated here that evidence of common
practices can establish common answers as to control as a matter of
fact.

Here, the drivers were required to wear uniforms approved by
Defendant, display the FedEx logo on their vehicles, use the
scanners to record their pick-ups and deliveries, and allow FedEx
personnel to ride along with them to review their performance .
Defendant fails to offer any indication that the implementation of
these policies and practices varies substantially from class member
to class member.  As such, Prong A is resolvable through common
evidence.

Plaintiffs' argument on Prong C is that certain FedEx policies
prevented the class members from operating the CSPs as truly
independent businesses, specifically the policies that allowed
FedEx to negotiate all prices paid by customers, to determine the
size and composition of the driver's route, and to restrict the
ability of the drivers to use their vehicles to make deliveries for
parties other than FedEx.  

Consequently, no aspect of the ABC test requires individualized
assessments that would preclude satisfaction of the predominance
requirement, the Court opines.

As to the Deductions Issue, Defendants effectively argue that the
damages calculation in this case will be so complex as to make
class certification inappropriate.  They have a point.  Recall
Plaintiffs' theory that the CSPs are a sham, meaning that the
settlement payments were truly the class members' wages.  If this
theory holds, and the class members were the CSPs' sole employees
and sole owners, then the damages calculation would be easy damages
would be the full amount of any improper deductions Defendant took
from the settlement payments.  

At this stage, it would be inappropriate for the Court to decide
the scope of any damages that Plaintiffs may be entitled to.  But
at the same time, the Court cannot ignore the likelihood that at
least some of these issues will be relevant.  

Although the act of calculating damages may be supremely complex,
in this circuit, obstacles to calculating damages may not preclude
class certification if the class can show the fact of damages on a
common basis.

As such, Plaintiffs have met their burden on damages for purposes
of the predominance inquiry, the Court opines.

As to superiority requirement, Rule 23(b)(3) provides a four-factor
list that a court may use to assess whether class adjudication is
superior to other forms of adjudication: (A) the class members'
interests in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of
separate actions; (B) the extent and nature of any litigation
concerning the controversy already begun by or against class
members; (C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating
the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; and (D) the
likely difficulties in managing a class action.

All four factors support class adjudication here, the Court finds.
The Court is not aware of any claims filed by potential class
members under the NJWPL other than those filed by the named
Plaintiffs in the case.  As there is no parallel litigation to be
concerned about, no class member's interests in independently
prosecuting his or her claim would be frustrated by certifying the
class at issue here.   

In sum, the Court grants Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class
Certification and the following class is certified under Rule
23(b)(3):

   All persons who: (1) entered into a FedEx Ground or Home
   Delivery Operating Agreement, either personally or through
   a corporate entity; (2) drove a vehicle on a full-time basis
   to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant
   to the Operating Agreement in any week from April 13, 2010
   to June 1, 2017 (the Class Period); (3) were dispatched out
   of a terminal in the state of New Jersey; and (4) who first
   signed an Operating Agreement after October 15, 2007, or
   excluded themselves from the certified class in Tofaute v.
   FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., No. 05-595 (N.D. Ind).

Full-time basis means thirty or more hours.

The full-text copy of the District Court's December 26, 2019
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/wscgey7 from
Leagle.com

MICHAEL CARROW, MICHAEL FENNELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED & NICHOLAS STEFANOU, Plaintiffs,
represented by ANTHONY L. MARCHETTI, Jr. , MARCHETTI LAW, P.C.,
3000 Midlantic Dr, Ste 200, Mount Laurel, NJ, 08054

FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., Defendant, represented by
JEFFREY IRA KOHN , O'MELVENY & MEYERS, LLP, 7 Times Sq, New York,
NY 10036


FIRSTSIGHT VISION: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------
National Vision Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2019, that FirstSight
Vision Services, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the class action suit
before the United States District Court for the Southern District
of California is still pending.

The company's subsidiary, FirstSight, is a defendant in a purported
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California that alleges that FirstSight participated in
arrangements that caused the illegal delivery of eye examinations
and that FirstSight thereby violated, among other laws, the
corporate practice of optometry and the unfair competition and
false advertising laws of California.

The lawsuit was filed in 2013 and FirstSight was added as a
defendant in 2016. In March 2017, the court granted the motion to
dismiss previously filed by FirstSight and dismissed the complaint
with prejudice.

The plaintiffs filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit in April 2017. In July 2018, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated in part, and reversed in
part, the district court's dismissal and remanded for further
proceedings.

In October 2018, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
with the district court, and, in November 2018, FirstSight filed a
motion to dismiss.

National Vision said, "We believe that the claims alleged are
without merit and intend to continue to defend the litigation
vigorously."

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

National Vision Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates
as an optical retailer primarily in the United States. The company
operates in two segments, Owned & Host and Legacy. National Vision
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Duluth,
Georgia.


FLOWERS FOODS: Court Approves Settlement of Securities Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the court granted
judgment approving the class action settlement in In re Flowers
Foods, Inc. Securities Litigation.

On August 12, 2016, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York by Chris B.
Hendley (the "Hendley complaint") against the company and certain
senior members of management (collectively, the "defendants").

On August 17, 2016, another class action complaint was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by Scott
Dovell, II (the "Dovell complaint" and together with the Hendley
complaint, the "complaints") against the defendants.

Plaintiffs in the complaints are securities holders that acquired
company securities between February 7, 2013 and August 10, 2016.
The complaints generally allege that the defendants made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that
(1) the company's labor practices were not in compliance with
applicable federal laws and regulations; (2) such non-compliance
exposed the company to legal liability and/or negative regulatory
action; and (3) as a result, the defendants' statements about the
company's business, operations, and prospects were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

The counts of the complaints are asserted against the defendants
pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 under the Exchange Act.

The complaints seek (1) class certification under the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, (2) compensatory damages in favor of the
plaintiffs and all other class members against the defendants,
jointly and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of
wrongdoing, in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest,
and (3) awarding plaintiffs and the class their reasonable costs
and expenses incurred in the actions, including counsel and expert
fees.

On October 21, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York consolidated the complaints into one action
captioned "In re Flowers Foods, Inc. Securities Litigation" (the
"consolidated securities action"), appointed Walter Matthews as
lead plaintiff ("lead plaintiff"), and appointed Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP and Johnson & Weaver, LLP as co-lead counsel for the
putative class.  

On November 21, 2016, the court granted defendants' and lead
plaintiff's joint motion to transfer the consolidated securities
action to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Georgia.  

Lead plaintiff filed his Consolidated Class Action Complaint on
January 12, 2017, raising the same counts and general allegations
and seeking the same relief as the Dovell and Hendley complaints.

On March 13, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit which was granted in part and denied in part on March 23,
2018. The court dismissed certain allegedly false or misleading
statements as nonactionable under federal securities laws and will
allow others to proceed to fact discovery.  

On July 23, 2018, lead plaintiff filed his motion for class
certification. The defendants filed their memorandum of law in
opposition to class certification on October 5, 2018. The court
scheduled a hearing on the class certification motion for February
28, 2019.  

On May 10, 2019, the parties filed a notice of settlement informing
the court that a settlement in principle of the case had been
reached. On July 12, 2019, lead plaintiff and Plaintiff Chris B.
Hendley filed an unopposed motion for (1) preliminary approval of
the class action settlement; (2) certification of the settlement
class; and (3) approval of notice to the settlement class.  

On July 12, 2019, lead plaintiff and Plaintiff Chris B. Hendley
filed an unopposed motion for (1) preliminary approval of the class
action settlement; (2) certification of the settlement class; and
(3) approval of notice to the settlement class.  

Also, on July 12, 2019, the parties entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement (the "Stipulation"), which (along with its
exhibits) sets forth in detail the settlement terms, which include
releases of the claims asserted against the defendants.  

The settlement is for $21.0 million, which amount the company's
insurer has deposited in the escrow account described in the
Stipulation.  This amount is recorded on the company's Consolidated
Balance Sheets as of December 28, 2019 as an other current asset
due from the insurer and an other accrued liability due for the
settlement in principle.  

Recording this transaction resulted in no impact to the company's
Consolidated Statements of Income because the expense for the
settlement in principle was offset by the expected recovery from
the insurer.

On December 11, 2019, the court granted judgment approving the
class action settlement. The effective date of the settlement was
January 10, 2020.

Flowers Foods, Inc., incorporated on October 19, 2000, is a
producer and marketer of packaged bakery products. The Company
operates in two segments: direct-store-delivery segment (DSD
Segment) and warehouse delivery segment (Warehouse Segment). The
company is based in Thomasville, Georgia.


FORD MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in Clark ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Judge Paul Borman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, issued an Opinion and
Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment in the case captioned ANDRE L. CLARK,
Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY and FORD MOTOR COMPANY GENERAL
RETIREMENT PLAN, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-11410 (E.D. Mich.).

Plaintiff Andre L. Clark asserts claims against his former
employer, Ford Motor Company and the Ford Motor Company General
Retirement Plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) for wrongful denial of benefits, equitable estoppel, breach
of fiduciary duty, and interference with benefits.  Plaintiff
claims that Ford wrongfully refused to credit him with
contributions to the Ford Contributory Service Fund (CSF) from 2004
to 2017, resulting in reduced benefits under the Plan, and that
Defendants' responses to his demands for these additional
contributions, and his purported reliance on them, discouraged him
from taking advantage of various separation programs and packages
offered by Ford.

Defendants now move to partially dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing that
Plaintiff's breach of fiduciary duty claim under ERISA Section
502(a)(2) (Count II) and his ERISA Section 502(a)(3) claim for
equitable estoppel (in Count III) should be dismissed, and that his
ERISA Section 502(a)(3) claim for breach of fiduciary duty (Count
III) should be partially dismissed.

* Timeliness of Plaintiff's ERISA Section 502(a)(2) Claim (Count
II)

Under ERISA, when a fiduciary breaches an obligation or duty, the
victim of the breach normally has six years from the date of the
last action which constituted a part of the breach or violation in
which to file suit.  

Here, the Court notes, Plaintiff expressly pleads that he "believed
he was a continuous participant in the CSF that he first learned in
July 2017 that his CSF contributions were not being credited after
March 2004, that he did not elect to opt-out of the CSF, that Ford
failed to provide a copy of any notification sent to Plaintiff that
he had been disenrolled from actively contributing to the CSF and
that there is nothing in the claims file to even suggest that a
notice of Plaintiff either electing to opt-out of, or that he had
been disenrolled from, actively contributing to the CSF was even
generated, let alone sent to Plaintiff."

Although Defendants might be correct that Plaintiff's paychecks
starting in 2004 provided notice that CSF deductions were no longer
being made, thus triggering the three-year statute of limitations,
without allegations in the FAC supporting that assumption, or
otherwise evidence of what is contained on the face of those
paychecks, that is just supposition.  This issue may be better
resolved on summary judgment, after discovery and production of
Plaintiff's paycheck information before and after 2004, the Court
opines.

Defendants' motion to dismiss Count II of the FAC as barred by the
three-year statute of limitations is DENIED, the Court rules.

* Repackaged ERISA Section 502(a)(2) Claim (Count II)

Defendants argue that to the extent Plaintiff attempts to
characterize his fiduciary duty claim in Count II as challenging
Ford's later denial of his request for CSF credit, rather than its
underlying removal of him from the program, that claim is no more
than a repackaged ERISA Section 502(a)(1)(B) denial-of-benefits
claim and should be dismissed.   

Plaintiff responds that his Section 502(a)(2) claim is for
plan-wide relief and is not duplicative of his Section 502(a)(1)(B)
claim for individual relief, and therefore should not be
dismissed.

ERISA Section 502(a)(2), permits suits by the Secretary, or by a
participant, beneficiary or fiduciary for appropriate relief under
section 1109 of this title.

Here, to the extent Plaintiff seeks additional CSF contributions in
Count II of his FAC (losses to Plaintiff's individual retirement
account Plaintiff's Section 502(a)(2) claim fails because he is not
seeking restoration of losses to the Plan itself, which is a
required element for an actionable Section 502(a)(2) claim.

The Supreme Court made clear that the touchstone of this analysis
if whether Plaintiff's claims seek to protect the financial
integrity of the plan by challenging fiduciary breaches that impair
the value of plan assets.

Plaintiff's FAC does not allege systemic, plan-wide claims
administration problems or a claim for CSF credit which is distinct
and unrelated to his claim for benefits.  Instead, this claim is
duplicative of his denial-of-benefits claim in Count I because it
seeks identical relief for the same injury, the Court finds.

Thus, Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claim under ERISA
Section 502(a)(2) in Count II, to the extent it challenges Ford's
denial of his request for additional CSF contributions, is GRANTED
and that claim is DISMISSED because it is duplicative of
Plaintiff's ERISA Section 502(a)(1)(B) claim in Count I, the Court
rules.

* Plaintiff's Equitable Estoppel Claim (Count III)

Plaintiff claims that Ford should be equitably estopped from
denying that it is responsible for liability for all sums owed to
Plaintiff, including credit for his Contributory Service, because
of Ford's alleged representations.   

To assert a claim for equitable estoppel under Section 502(a)(3)
successfully, a plaintiff must establish: (1) conduct or language
amounting to a representation of material fact (2) awareness of the
true facts by the party to be stopped (3) an intention on the part
of the party to be estopped that the representation be acted on, or
conduct toward the party asserting the estoppel such that the
latter has a right to believe that the former's conduct is so
intended (4) unawareness of the true facts by the party asserting
the estoppel and (5) detrimental and justifiable reliance by the
party asserting the estoppel on the representation.  

Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot meet that narrow exception
here.  Specifically, Defendants contend that the Plan documents
regarding calculation of CSF benefits are unambiguous, providing in
plain language that Contributory Service is credited service of the
Member while making contributions to the Retirement Fund.
Defendants assert that Plaintiff fails to identify any ambiguity in
this provision, and thus to prevail on an equitable estoppel claim,
he must demonstrate the traditional estoppel elements and the
additional factors provided in the narrow exception discussed
above, which he cannot do.

Defendants correctly contend that Plaintiff fails to plead
extraordinary circumstances warranting equitable relief, the Court
finds.  Plaintiff does not address this argument in his response.

Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's equitable estoppel claim
in Count III is GRANTED and that claim is DISMISSED, the Court
rules.

* Fiduciary or Ministerial Capacity of Blake's Representations
(Count III)

Defendants argue that the representations Plaintiff complains in
support of his ERISA Section 502(a)(3) breach of fiduciary duty
claim in Count III were made by Adam Blake, a Ford Human Resources
representative, in a ministerial capacity and thus cannot support
Plaintiff's claim.  Specifically, Defendants contend that all of
the statements Plaintiff alleges were made in service of 'purely
ministerial functions' like applying plan eligibility rules,
calculating service and compensation credits, and 'advising
participants of their rights and options.'

Plaintiff responds that Blake's statements constituted fiduciary
representations because he was communicating on behalf of Ford, a
fiduciary, and conveying information about the likely future of
plan benefits is a discretionary act of plan administration giving
rise to a fiduciary duty. Plaintiff asserts that he received
incorrect advice which gave rise to a fiduciary liability.

Here, construing the FAC in the light most favorable to Plaintiff,
accepting the allegations as true and drawing all reasonable
inferences in Plaintiff's favor, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged
that Blake, on behalf of Ford, was acting in a fiduciary capacity
when he stated that he would work on fixing the CSF issue, the
Court finds. Plaintiff's allegations that Ford is a fiduciary and
Blake's alleged statements regarding administration of the Plan and
Plaintiff's CSF contributions plausibly appear to demonstrate the
exercise of discretion that relates to plan management or
administration.  As such, Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded that
Blake was acting in a fiduciary capacity under ERISA with regard to
Plaintiff's eligibility for CSF credits, the Court opines.

Therefore, Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's breach of
fiduciary duty claim in Count III predicated on Blake's alleged
statements is DENIED, the Court rules

In sum, the Court orders that:

   (1) Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and
       DENIED IN PART. Specifically, Defendants' motion to dismiss
       Plaintiff's claim under ERISA Section 502(a)(2) in Count
       II, to the extent it challenges Ford's denial of
       Plaintiff's request for CSF credit rather than its
       underlying removal of him from the program, is GRANTED and
       that claim is DISMISSED because it is in essence a
       repackaged Section 502(a)(1)(B) denial-of-benefits claim;
       and

   (2) Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's equitable
       estoppel claim in Count III is GRANTED and that claim is
       DISMISSED because Plaintiff failed to plead all essential
       elements of that claim.

   (3) Defendants' motion to dismiss Count II of Plaintiff's FAC
       in its entirety based on the statute of limitations is
       DENIED, as is Defendants' motion to dismiss those
       portions of Count III premised on Blake's alleged
       statements.

The full-text copy of the District Court's December 26, 2019
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/qw8zzzm from
Leagle.com

Andre L. Clark, Plaintiff, represented by John J. Conway, III, 284
State St., Albany, NY 12210

Ford Motor Company & Ford Motor Company General Retirement Plan,
Defendants, represented by Andrea Ruth Lucas -
alucas@gibsondunn.com - Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Eugene Scalia
, Gibson, Dunn, 111 West 19th Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY
10011, Julia T. Baumhart , Kienbaum Hardy Viviano Pelton & Forrest,
P.L.C., 280 N. Old Woodward Ave., Suite 400, Birmingham, MI 48009,
& Karl G. Nelson - knelson@gibsondunn.com - Gibson, Dunn.


GEO GROUP: April Trial for Washington Detainees' Suits
------------------------------------------------------
The GEO Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the two Washington
cases are currently set for trial in April 2020.

Former civil immigration detainees at the Aurora Immigration
Processing Center filed a class action lawsuit on October 22, 2014,
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado.

The complaint alleges that the Company was in violation of the
Colorado Minimum Wages of Workers Act and the federal Trafficking
Victims Protection Act ("TVPA"). The plaintiff class claims that
the Company was unjustly enriched because of the level of payment
the detainees received for work performed at the facility, even
though the voluntary work program as well as the wage rates and
standards associated with the program that are at issue in the case
are authorized by the Federal government under guidelines approved
by the United States Congress.

On July 6, 2015, the Court found that detainees were not employees
under the Colorado Minimum Wage Order and dismissed this claim. In
February 2017, the Court granted the plaintiff-class’ motion for
class certification on the TVPA and unjust enrichment claims.

The plaintiff class seeks actual damages, compensatory damages,
exemplary damages, punitive damages, restitution, attorneys' fees
and costs, and such other relief as the Court may deem proper. In
the time since the Colorado suit was initially filed, three similar
lawsuits have been filed -- two in Washington and one in
California.

In Washington, one of the two lawsuits was filed on September 9,
2017 by immigration detainees against the Company in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington. The second
lawsuit was filed on September 20, 2017 by the State Attorney
General against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of
Washington for Pierce County, which the Company removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington on October 9,
2017.

In California, a class-action lawsuit was filed on December 19,
2017 by immigration detainees against the Company in the U.S.
District Court Eastern Division of the Central District of
California. All three lawsuits allege violations of the respective
state's minimum wage laws.

However, the California lawsuit, like the Colorado suit, also
includes claims that the Company violated the TVPA and California's
equivalent state statute. On September 27, 2019, the California
plaintiff class filed a motion for class certification of both
California-based and nationwide classes.

The Company filed a response to this motion disputing the plaintiff
class' right to broad class treatment of the claims at issue. On
July 2, 2019, the Company filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in
the Washington Attorney General's Tacoma lawsuit based on the
Company's position that its legal defenses prevent the case from
proceeding to trial. The federal court in Washington denied the
Company's Motion for Summary Judgment on August 6, 2019. However,
on August 20, 2019, the Department of Justice filed a Statement of
Interest, which asked the Washington court to revisit its prior
denial of the Company's intergovernmental immunity defense in the
case.

While the Washington court ultimately elected not to dismiss the
case at the time, its order importantly declared that the Company's
intergovernmental immunity defense was legally viable, to be
ultimately determined at trial.

The two Washington cases are currently set for trial in April 2020.
The Company intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously
defend itself and has consistently refuted the allegations and
claims in these lawsuits.

The Company has not recorded an accrual relating to these matters
at this time, as a loss is not considered probable nor reasonably
estimable at this stage of the lawsuits. The Company establishes
accruals for specific legal proceedings when it is considered
probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss
can be reasonably estimated. However, the results of these claims
or proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty, and an
unfavorable resolution of one or more of these claims or
proceedings could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

The Company's accruals for loss contingencies are reviewed
quarterly and adjusted as additional information becomes available.
The Company does not accrue for anticipated legal fees and costs
but expenses those items as incurred.

The GEO Group, Inc. is the first fully integrated equity real
estate investment trust specializing in the design, financing,
development, and operation of correctional, detention, and
community reentry facilities around the globe. The company is based
in Boca Raton, Florida.


GOFORWARD INC: Nisbett Suit Asserts Disabilities Act Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
GoForward, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Kareem
Nisbett, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GoForward, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-02384 (S.D. N.Y., March 18, 2020).

GoForward Inc. is a healthcare enterprise software company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
   New York, NY 10170
   Tel: (212) 764-7171
   Email: chris@lipskylowe.com



GOJO INDUSTRIES: DiBartolo Files Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GOJO Industries, Inc.
The case is styled as Marissa DiBartolo, individually on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOJO
Industries, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01530 (E.D.N.Y.,
March 24, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Fraud or
Truth-In-Lending Act.

GOJO Industries, Inc., is a privately held manufacturer of hand
hygiene and skin care products founded in 1946, in Akron, Ohio,
where it is again headquartered after a period in Cuyahoga Falls.
One of its most well-known products is Purell, a hand
sanitizer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph Lipari, Esq.
   The Sultzer Law Group, P.C.
   270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: (917) 444-1960
   Fax: (888) 749-7747
   Email: liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com




H&D LINDEN: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Chau Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
KHANH CHAU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. H&D LINDEN MOTORS, INC. d/b/a LINDEN
VOLKSWAGEN, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01979 (D.N.J., Feb. 25,
2020) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited
calls.

H & D Linden Motors, Inc. retails automobiles. The Company offers
new and used cars, trucks, vans, and sport utility vehicles along
with insurance, leasing, finance, and maintenance services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel Edelsberg, Esq.
          DAPEER LAW, P.A.
          3331 Sunset Avenue
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (305) 610-5223
          E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
                  gberg@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com


HD AND ASSOCIATES: Taylor Suit Certified as Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as BYRON TAYLOR, ETC., ET AL. v.
HD AND ASSOCIATES, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 2:19-cv-10635-ILRL-JVM
(E.D. La.), the Court entered an order on March 18, 2020:

   1. granting motion for conditional certification as a
      collective action and notice to potential class members;

   2. directing the parties to confer and submit a jointly
      proposed order to notify the conditional class member
      within 7 days;

   3. directing the Parties to also submit proposed deadlines
      and pre-trial and trial dates within 7 days; and

   4. determining further argument is unnecessary.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

          George Brian Recilem Esq.
          Preston Lee Hayes,Esq.
          Lee & Hayes, PC
          601 W. Riverside, Suite 1400
          Washington D.C. 99201
          Telephone: 509 324 9256
          Facsimile: 509 323 8979
          E-mail: info@leehayes.com

Counsel for the Defendants are:

          Charles F. Zimmer, II, Esq.
          Charline K. Gipson, Esq.
          Daniel E. Davillier, Esq.
          935 Gravier Street, Suite 1702
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Telephone: (504) 582-6998
          Facsimile: (504) 582-6985
          E-mail: us@davillierlawgroup.com
                  czimmer@davillierlawgroup.com

HSBC USA: Bid to Dismiss Platinum and Palladium Fix Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the joint motion to
dismiss filed in the Platinum and Palladium Fix Litigation is
pending.

Since 2014, several putative class actions have been filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York naming as
defendants members of The London Platinum and Palladium Fixing
Company (the "Platinum Group Metals or PGM Fixing"), including HSBC
Bank USA, BASF Metals Limited, Goldman Sachs International and
Standard Bank, plc.

The complaints allege that, from January 2008 through November
2014, defendants conspired to manipulate the benchmark prices for
physical Platinum Group Metals ("PGM") and PGM-based financial
products.

Plaintiffs have filed a third amended complaint and the defendants
filed a joint motion to dismiss.

The company is await a ruling.

HSBC USA Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides consumer
and commercial banking products, and related financial services in
the United States. The company was founded in 1850 and is based in
New York, New York. HSBC USA Inc. is a subsidiary of HSBC North
America Holdings Inc.


HSBC USA: Discovery Ongoing in Gold Fix Litigation
--------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that discovery is ongoing in
the case entitled, In re Commodity Exchange Inc., Gold Futures and
Options Trading Litigation (Gold Fix Litigation).

Since 2014, numerous putative class actions have been filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and the
Northern District of California naming as defendants HSBC USA, HSI,
HSBC and HSBC Bank plc, in addition to other members of the London
Gold Fix.

The complaints allege that from January 2004 through June 2013,
defendants conspired to manipulate the price of gold and gold
derivatives during the afternoon London Gold Fix in order to reap
profits on proprietary trades.

The actions have been transferred to and centralized in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The parties are proceeding under a third amended complaint.

Discovery is proceeding.

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

HSBC USA Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides consumer
and commercial banking products, and related financial services in
the United States. The company was founded in 1850 and is based in
New York, New York. HSBC USA Inc. is a subsidiary of HSBC North
America Holdings Inc.


HSBC USA: Discovery Ongoing in Silver Fix Litigation
----------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that discovery is ongoing in
the case entitled, In re London Silver Fixing, Ltd. Antitrust
Litigation (Silver Fix Litigation).

In 2014, putative class actions were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York naming
HSBC, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC Bank USA and the other members of The
London Silver Market Fixing Ltd as defendants.

The complaints allege that, from January 2007 through December
2013, defendants conspired to manipulate the price of physical
silver and silver derivatives for their collective benefit in
violation of the U.S. Commodity Exchange Act and U.S. antitrust
laws.

The actions have been transferred to and centralized in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The parties
are proceeding under a third amended complaint.

Discovery is proceeding.

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

HSBC USA Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides consumer
and commercial banking products, and related financial services in
the United States. The company was founded in 1850 and is based in
New York, New York. HSBC USA Inc. is a subsidiary of HSBC North
America Holdings Inc.


HSBC USA: Still Defends Nypl and Contant Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company and its
affiliates continue to defend against two class action suits
entitled, Nypl v. JPMorgan Chase, et al. and Contant v. Bank of
America Corporation, et al.

In addition to the case, In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates
Antitrust Litigation; Case No. 13-CV-7789(LGS), other putative
class actions making similar allegations are pending against HSBC
defendants, as well as other defendants, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of:  (1) retail
customers (Nypl v. JPMorgan Chase, et al.; Case No. 1:15-CV-9300);
and (2) "indirect purchasers" of FX (Contant v. Bank of America
Corporation, et al.; Case No. 1:17-CV-03139).

The Nypl defendants have answered the complaint and discovery is
underway.

In October 2018, the Contant court granted in part and denied in
part plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint, allowing plaintiffs
to amend their state law antitrust and unfair trade practices
claims but denying their request to amend their federal law
antitrust claims.

In May 2019, the court denied HSBC Bank plc's motion to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction. Discovery is underway.

HSBC USA said, "It is possible that additional actions will be
initiated against the HSBC entities, including HSBC Bank USA, in
relation to their historical foreign exchange activities."

HSBC USA Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides consumer
and commercial banking products, and related financial services in
the United States. The company was founded in 1850 and is based in
New York, New York. HSBC USA Inc. is a subsidiary of HSBC North
America Holdings Inc.



IKEA US: Cal. App. Flips Class Certification Denial in Medellin
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One
issued an Opinion reversing the trial court judgment denying
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned
RITA MEDELLIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. IKEA US RETAIL LLC,
Defendant and Respondent, Case No. D074232, (Cal. App.).

The case is a long-running putative class action brought against
IKEA US Retail LLC1 (Ikea) on behalf of retail customers who
allegedly were asked to provide their ZIP codes for unauthorized
purposes during in-store credit card purchase transactions.  Rita
Medellin, on behalf of herself and a putative class of customers,
alleges these requests violated the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of
1971 (the Act), a consumer protection statute that prohibits
businesses from requesting and recording cardholders' personal
identification information.  After years of litigation, the trial
court denied certification of the claim because Medellin did not
supply evidence showing how individual class members may be
feasibly identified.  Medellin appealed.

While Medellin's appeal was pending, the California Supreme Court
issued a decision in Noel v. Thrifty Payless, Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th
955 (Noel), which resolved a split among the Courts of Appeal
concerning the appropriate ascertainability standard for class
certification purposes.  The Noel court concluded a class is
ascertainable so long as it is defined "'in terms of objective
characteristics and common transactional facts' that make 'the
ultimate identification of class members possible when that
identification becomes necessary,'" and disapproved a "more
exacting" standard requiring an examination into whether the party
seeking class certification had supplied evidence showing class
members could be identified without unreasonable expense or
consumption of time.

In view of the ascertainability standard adopted in the Noel
decision, the Court of Appeals of California (Appellate Court)
conclude the proposed class in the Medellin case is ascertainable
because it is defined in objective terms that make eventual
identification of class members possible.  The Appellate Court
conclude that the trial court erred in finding the class was not
ascertainable based on its concerns regarding the feasibility of
identifying individual class members.  Therefore, the Appellate
Court reverses the trial court's ruling.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's December 19, 2019 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/rn5e6el from Leagle.com

Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, Timothy G. Blood - tblood@bholaw.com -
Paula R. Brown -pbrown@bholaw.com - Stonebarger Law, Gene J.
Stonebarger - gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com - Richard D. Lambert
- rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com - and Crystal L. Matter  -
crystal@matterlawapc.com -  for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Robins Kaplan, Michael A. Geibelson  - MGeibelson@RobinsKaplan.com
- and Glenn A. Danas -gdanas@robinskaplan.com -  for Defendant and
Respondent.


J R SUSHI 2: Zhang Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Guo Li Zhang, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. J R SUSHI 2 INC., Yi Feng Yang, and Kai Tuan
Wang, Case No. 1:20-cv-02555 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2020), is brought
against the Defendants to recover damages for unpaid wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that he is entitled to unpaid wages from the
Defendants for work performed for which they received no
compensation at all or less compensation then required by minimum
wage law; and unpaid wages for overtime work for which they did not
receive overtime premium pay, as required by law.

The Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff minimum wage, overtime
compensation, and spread of hours compensation required by both the
FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint. In addition, the Defendants
failed to pay the Plaintiff any overtime "bonus" for hours worked
beyond 40 hours in a workweek, in violation of the FLSA, the NYLL,
and the supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations.

Plaintiff Zhang was employed primarily as a delivery man.

J R SUSHI is a Japanese restaurant with bubble tea.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent S. Wong, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT S. WONG
          39 East Broadway, Suite 306
          New York, NY 10002
          Phone: (212) 349-6099
          Fax: (212) 349-6599


JACK IN THE BOX: Accrues $3.8MM for Marquez Settlement in 1Q 2020
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jack in the Box Inc. recorded an accrual of US$3.8 million during
the first quarter of 2020 for the legal settlement of the case
styled, Marquez v. Jack in the Box Inc., according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended January 19, 2020.

In August 2017, a former employee filed a class action lawsuit in
California state court and as a Private Attorney General Act
("PAGA") representative suit alleging that the Company failed to
provide all non-exempt California employees with compliant rest and
meal breaks, overtime pay, accurate wage statements, and final pay
upon termination of employment.

On January 29, 2020, the parties participated in voluntary
mediation and reached a tentative agreement to settle the case.
The settlement agreement is subject to documentation and court
approval.  During the first quarter of 2020, commensurate with the
anticipated settlement, the Company recorded an accrual for legal
settlement of US$3.8 million.

Jack in the Box Inc. operates and franchises Jack in the Box(R)
quick-service restaurants and Qdoba Mexican Eats(R) (Qdoba)
fast-casual restaurants.  JACK currently operates and franchises
2,260 Jack in the Box restaurants primarily in the western and
southern United States, including one in Guam, and 717 Qdoba
fast-casual restaurants operating primarily throughout the United
States and Canada.


JACK IN THE BOX: Still Defends Gessele Class Suit on Labor Matters
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled, Gessele v. Jack in the Box Inc., is still ongoing,
according to Jack in the Box Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
January 19, 2020.

In August 2010, five former employees instituted litigation in
federal court in Oregon alleging claims under the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act and Oregon wage and hour laws.  The plaintiffs
alleged that the Company failed to pay non-exempt employees for
certain meal breaks and improperly made payroll deductions for shoe
purchases and for workers' compensation expenses, and later added
additional claims relating to timing of final pay and related wage
and hour claims involving employees of a franchisee.  In 2016, the
court dismissed the federal claims and those relating to franchise
employees.

In June 2017, the court granted class certification with respect to
state law claims of improper deductions and late payment of final
wages.

In February 2019, plaintiff's counsel reduced their earlier demand
from US$62.0 million to US$42.0 million.

In November 2019, the court issued a ruling on various dispositive
motions, disallowing approximately US$25.0 million in claimed
damages.

The Company said, "We have accrued an amount that is not material
to our consolidated financial statements relating to claims for
which we believe a loss is both probable and estimable.  While we
believe that additional losses beyond this accrual are reasonably
possible, we cannot estimate a possible loss contingency or range
of reasonably possible loss contingencies beyond this accrual."

The Company also stated that the parties were participating in a
voluntary mediation on March 16, 2020.  If the case does not
resolve at mediation, the Company will continue to vigorously
defend against this lawsuit.

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

Jack in the Box Inc. operates and franchises Jack in the Box(R)
quick-service restaurants and Qdoba Mexican Eats(R) (Qdoba)
fast-casual restaurants.  JACK currently operates and franchises
2,260 Jack in the Box restaurants primarily in the western and
southern United States, including one in Guam, and 717 Qdoba
fast-casual restaurants operating primarily throughout the United
States and Canada.


JANUS HENDERSON: VelocityShares Class Suits Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Janus Henderson Group plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the Company
and/or its subsidiaries continue to defend several class action
lawsuits related to VelocityShares Daily Inverse VIX. The cases are
Eisenberg v. Credit Suisse AG and Janus Indices, Halbert v. Credit
Suisse AG and Janus Indices, Qiu v. Credit Suisse AG and Janus
Indices and Y-GAR Capital v. Credit Suisse AG and Janus Indices,
and Rubinstein v. Credit Suisse Group AG and Janus Indices

On March 15, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Janus Index & Calculation Services LLC, which effective January 1,
2019, was renamed Janus Henderson Indices LLC ("Janus Indices"), a
subsidiary of JHG, on behalf of a class consisting of investors who
purchased VelocityShares Daily Inverse VIX Short-Term ETN (Ticker:
XIV) between January 29, 2018, and February 5, 2018 (Eisenberg v.
Credit Suisse AG and Janus Indices). Credit Suisse, the issuer of
the XIV notes, is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs generally allege statements by Credit Suisse and
Janus Indices, including those in the registration statement, were
materially false and misleading based on its discussion of how the
intraday indicative value ("IIV") is calculated and that the IIV
was not an accurate gauge of the economic value of the notes.

On April 17, 2018, a second lawsuit was filed against Janus Indices
and Credit Suisse in the United States District Court of the
Northern District of Alabama by certain investors in XIV (Halbert
v. Credit Suisse AG and Janus Indices). On May 4, 2018, a third
lawsuit, styled as a class action on behalf of investors who
purchased XIV between January 29, 2018, and February 5, 2018, was
filed against Janus Indices and Credit Suisse AG in the SDNY (Qiu
v. Credit Suisse AG and Janus Indices). The Halbert and Qiu
allegations generally copy the allegations in the Eisenberg case.

On August 20, 2018, an amended complaint was filed in the Eisenberg
and Qiu cases (which have been consolidated in the SDNY under the
name Set Capital LLC, et al. v. Credit Suisse AG, et al.), adding
Janus Distributors LLC, doing business as Janus Henderson
Distributors, and Janus Henderson Group plc as parties, and adding
allegations of market manipulation by all of the defendants. The
Janus Henderson and Credit Suisse defendants moved to dismiss the
Set Capital amended complaint, and on September 25, 2019, the court
dismissed all claims against all defendants.

The court denied the plaintiffs' request for an opportunity to
further amend their complaint, and therefore dismissed the case in
its entirety. Plaintiffs have filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The defendants in Halbert – Credit Suisse and Janus Indices –
jointly moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On August 22, 2019,
the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion
to dismiss the claims. The court dismissed all claims against Janus
Indices – including all federal securities claims – other than
a claim for negligent misrepresentation. On September 26, 2019,
Janus Indices filed its answer to the complaint. As of December 31,
2019, the case remains in the discovery phase.    

On February 4, 2019, a fourth lawsuit was filed against Janus
Indices, Janus Distributors LLC, Janus Henderson Group plc and
various Credit Suisse persons in the SDNY (Rubinstein v. Credit
Suisse Group AG, et al.).

The suit was styled as a class action and involved VelocityShares
Daily Inverse VIX Medium-Term ETN (Ticker: ZIV), but otherwise
generally copied the allegations in the XIV cases described above.
On August 20, 2019, an amended complaint was filed, which
eliminated each of the Janus Henderson entities as defendants, thus
dismissing all claims against them.

On February 7, 2019, a fifth lawsuit was filed against Janus
Indices, Janus Distributors LLC, Janus Henderson Group plc, and
Credit Suisse in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York by certain investors in XIV (Y-GAR Capital LLC
v. Credit Suisse Group AG, et al.).

The allegations in Y-GAR generally asserted that the disclosures
relating to XIV were false and misleading. On March 29, 2019, the
plaintiff withdrew the suit from the EDNY and re-filed it in the
SDNY.

The Janus Henderson and Credit Suisse defendants each moved to
dismiss the claims against them. On January 2, 2020, the court
dismissed all claims against all defendants.

Janus Henderson Group plc is an asset management holding entity.
Through its subsidiaries, the firm provides services to
institutional, retail clients, and high net worth clients. It
manages separate client-focused equity and fixed income portfolios.
The firm also manages equity, fixed income, and balanced mutual
funds for its clients. It invests in public equity and fixed income
markets, as well as invests in real estate and private equity.
Janus Henderson Group plc was founded in 1934 and is based in
London, United Kingdom with additional offices in Jersey, United
Kingdom and Sydney, Australia.


JDM WASHINGTON: Vignola Sues over Apartment Rental Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
CHAD VIGNOLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JDM WASHINGTON STREET LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 152025/2020 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Feb. 25, 2020) alleges
violations of the New York rent regulations.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff occupies the apartment
building, Apartment 7 A, located at 90 Washington Street (the
"Building") in Manhattan. The Building received 421-g tax benefits
from New York City, entitling the tenants therein to
rent-stabilized leases.

Upon moving into his apartment, the Plaintiff was provided with a
purported "free market" lease. The Defendant subsequently provided
the Plaintiff with "free market" lease renewals. However, the
Defendant failed to file the legally required registrations for the
Plaintiff's apartment, and his apartment is wrongfully listed as
"exempt" with Division of Housing and Community Renewal ("DHCR").
The Plaintiff did not receive any of the riders required by the
421-g Program for his unit. Because the Building participated in
the 421-g Program, the Plaintiff's apartment could not be listed as
"exempt."

The Defendant's failure to register the Plaintiff's apartment was
part of a fraudulent scheme to deregulate the apartment. The
Defendant's failure to register the Plaintiff's apartment rendered
the Plaintiff's rent history unreliable. Accordingly, the default
formula is required to be used to calculate the legal regulated
rent for the Plaintiffs apartment.

JDM Washington Street LLC operates in the real estate industry. The
Company provides rental to apartment buildings. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq.
          Ricardo M. Vera, Esq.
          Roger A. Sachar, Esq.
          NEWMAN FERRARA LLP
          1250 Broadway, 27th Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 619-5400
          E-mail: lferrara@nflp.com
                  rvera@nflp.com
                  rsachar@nflp.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bid to Dismiss cART Antitrust Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 29, 2019, that defendants in the class
action antitrust suit related to combination antiretroviral
therapies (cART), have filed motions to dismiss the complaint.

In May 2019, a class action antitrust complaint was filed against
Janssen R&D Ireland (Janssen) and Johnson & Johnson.

The complaint alleges that Janssen violated federal and state
antitrust and consumer protection laws by agreeing to exclusivity
provisions in its agreements with Gilead concerning the development
and marketing of combination antiretroviral therapies (cART) to
treat HIV.

The complaint also alleges that Gilead entered into similar
agreements with Bristol-Myers-Squibb and Japan Tobacco. The case is
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Northern California.

The defendants have filed motions to dismiss the complaint.

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

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: ZYTIGA(R) Antitrust Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 29, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated class action suit related to sales of
ZYTIGA(R).

Janssen Biotech, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Johnson &
Johnson.

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

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

The case has been transferred to the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey and consolidated for pretrial
purposes.

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

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.


KARYOPHARM THERAPEUTICS: Securities Suits Over SOPRA Trial Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend class action lawsuits related to the results
from the Phase 2 SOPRA study and Part 2 of the Phase 2b STORM
study.

The company has been named as a defendant in securities class
action litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts. A complaint was filed on July 23, 2019, by the
Allegheny County Employees' Retirement System, against the company
and certain of its current and former executive officers and
directors as well as the underwriters of the company's public
offerings of common stock conducted in April 2017 and May 2018.

A second complaint was filed by Heather Mehdi on September 17,
2019, against the same defendants with the exception of the
underwriters.

The two complaints are related and the company expects them to be
consolidated by the court.

Both complaints allege violations of federal securities laws based
on the company's disclosures related to the results from the Phase
2 SOPRA study and Part 2 of the Phase 2b STORM study, and seek
unspecified compensatory damages, including interest; reasonable
costs and expenses, including attorneys' and expert fees;
unspecified recessionary damages; and such equitable/injunctive
relief or other relief as the court may deem just and proper.

Karyopharm said, "We have reviewed the allegations and believe they
are without merit. We intend to defend vigorously against this
litigation."

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

Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc., incorporated on December 22, 2008, is
an oncology-focused pharmaceutical company. The Company is focused
on the discovery, development, and commercialization of drugs
directed against nuclear export and related targets for the
treatment of cancer and other diseases. The company is based in
Newton, Massachusetts.


KPC HEALTHCARE: Yanez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as FEDERICO HERNANDEZ YANEZ, as
an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KPC
HEALTHCARE, INC., a Nevada Corporation; ANAHEIM GLOBAL MEDICAL
CENTER, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
Case No. 30-2019-01119983-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the
California Superior Court, County of Orange, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 18, 2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:20-cv-00414 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts representative claim for unpaid overtime
under the California Labor Code that is based on conduct expressly
covered by the collective bargaining agreements. Specifically, the
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants caused non-exempt employees,
including the Plaintiff and members of the Overtime Class, to work
overtime but did not credit the Plaintiff or members of the
Overtime Class.

The Plaintiff filed this class action on behalf of all other
similarly situated employees, a vast majority of whom are union
employees represented by either California Nurses Association or
The Services Employees International Union, United Healthcare
Workers-West.

KPC Healthcare provides health care services. The Company offers
laboratory, pathology, surgical, medical care, and social
services.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          David E. Amaya, Esq.
          Jason A. Fischbein, Esq.
          Brittany M. Wunderlich, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (858) 597-9600
          Facsimile: (858) 597-9601
          E-Mail: damaya@fisherphillips.com
                  ifischbein@fisherphillips.com
                  bwunderlich@fisherphillips.com


LAGENCE INC: Olsen Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act
------------------------------------------------------------------
LAgence, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Thomas
J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LAgence, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-01445 (E.D. N.Y., March 18, 2020).

L'Agence is a company that provides high end fashion for women and
offers a variety of styles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
   New York, NY 10170
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: doug@lipskylowe.com



LENDINGCLUB CORP: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Shron Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LendingClub Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company's motion
to compel arbitration in the class action suit entitled, Shron v.
LendingClub Corp., 1:19-cv-06718, to compel arbitration of
plaintiff's claims on an individual basis, is still pending.

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

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

The Company has filed a motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff's
claims on an individual basis. The timing of a ruling on that
motion is unclear.

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

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

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


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Bid to Dismiss Veal Class Action Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
LendingClub Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the defendants'
motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in Veal v.
LendingClub Corporation et.al., No. 5:18-cv-02599, is pending.

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

The Court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for the
litigation in November 2018. On January 7, 2019, the lead
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint
which asserts the same causes of action as the original complaint
and adds additional allegations.

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

On November 4, 2019, the Court issued a written order granting
defendants' motions to dismiss with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed
a Second Amended Complaint on December 19, 2019, which modifies and
adds certain allegations and drops one of the former officer
defendants as a defendant in the case, but otherwise advances the
same causes of action.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint
on January 28, 2020.

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

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


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Tentative Settlement Reached in Accardo Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
LendingClub Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that company has reached a
tentative settlement with the plaintiff to resolve the Accardo v.
Lending Club, et al., 2:18-cv-05030-JS-AKT.

In September 2018, a lawsuit was filed against the Company in the
State of New York (Accardo v. Lending Club, et al.,
2:18-cv-05030-JS-AKT) asserting an individual claim under the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act against the Company.

In early 2019, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend his
complaint in the case to assert a putative class claim under the
Fair Credit Reporting Act. The plaintiff's proposed amended
complaint contends that LendingClub failed to conduct a reasonable
investigation into plaintiff's identity theft dispute and plaintiff
seeks to represent a class of similarly situated individuals.

The Company filed an opposition to plaintiff's motion for leave to
amend and also filed a motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff's
claim against the Company on an individual basis. The Court has
denied the Company's motion to compel arbitration and has ordered a
trial on whether an arbitration agreement exists between the
Company and Plaintiff. The Court also denied without prejudice
Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend.

The Company has reached a tentative settlement with the plaintiff
to resolve this matter, the terms of which are not material to the
Company's financial position or results of operations, and the
parties are working to finalize a written settlement agreement. The
Company denies and will vigorously defend against the allegations
in the event the litigation continues.

No assurances can be given as to the timing, outcome or
consequences of this matter.

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


LIBERTY MEDIA: Court Approves Settlement in Buchanan TCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Media Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the Court issued
an order and final judgment approving the settlement made in the
class action suit initiated by Thomas Buchanan.

On March 13, 2017, Thomas Buchanan, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint
against Sirius XM Holdings in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.

The plaintiff alleges that Sirius XM Holdings violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA") by, among
other things, making telephone solicitations to persons on the
National Do-Not-Call registry, a database established to allow
consumers to exclude themselves from telemarketing calls unless
they consent to receive the calls in a signed, written agreement,
and making calls to consumers in violation of Sirius XM Holdings'
internal Do-Not-Call registry.

The plaintiff is seeking various forms of relief, including
statutory damages of $500 for each violation of the TCPA or, in the
alternative, treble damages of up to $1,500 for each knowing and
willful violation of the TCPA and a permanent injunction
prohibiting Sirius XM Holdings from making, or having made, any
calls to land lines that are listed on the National Do-Not-Call
registry or Sirius XM Holdings' internal Do-Not-Call registry.

Following a mediation, in April 2019, Sirius XM Holdings entered
into an agreement to settle this purported class action suit. The
settlement resolves the claims of consumers for the period October
2013 through January 2019.  

As part of the settlement, Sirius XM Holdings paid $25 million into
a non-reversionary settlement fund from which cash to class
members, notice, administrative costs, and attorney's fees and
costs will be paid.  

The settlement also contemplates that Sirius XM Holdings will
provide three months of service to its All Access subscription
package for those members of the class that elect to receive it, in
lieu of cash, at no cost to those class members and who are not
active subscribers at the time of the distribution. The
availability of this three-month service option will not diminish
the $25 million common fund.

As part of the settlement, Sirius XM Holdings will also implement
certain changes relating to its "Do-Not-Call" practices and
telemarketing programs.

On January 28, 2020, the Court issued an order and final judgment
approving the settlement.

Liberty Media said, "This charge is included in the selling,
general and administrative expense line item in the consolidated
financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2019, but has
been excluded from Adjusted OIBDA for the corresponding period as
this charge does not relate to the on-going performance of the
business.

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


LINCARE INC: Chavez Labor Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as ANTELMA CHAVEZ, as an individual
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LINCARE INC., a
Delaware corporation; LINCARE HOLDINGS INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 56-02019-00536955-CU
(Filed Dec. 5, 2020), was removed from the California Superior
Court, Ventura County, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on Mar. 2, 2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-02043 to the proceeding.

The class action asserts claims against the Defendants for meal and
rest periods violations, failure to reimburse all necessary
business, and wage statement violations under the California Labor
Code.

Lincare is a provider of oxygen and other respiratory therapy
services to patients in the home.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represrented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
          Diana M. Martinez, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292-2350
          Facsimile: (424)292-2355
          E-mail: phaines@haiiieslawgroup.com
                  tkorobkjn@haineslawgroup.com
                  dmartinez@haineslawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David L. Cheng, Esq.
          FORD AND HARRISON LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 237-2400
          Facsimile: (213) 237-2401
          E-mail: dcheng@fordharrison.com


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Bid for Leave to Amend Glover Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend a complaint in the class
action suit entitled, Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance
Company and The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, remains
pending, according to Lincoln National Corporation's Form 10-K
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
20, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.

Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The
Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut, No. 3:16-cv-00827, is a
putative class action that was served on The Lincoln National Life
Insurance Company ("LNL") on June 8, 2016.

Plaintiff is the owner of a universal life insurance policy who
alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance
than permitted by the policy.  Plaintiff seeks to represent all
universal life and variable universal life policyholders who owned
policies containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions
that are similar to those of Plaintiff's policy and seeks damages
on behalf of all such policyholders.  

On January 11, 2019, the court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint in
its entirety.  In response, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
amend the complaint, which we have opposed.

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

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Iwanski Class Suit vs. FPP Remains Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action styled, Iwanski v. First Penn-Pacific
Life Insurance Company, is still ongoing, according to Lincoln
National Corporation's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 20, 2020, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.

Iwanski v. First Penn-Pacific Life Insurance Company ("FPP"), No.
2:18-cv-01573 filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania is a putative class action
that was filed on April 13, 2018.  Plaintiff alleges that defendant
FPP breached the terms of his life insurance policy by deducting
non-guaranteed cost of insurance charges in excess of what is
permitted by the policies.

Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of universal life insurance
policies issued by FPP containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance
provisions that are similar to those of Plaintiff's policy and
seeks damages on their behalf.  Breach of contract is the only
cause of action asserted.

Lincoln National said it is "vigorously defending" this matter.

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Still Defends COI Litigation in Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-K filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that it is "vigorously
defending" a class action suit entitled, In re: Lincoln National
COI Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.

In re: Lincoln National COI Litigation, pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Master
File No. 2:16-cv-06605-GJP, is a consolidated litigation matter
related to multiple putative class action filings that were
consolidated by an order dated March 20, 2017.

In addition to consolidating a number of existing matters, the
order also covers any future cases filed in the same district
related to the same subject matter.

Plaintiffs own universal life insurance policies originally issued
by Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL).  Plaintiffs allege that LNL and LNC
breached the terms of policyholders' contracts by increasing
non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in 2016.

Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of policyowners and seek
damages on their behalf.

Lincoln National said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Still Defends Hanks Class Suit vs. Unit, Voya
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the Company's
subsidiary, The Lincoln Life and Annuity Company of New York
("LLANY"), continues to be actively engaged in the vigorous defense
of the class action suit styled, Hanks v. The Lincoln Life and
Annuity Company of New York ("LLANY") and Voya Retirement Insurance
and Annuity Company ("Voya").

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, No. 1:16-cv-6399, and served on LLANY on
August 12, 2016.

Plaintiff owns a universal life policy originally issued by Aetna
(now Voya) and alleges that (i) Voya breached the terms of the
policy when it increased non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates on
Plaintiff's policy; and (ii) LLANY, as reinsurer and administrator
of Plaintiff's policy, engaged in wrongful conduct related to the
cost of insurance increase and was unjustly enriched as a result.
Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of Aetna life insurance
policies that were subject to non-guaranteed cost of insurance rate
increases in 2016 and seeks damages on their behalf.  

On March 13, 2019, the court issued an order granting plaintiff's
motion for class certification for the breach of contract claim and
denying such motion with respect to the unjust enrichment claim
against LLANY, and, on September 12, 2019, the court issued an
order approving the parties' joint stipulation of dismissal with
respect to the unjust enrichment claim and dismissed LLANY as a
defendant in the case.

In light of LLANY's role as reinsurer and administrator under the
1998 coinsurance agreement with Aetna (now Voya), and of the
parties' rights and obligations thereunder, LLANY continues to be
actively engaged in the vigorous defense of this action.

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Still Faces Consolidated Litigation on COI Rates
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-K filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that it is still facing
the consolidated litigation styled, In re: Lincoln National 2017
COI Rate Litigation.

In re: Lincoln National 2017 COI Rate Litigation, Master File No.
2:17-cv-04150 is a consolidated litigation matter related to
multiple putative class action filings that were consolidated by an
order of the court in March 2018.  Plaintiffs own universal life
insurance policies originally issued by former Jefferson-Pilot (now
LNL).

Plaintiffs allege that LNL and LNC breached the terms of
policyholders' contracts by increasing non-guaranteed cost of
insurance rates beginning in 2017.  Plaintiffs seek to represent
classes of policyholders and seek damages on their behalf.

Lincoln National said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Unit Still Faces Class Action by TVPX ARS
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that The Lincoln
National Life Insurance Company continues to defend itself against
a putative class action initiated by TVPX ARS INC.

TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth
Management, LTD. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company,
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, No. 2:18-cv-02989, is a putative class action that
was filed on July 17, 2018.  Plaintiff alleges that LNL charged
more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than permitted by the
policy.

Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable
universal life policyholders who own policies issued by LNL or its
predecessors containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions
that are similar to those of Plaintiff's policy and seeks damages
on behalf of all such policyholders.

Lincoln National said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Vida Longevity Fund Suit vs. Unit Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Lincoln Life &
Annuity Company of New York remains a defendant in a putative class
action initiated by Vida Longevity Fund, LP.

The case styled, Vida Longevity Fund, LP v. Lincoln Life & Annuity
Company of New York, pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, No. 1:19-cv-06004, is a putative
class action that was filed on June 27, 2019.  Plaintiff alleges
that LLANY charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than
was permitted by the policies.

Plaintiff seeks to represent all current and former owners of
universal life (including variable universal life) policies who own
or owned policies issued by LLANY and its predecessors in interest
that were in force at any time on or after June 27, 2013, and which
contain non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are
similar to those of Plaintiff's policies.

Plaintiff also seeks to represent a sub-class of such policyholders
who own or owned "life insurance policies issued in the State of
New York."  Plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of the policyholder
class and sub-class.

Lincoln National said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.


MALLINCKRODT PLC: Continues to Defend Strougo Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 27, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit entitled, Barbara Strougo v.
Mallinckrodt plc, et al.

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

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

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

The lawsuit seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount. The
Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

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

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

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


MALLINCKRODT PLC: Faces City of Marietta Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 27, 2019, that the company is defending
against a putative civil class action suit initiated by the City of
Marietta.

On February 6, 2020, the City of Marietta, Georgia filed a putative
civil class action complaint against the Company in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia relating to the
price of Acthar Gel.

The complaint, which pleads one claim for unjust enrichment,
purports to be brought on behalf of third-party payers and their
beneficiaries and people without insurance in the United States and
its Territories that paid for Acthar from four years prior to the
filing of the Complaint until the date of trial. The case is
captioned City of Marietta v. Mallinckrodt ARC LLC.

Marietta alleges that it has paid $2.0 million to cover the cost of
an Acthar Gel prescription of an employee and that the Company has
been unjustly enriched as a result.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

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


MALLINCKRODT PLC: Must Defend Against Steamfitters Union Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 27, 2019, that the motion to dismiss the
class action suit entitled, Steamfitters Local Union No. 420 v.
Mallinckrodt ARD, LLC et al., has been denied.

In July, 2019, Steamfitters Local Union No. 420 filed a putative
class action lawsuit against the Company and United BioSource
Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, proceeding as Steamfitters Local Union No. 420 v.
Mallinckrodt ARD, LLC et al. The complaint makes similar
allegations as those alleged in related state and federal actions
that were filed by the same plaintiff's law firm in Illinois,
Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Maryland (now dismissed), and includes
references to allegations at issue in a pending qui tam actions
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

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

The complaint also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. On
December 19, 2019, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss
the complaint.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

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

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


MASIMO CORP: Trial of Individual Plaintiffs' Claims Set for June 2
------------------------------------------------------------------
Masimo Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that trial of the individual
plaintiffs' claims in the class action suit initiated by Physicians
Healthsource, Inc., is scheduled for June 2, 2020.

On January 2, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California by Physicians Healthsource, Inc.

The complaint alleges that the Company sent unsolicited facsimile
advertisements in violation of the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005
and related regulations. The complaint seeks $500 for each alleged
violation, treble damages if the District Court finds the alleged
violations to be knowing, plus interest, costs and injunctive
relief.

On March 26, 2019, an amended complaint was filed adding Radha
Geismann, M.D. PC as an additional named plaintiff. On June 17,
2019, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. On
September 10, 2019, the parties filed motions for summary judgment.
On September 30, 2019, the Company filed its opposition to the
motion for class certification, and the plaintiffs filed their
reply on October 7, 2019.

On November 21, 2019, the District Court issued an order denying
plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, granting in part and
denying in part the Company's motion for summary judgment, and
deferring ruling on plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. On
December 5, 2019, plaintiffs filed a petition for permission to
appeal the order denying class certification, which was denied on
January 24, 2020.

Trial of the individual plaintiffs' claims is scheduled for June 2,
2020.

Masimo  said, "The Company believes it has good and substantial
defenses to the claims, but there is no guarantee that the Company
will prevail. The Company is unable to determine whether any loss
will ultimately occur or to estimate the range of such loss;
therefore, no amount of loss has been accrued by the Company in the
accompanying consolidated financial statements."

Masimo Corporation, a medical technology company, develops,
manufactures, and markets noninvasive monitoring technologies
worldwide. Masimo Corporation was founded in 1989 and is
headquartered in Irvine, California.


MASONITE INT'L: Bid to Narrow Claims in Consumer Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action suit filed against Masonite International
Corporation and Jeld-Wen, Inc., the Defendants' motion to partially
dismiss the indirect purchasers' reinstated claims remains pending,
according to Masonite International's Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 29, 2019.

On October 19, 2018, a purported class action complaint was filed
against us and JELD-WEN, Inc. ("JELD-WEN") in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond
Division, alleging, among other things, that defendants conspired
to fix prices on, and to eliminate competition with respect to,
interior molded doors.  The complaint asserts violations of Section
1 of the Sherman Act and seeks treble damages and costs of suit,
including reasonable attorneys' fees, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, and injunctive relief.

On December 11, 2018, a purported class action complaint with
substantially similar allegations under various state antitrust or
unfair competition laws and the Sherman Act was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,
Richmond Division, by several individuals and companies purporting
to represent classes of certain indirect purchasers of interior
molded doors.  The complaint seeks damages (including statutory
minimum, multiple, or exemplary damages, where available),
reasonable attorneys' fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
and injunctive relief.  Several other complaints with substantially
similar allegations were subsequently filed in the same court by
additional plaintiffs who also sought to represent purported
classes of direct or indirect purchasers seeking similar damages
and relief.  These multiple complaints have been consolidated into
two proceedings-one for direct purchasers and another for indirect
purchasers-both before the same judge in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division.

On January 17, 2019 we filed a motion to transfer the proceedings
from the Eastern District of Virginia to either the Middle District
of Florida or Delaware and that motion was denied.

On March 1, 2019, we filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims in
both of these complaints.

On September 18, 2019, the Court ruled on Defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated purported class action direct purchaser
and indirect purchaser complaints filed against us and JELD-WEN.
The Court: (i) denied Defendants' motion to dismiss the direct
purchasers' Sherman Act claims, (ii) granted Defendants' motion to
dismiss the direct purchasers' fraudulent concealment claims
(limiting the claims they may assert to those within four years of
the filing of their complaint), and (iii) granted in part and
denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss the state law claims
filed by the indirect purchasers, dismissing 66 of 91 state law
claims.

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

On November 25, 2019 the indirect purchasers filed an amended
complaint that sought to reinstate 15 claims from plaintiffs
residing in 8 states.  Defendants moved to partially dismiss those
reinstated claims on December 16, 2019.  That motion remains
pending before the Court.  Fact discovery closed on January 31,
2020 and expert discovery is expected to close in April 2020.
Briefing on class certification discovery is expected to be
completed by April 10, 2020.  Briefing on dispositive motions
discovery is expected to be completed by July 9, 2020.  The Court
has set a trial date of October 13, 2020.

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


MDL 1720: Deal Reached with Groups of Opt-Out Plaintiffs
--------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that certain groups of opt-out
merchants have entered into settlement agreements with the
defendants in the suit entitled, In re Payment Card Interchange Fee
and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1720, E.D.N.Y., and
certain HSBC entities that, pursuant to the Sharing Agreements, are
responsible for a pro rata portion of any judgment or settlement
amount awarded in actions consolidated into MDL 1720.

Since 2005, HSBC Bank USA, HSBC Finance, HSBC North America and
HSBC, as well as other banks and Visa Inc. ("Visa") and MasterCard
Incorporated ("MasterCard"), had been named as defendants in a
number of consolidated merchant class actions and individual
merchant actions had been filed against Visa and MasterCard,
alleging that the imposition of a no-surcharge rule by the
associations and/or the establishment of the interchange fee
charged for credit card transactions causes the merchant discount
fee paid by retailers to be set at supracompetitive levels in
violation of the federal antitrust laws.

In 2011, MasterCard, Visa, the other defendants, including HSBC
Bank USA, and certain affiliates of the defendants entered into
settlement and judgment sharing agreements (the "Sharing
Agreements") that provide for the apportionment of certain defined
costs and liabilities that the defendants, including HSBC Bank USA
and our affiliates, may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the
event of an adverse judgment or global settlement of one or all of
these actions. The district court granted final approval of the
class settlement in 2013 and entered the Class Settlement Order and
final judgment dismissing the class action shortly thereafter.

In June 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
("Second Circuit") issued a decision vacating class certification
and approval of the class settlement in MDL 1720, concluding the
class was inadequately represented by their counsel in violation of
the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure governing class actions as well
as the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Specifically, the Second Circuit held that there was a conflict
between two different but overlapping settlement classes: (1) an
opt-out class, which permitted individual class members to forgo
their share of the monetary relief and pursue individual claims;
and (2) a non-opt-out class of merchants, including future
merchants that do not currently exist, which provided injunctive
relief mainly in the form of a rule change by Visa and MasterCard
to allow merchants to surcharge card transactions until July 20,
2021. The U.S. Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' petition for
review of the decision in March 2017.

In June 2018, the defendants, including the HSBC entities, reached
an agreement with counsel for the putative Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3) opt-out class, seeking monetary relief, to
resolve all claims as filed in a third consolidated amended class
action complaint in In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant
Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1720, E.D.N.Y.

The court granted final approval of the settlement in December
2019.

Certain HSBC entities are responsible for a pro rata portion of the
settlement amount, for which they are reserved, pursuant to the
Sharing Agreements entered into by the defendants. In January 2020,
objectors to the settlement filed an appeal.

Numerous merchants objected and/or opted out of the settlement
during the exclusion period. Various opt-out merchants have filed
opt-out suits in either state or federal court, most of which have
been transferred to the consolidated multidistrict litigation, MDL
1720.

To date, certain groups of opt-out merchants have entered into
settlement agreements with the defendants in those actions and
certain HSBC entities that, pursuant to the Sharing Agreements, are
responsible for a pro rata portion of any judgment or settlement
amount awarded in actions consolidated into MDL 1720.

HSBC USA Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides consumer
and commercial banking products, and related financial services in
the United States. The company was founded in 1850 and is based in
New York, New York. HSBC USA Inc. is a subsidiary of HSBC North
America Holdings Inc.


MDL 2804: Dover v. Purdue Pharma Over Opioid Drugs Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as CITY OF DOVER, a municipal corporation of the
State of Delaware, CITY OF SEAFORD, a municipal corporation of the
State of Delaware, and KENT COUNTY, a political subdivision of the
State of Delaware v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-01749 (Filed Sept. 17, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) on Mar. 2,
2020.

The Northern District of Ohio Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-op-45086-DAP to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Dan Aaron Polster. The lead case is Case No.
1:17-md-02804-DAP.

The Dover Case is being consolidated with MDL 2804 RE: NATIONAL
PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 5,
2017.

The lawsuit seeks to recompense for compensatory damages, emotional
distress; loss of enjoyment of life; lost earning capacity and loss
of income; loss of filial consortium; loss of spousal consortium;
anguish; sorrow; solace, including companionship, comfort,
guidance, kindly offices, advise, services, protection, care, and
assistance; services for medical care, including any necessary
rehabilitation; and/or funeral and burial expenses.

The Defendants manufacture, market, sell and distribute
prescription opioids, which are highly addictive narcotic
painkillers. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have
engaged in a cunning and deceptive marketing scheme to encourage
doctors and patients to use opioids to treat chronic pain. In doing
so, the Plaintiff says, the Defendants falsely minimized the risks
of opioids, overstated their benefits, and generated far more
opioid prescriptions than there should have been.

The opioid epidemic is the direct result of the Defendants'
deliberately crafted, well-funded campaign of deception. For years,
they misrepresented the risks posed by the opioids they manufacture
and sell, misleading susceptible prescribers and vulnerable patient
populations. As families and communities suffered from the scourge
of opioid abuse, the Defendants earned billions in profits as a
direct result of the harms they inflicted, the Plaintiff asserts.

The Plaintiffs in the actions allege that: (1) manufacturers of
prescription opioid medications overstated the benefits and
downplayed the risks of the use of their opioids and aggressively
marketed (directly and through key opinion leaders) these drugs to
physicians, and/or (2) distributors failed to monitor, detect,
investigate, refuse and report suspicious orders of prescription
opiates. All actions involve common factual questions about, inter
alia, the manufacturing and distributor defendants' knowledge of
and conduct regarding the alleged diversion of these prescription
opiates, as well as the manufacturers' alleged improper marketing
of such drugs.

In its Dec. 5, 2017 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in
this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Ohio will serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of
the litigation.

The Defendants include PURDUE PHARMA INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK
COMPANY, INC.; RHODES PHARMACEUTICALS, L.P.; ABBOTT LABORATORIES;
ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.;
CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;
ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC N/K/A JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICAL, INC. N/K/A JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC. ; ENDO
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ALLERGAN PLC F/K/A ACTAVIS PLC; ACTAVIS,
INC. F/K/A WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.;
ACTAVIS LLC; ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. F/K/A WATSON PHARMA, INC.;
MALLINCKRODT PLC; MALLINCKRODT LLC; INSYS THERAPEUTICS, INC.; MYLAN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ASSERTIO THERAPEUTICS, INC., F/K/A DEPOMED,
INC.; MCKESSON CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.;
AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION; ANDA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; H.D
SMITH, LLC; CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; RITE AID CORPORATION; WALGREENS
BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.; RICHARD SACKLER; THERESA SACLKER; KATHE
SACKLER; JONATHAN SACKLER; MORTIMER D.A. SACKLER; BEVERLY SACKLER;
DAVID SACKLER; and ILENE SACKLER LEFCOURT.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James D. Nutter, Esq.
          Elio Battista, Jr., Esq.
          PARKOWSKI, GUERKE & SWAYZE, P.A.
          19354C Miller Road
          Rehoboth Beach, DE 19971
          Telephone: (302) 226-8702
          E-mail: jnutter@pgslegal.com
                  ebattista@pgslegal.com

Defendant H.D. Smith LLC is represented by:

          Thomas E. Hanson, Jr., Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG
          1000 N. West Street, Ste. 1500
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 300-3447
          Facsimile: (302) 300-3456

Defendant CVS Health Corporation is represented by:

          Richard S. Cobb, Esq.
          LANDIS RATH & COBB LLP
          919 Market Street, Suite 1800
          P.O. Box 2087
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Telephone: (302) 467-4400
          E-mail: cobb@lrclaw.com

               - and -

          James S. Green, Jr., Esq.
          SEITZ, VAN OGTROP & GREEN, P.A.
          222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500
          P.O. Box 68
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Telephone: (302) 888-0600
          E-mail: jsgreen@svglaw.com

Defendants Richard Sackler; Theresa Saclker; Kathe Sackler;
Jonathan Sackler; Mortimer D.A. Sackler; Beverly Sackler; David
Sackler; and Ilene Sackler Lefcourt are represented by:

          Bartholomew J. Dalton, Esq.
          Michael Caulfield Dalton, Esq.
          DALTON & ASSOCIATES P.A.
          Cool Spring Meeting House
          1106 West Tenth Street
          Wilmington, DE 19806
          Telephone: (302) 652-2050
          E-mail: bdalton@bdaltonlaw.com
                  mdalton@bdaltonlaw.com


MEDNAX INC: Suit over Anesthesiology Business Dropped
-----------------------------------------------------
A final order dismissing the second amended complaint with
prejudice in a securities class action related to Mednax, Inc.'s
anesthesiology business has been issued, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.

On July 10, 2018, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain of its officers and a director in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case
No. 0:18-cv-61572-WPD) that purports to state a claim for alleged
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder, based on statements made by the defendants
primarily concerning the Company's anesthesiology business.  The
complaint was seeking unspecified damages, interest, attorneys'
fees and other costs.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss in
April 2019, which was granted in October 2019; however, the
plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on October 25, 2019.

On November 25, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint.

On February 7, 2020, a final order granting the Company's motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint with prejudice was issued.

Mednax, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides newborn,
anesthesia, maternal-fetal, radiology and teleradiology, pediatric
cardiology, and other pediatric subspecialty physician services in
the United States and Puerto Rico. The company was founded in 1979
and is based in Sunrise, Florida.


MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Appeal from Brown Class Cert. Ruling Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc.'s petition to review the
District Court's order granting class certification in the class
action suit initiated by Nathaniel Brown is still pending in the
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.  In September 2019, the
Fifth Circuit Court heard the Company's oral arguments regarding
the matter.

In April 2017, plaintiff Nathaniel Brown, on behalf of a purported
class of plaintiffs, filed a complaint against the Operating
Partnership, as the successor by merger to Post Properties' primary
operating partnership, and MAA in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division.  The lawsuit
alleges that Post Properties (and, following the Post Properties
merger in December 2016, the Operating Partnership) charged late
fees at its Texas properties that violate Section 92.019.  The
plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and attorneys' fees and
costs.

In September 2018, the District Court certified a class proposed by
the plaintiff.  Additionally, in September 2018, the District Court
denied the Company's motion for summary judgment and granted the
plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment.  Because the
District Court certified a class prior to granting the plaintiff's
motion for partial summary judgment, the District Court's ruling
applies to the entire class.

In October 2018, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the
Company's petition to review the District Court's order granting
class certification.  

In September 2019, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard the
Company's oral arguments.

The Company said, "We intend to appeal the District Court's order
granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment to the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals if permission to appeal is granted.  We
will continue to vigorously defend the action and pursue such
appeals."

Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. (MAA), incorporated on
September 22, 1993, is a multifamily focused, self-administered and
self-managed real estate investment trust (REIT). The Company owns,
operates, acquires and develops apartment communities primarily
located in the Southeast and Southwest regions of the United
States. It operates through three segments: Large market same
store, Secondary market same store and Non-Same Store and Other.
The company is based in Germantown, Tennessee.


MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Appeal from Cleven Class Cert. Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. (MAA) disclosed in its Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the petition to
review the District Court's order granting class certification in
the lawsuit initiated by Cathi Cleven and Tara Cleven remains
pending in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Fifth Circuit
Court heard the Company's oral arguments in September 2019.

In June 2016, plaintiffs Cathi Cleven and Tara Cleven, on behalf of
a purported class of plaintiffs, filed a complaint against MAA and
the Operating Partnership in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Texas, Austin Division.

In January 2017, Areli Arellano and Joe L. Martinez joined the
lawsuit as additional plaintiffs.  The lawsuit alleges that the
Company (but not Post Properties) charged late fees at its Texas
properties that violate Section 92.019 of the Texas Property Code,
or Section 92.019, which provides that a landlord may not charge a
tenant a late fee for failing to pay rent unless, among other
things, the fee is a reasonable estimate of uncertain damages to
the landlord that are incapable of precise calculation and result
from the late payment of rent.  The plaintiffs are seeking monetary
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

In September 2018, the District Court certified a class proposed by
the plaintiffs.  Additionally, in September 2018, the District
Court denied the Company's motion for summary judgment and granted
the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment.  Because the
District Court certified a class prior to granting the plaintiffs'
motion for partial summary judgment, the District Court's ruling
applies to the entire class.

In October 2018, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the
Company's petition to review the District Court's order granting
class certification.  

In September 2019, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard the
Company's oral arguments.

The Company said, "We intend to appeal the District Court's order
granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment to the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals if permission to appeal is granted.  We
will continue to vigorously defend the action and pursue such
appeals."

Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. (MAA), incorporated on
September 22, 1993, is a multifamily focused, self-administered and
self-managed real estate investment trust (REIT). The Company owns,
operates, acquires and develops apartment communities primarily
located in the Southeast and Southwest regions of the United
States. It operates through three segments: Large market same
store, Secondary market same store and Non-Same Store and Other.
The company is based in Germantown, Tennessee.


MOSAIC COMPANY: Examination in Uberaba EHS Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Mosaic Company said in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2020, for the
year ended December 31, 2019, that the examination in the Uberaba
EHS class action is still pending.

The Company said, "In 2013, the State of Minas Gerais public
prosecutor filed a class action claiming that our predecessor
company in Brazil did not comply with labor safety rules and
working hour laws.  This claim was based on an inspection conducted
by the Labor and Employment Ministry in 2010, following which we
were fined for not complying with several labor regulations.  We
filed our defense, claiming that we complied with these labor
regulations and that the assessment carried out by the inspectors
in 2010 was abusive.  Following the initial hearing, the court
ordered an examination to determine whether there has been any
non-compliance with labor regulations.  The examination is
currently pending.  The amount involved in the proceeding is
US$31.8 million."

The Mosaic Company, through its subsidiaries, produces and markets
concentrated phosphate and potash crop nutrients worldwide. The
company operates through three segments: Phosphates, Potash, and
International Distribution. The Mosaic Company was founded in 2004
and is headquartered in Plymouth, Minnesota.


NASCOTE INDUSTRIES: Wilson Sues over Biometric Data Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
TREVON WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NASCOTE INDUSTRIES, INC. d/b/a MAGNA
EXTERIORS BELVIDERE, Defendant, Case No. 2020CH01698 (Ill. Cir.,
Cook Cty., Feb. 11, 2020) alleges violation of the Biometric
Information Privacy Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant
disregarded its employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and
unlawfully collects, stores, and uses their biometric data in
violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. Prior to taking
the Plaintiff's biometric, the Defendant did not inform the
Plaintiff in writing that his biometrics were being collected,
stored, used, or disseminated, or publish any policy specifically
about the collection, retention, use, deletion, or dissemination of
biometrics.

Nascote Industries, Inc. operates as a manufacturer of motor
vehicle parts and accessories. The Company offers products
including car bumpers, grill guards, and auto bumper protectors.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Fish, Esq.
          John Kunze, Esq.
          Mara Baltabols, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
                  kunze@fishlawfirm.com
                  mara@fishlawfirm.com


NATIONAL GENERAL: Amended Complaint Filed in Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
National General Holdings Corp. continues to defend itself against
a securities class action, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.

On July 25, 2019, the City of North Miami Beach Police Officers'
and Firefighters' Retirement Plan filed a complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California against the
Company and certain of its officers.  The plaintiff purports to
represent a class of individuals and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares of the Company's common stock between
August 5, 2015 and August 9, 2017.  The complaint asserts claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder based on allegedly false and misleading
statements made by the Company in its SEC filings in relationship
to the Company's involvement in the historical and no longer
existing Wells Fargo collateral protection insurance program.  The
complaint seeks damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

On November 19, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California granted the Company's Motion to Transfer the
case to the Southern District of New York.

On January 10, 2020, lead plaintiffs Town of Davie Police Officers
Retirement System and Massachusetts Laborers' Pension Fund filed an
amended Complaint alleging similar claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder on
behalf of a purported class of individuals and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Company's common
stock between July 15, 2015 and August 9, 2017.

The Company said, "We believe that the claims set forth in the
amended complaint are unfounded and without merit and intend to
vigorously contest them.  We note, however, that in light of the
inherent uncertainty in legal proceedings, we can give no assurance
as to the ultimate resolution of the matter, and an estimate of the
possible loss or range of loss, if any, cannot be made at this
time."

National General Holdings Corp., a specialty personal lines
insurance holding company, provides various insurance products and
services in the United States, Bermuda, Luxembourg, and Sweden. The
company was formerly known as American Capital Acquisition
Corporation. National General Holdings Corp. was founded in 1939
and is headquartered in New York, New York.


NEWMONT CORP: Still Defends Shareholder Action in Ontario
---------------------------------------------------------
Newmont Corporation continues to face a shareholder class action in
Ontario, Canada, related to its subsidiary Goldcorp, Inc.,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.

The Company said, "On October 28, 2016 and February 14, 2017,
separate proposed class actions were commenced in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice pursuant to the Class Proceedings Act
(Ontario) against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers.  Both statement of claims alleged common law negligent
misrepresentation in Goldcorp, Inc.'s public disclosure concerning
the Penasquito mine and also pleaded an intention to seek leave
from the Court to proceed with an allegation of statutory
misrepresentation pursuant to the secondary market civil liability
provisions under the Securities Act (Ontario).  By a consent order,
the latter lawsuit will proceed, and the former action has been
stayed.  The active lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of
persons who acquired Goldcorp Inc.'s securities in the secondary
market during an alleged class period from October 30, 2014 to
August 23, 2016.  The Company intends to vigorously defend this
matter, but cannot reasonably predict the outcome."

Newmont Corporation engages in the production and exploration of
gold, copper, silver, zinc, and lead.  The Company has operations
and/or assets in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Dominican
Republic, Peru, Suriname, Argentina, Chile, Australia, and Ghana.
Newmont Corporation was founded in 1916 and is headquartered in
Greenwood Village, Colorado.


NORTHEAST RADIOLOGY: Faces Cohen Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northeast Radiology,
P.C. The case is captioned as BRYAN COHEN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHEAST
RADIOLOGY, P.C.; and ALLIANCE HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-01202-VB (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 11, 2020).
The case is assigned to Judge Vincent L. Briccetti.

Northeast Radiology, P.C. operates as a medical imaging centers.
The Company offers MRI, CAT scan, digital x-ray, ultrasound,
mammography, and computer aided diagnostics. Northeast Radiology
serves customers in the States of Connecticut and New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christian Levis, Esq.
          Bracha Gefen, Esq.
          Henry James Kusjanovic, Esq.
          Vincent Briganti, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG PC
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (347) 525-3077
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          E-mail: clevis@lowey.com
                  bgefen@lowey.com
                  hkusjanovic@lowey.com
                  vbriganti@lowey.com

               - and -

          Andrea Farah, Esq.
          SCOTT + SCOTT, L.L.P.( NYC)
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 233-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 233-6334
          E-mail: afarah@lowey.com


NVIDIA CORP: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
grants, in part, and denies, in part, Defendants' motion to dismiss
the consolidated class suit styled, In Re NVIDIA Corporation
Securities Litigation, with leave to amend.

According to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
January 26, 2020, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed on December 21, 2018, in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, captioned Iron Workers Joint
Funds v. Nvidia Corporation, et al. (Case No. 18-cv-7669), naming
as defendants NVIDIA and certain of NVIDIA's officers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

                           *     *     *

The Court rules that Plaintiffs fail to describe Prysm Group's (an
expert) assumptions and analysis with sufficient particularity to
establish a probability that its conclusions are reliable.  Hence,
the Court finds that Plaintiffs fail to allege falsity with the
specificity the PSLRA requires. The Court thus grants Defendants'
motion to dismiss on this basis.

The Court also grants Defendants' motion to dismiss as to scienter.
In any amended complaint, Plaintiffs must provide individualized
statement-by-statement allegations of scienter that establish that
each Individual Defendant possessed the information that
purportedly made the statement knowingly or recklessly false or
misleading at the time it was made.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs adequately pled loss causation and
denies Defendants' motion as to this element.

Plaintiffs claim under Section 20(a) of the Securities Act is
expressly premised on the Section 10(b) violation.  Since
Plaintiffs fail to allege a Section 10(b) claim against Defendants
due to a failure to adequately plead falsity and scienter, the
Section 20(a) claim must be dismissed.

A full-text copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://is.gd/VCS57y from PacerMonitor.com.

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


OMNICELL INC: Bursick Class Action Concluded
--------------------------------------------
Omnicell, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the class action suit
entitled, Bursick v. Omnicell, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-04150,
has been concluded.

On July 18, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.

The complaint, captioned Bursick v. Omnicell, Inc. et al., Case No.
3:19-cv-04150, alleged that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements beginning in October 2018 regarding revenue recognition,
customer concerns about implementation issues, and a purported need
to write off inventory.

The plaintiff sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
On October 24, 2019, Frank Bursick was appointed Lead Plaintiff.

On December 5, 2019, Lead Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal of this action as to all defendants, instead of filing an
amended complaint.

This action is now concluded.

Omnicell, Inc. provides automation and business analytics software
solutions for medication and supply management in healthcare
worldwide. The Company operates through two segments, Automation
and Analytics, and Medication Adherence. The Company was formerly
known as Omnicell Technologies, Inc. and changed its name to
Omnicell, Inc. in 2001. Omnicell, Inc. was founded in 1992 and is
headquartered in Mountain View, California.


PANDORA MEDIA: Continues to Defend Flo & Eddie's Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Media Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Pandora Media,
Inc. continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Flo &
Eddie Inc. related to Pre-1972 Sound Recording.  

On October 2, 2014, Flo & Eddie Inc. filed a class action suit
against Pandora in the federal district court for the Central
District of California.  

The complaint alleges a violation of California Civil Code Section
980, unfair competition, misappropriation and conversion in
connection with the public performance of sound recordings recorded
prior to February 15, 1972 ("pre-1972 recordings").

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

In March 2017, the Ninth Circuit requested certification to the
California Supreme Court on the substantive legal questions. The
California Supreme Court accepted certification. In May 2019, the
California Supreme Court issued an order dismissing consideration
of the certified questions on the basis that, following the
enactment of the Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization
Act, Pub. L. No. 115-264, 132 Stat. 3676 (2018) (the "MMA"),
resolution of the questions posed by the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals was no longer "necessary to . . . settle an important
question of law."

The MMA grants a potential federal preemption defense to the claims
asserted in the aforementioned lawsuits. In July 2019, Pandora took
steps to avail itself of this preemption defense, including making
the required payments under the MMA for certain of its uses of
pre-1972 recordings. Based on the federal preemption contained in
the MMA (along with other considerations), Pandora asked the Ninth
Circuit to order the dismissal of the Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora
Media, Inc. case.

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

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

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


PBF ENERGY: Settlement in Thomas vs. Exxon Mobil Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the case styled, Adam Thomas, et al. v. Exxon Mobil
Corporation and Chalmette Refining, L.L.C., have reached an
agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit, according to PBF
Energy Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
PBF Energy also stated that the settlement resolution has not been
finalized.

On December 5, 1990, prior to the Company's ownership of the
Chalmette refinery, the plaintiff in Adam Thomas, et al. v. Exxon
Mobil Corporation and Chalmette Refining, L.L.C., filed an action
on behalf of himself and potentially thousands of other individuals
in St. Bernard Parish and Orleans Parish who were allegedly exposed
to hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide as a result of more than 100
separate flaring events that occurred between 1989 and 2010.  This
litigation is proceeding as a mass action with individually named
plaintiffs as a result of a 2008 trial court decision, affirmed by
the court of appeals that denied class certification.

The plaintiffs claim to have suffered physical injuries, property
damage, and other damages as a result of the releases.  Plaintiffs
seek to recover unspecified compensatory and punitive damages,
interest, and costs.  The Court had scheduled an October 2019
mini-trial of up to 10 plaintiffs, relating to as many as 5
separate flaring events that occurred between 2002 and 2007.
However, on October 9, 2019, the parties reached an agreement in
principle to settle this matter, which is expected to result in the
dismissal with prejudice of all outstanding claims.

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

PBF Energy Inc., together with its subsidiaries, engages in
refining and supplying petroleum products. The company operates in
two segments, Refining and Logistics. PBF Energy Inc. was founded
in 2008 and is based in Parsippany, New Jersey.


PENN CREDIT: Schmelczer Files FDCPA Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Penn Credit
Corporation. The case is styled as Naftali Schmelczer, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Penn
Credit Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-02380 (S.D., N.Y.,
March 18, 2020).

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

Penn Credit is a nationwide accounts receivables management
firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David Michael Barshay, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Ste 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 741-4799
   Fax: (516) 706-5055
   Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com

      - and -

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com


PITNEY BOWES: Plaintiff's Time to Appeal Case Dismissal Expires
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pitney Bowes Inc. said in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that the time has expired for the plaintiff to
appeal or amend the complaint in the class action styled, in City
of Livonia Retiree Health and Disability Benefits Plan v. Pitney
Bowes Inc. et al.

In August 2018, the Company, certain of its directors, officers and
several banks who served as underwriters, were named as defendants
in City of Livonia Retiree Health and Disability Benefits Plan v.
Pitney Bowes Inc. et al., a putative class action lawsuit filed in
Connecticut state court.  The complaint asserts claims under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, on behalf of those who
purchased notes issued by the Company in connection with a
September 13, 2017 offering, alleging, among other things, that the
Company failed to make certain disclosures relating to components
of its third quarter 2017 performance at the time of the notes
offering.  The complaint seeks compensatory damages and other
relief.

On October 24, 2019, the court granted the defendants' motions to
strike the complaint for failure to state a claim, and the time for
plaintiff to appeal or amend the complaint has expired.

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


PREMIERE CREDIT: Gutman Alleges Violation Under FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Premiere Credit of
North America LLC. The case is styled as Samuel Gutman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Premiere Credit of North America LLC and John Does
1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-03204 (D.N.J., March 24, 2020).

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

Premiere Credit of North America, LLC offers financial
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Raphael Y. Deutsch
   Stein Saks PLLC
   285 Passaic Street
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500
   Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com



PSEG INC: Faces TCPA Class Action in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------
PSEG Power LLC said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that in February 2020, a
putative class action complaint was filed in federal court in
Newark, New Jersey against PSEG for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) related to alleged automated
telemarketing calls directed to plaintiffs' cellular telephone
numbers.

Due to its preliminary nature, PSEG cannot predict the outcome of
this matter.

PSEG Power LLC provides utility services. The Company generates,
transmits, and distributes electrical, as well as ensures electric
and gas safety. PSEG Power serves clients in the United States. The
company is based in Newark, New Jersey.

RADIUS GLOBAL SOLUTIONS: Rotger Files Suit Under FDCPA in New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Radius Global
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Edgar Rotger, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Radius
Global Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-02381 (S.D.,
N.Y., March 18, 2020).

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

Radius Global Solutions is a collection agency providing accounts
receivable services and customer relationship management
outsourcing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David Michael Barshay, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Ste 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 741-4799
   Fax: (516) 706-5055
   Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com

      - and -

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com



RELIANT BANCORP: Defending Against Parshall Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Reliant Bancorp Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on February 26, 2020, that
the company and First Advantage Bancorp has been named as a
defendant in a class action suit entitled, Parshall v. First
Advantage Bancorp et al., Case No. 20-0108-III.

On October 22, 2019, Reliant Bancorp, Inc., a Tennessee
corporation, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the
"Merger Agreement") with PG Merger Sub, Inc., a Tennessee
corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Reliant ("Merger
Sub"), and First Advantage Bancorp, a Tennessee corporation ("First
Advantage"), pursuant to which, on the terms and subject to the
conditions set forth therein, Merger Sub will merge with and into
First Advantage (the "Merger"), with First Advantage surviving the
Merger (First Advantage as the surviving entity of the Merger, the
"Surviving Company").

As soon as reasonably practicable following the Merger and as part
of a single integrated transaction, the Surviving Company will be
merged with and into Reliant (the "Second Step Merger"), with
Reliant as the surviving entity, on the terms and subject to the
conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement. Immediately following
the Second Step Merger, First Advantage Bank, a Tennessee-chartered
commercial bank and a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Advantage,
will merge with and into Reliant Bank, a Tennessee-chartered
commercial bank and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Reliant (the "Bank
Merger" and, together with the Merger and the Second Step Merger,
the "Mergers"), with Reliant Bank to be the surviving entity,
pursuant to a separate Agreement and Plan of Merger entered into by
and between Reliant Bank and First Advantage Bank.

On February 24, 2020, First Advantage and Reliant were served with
a complaint that was filed on January 27, 2020 by one purported
shareholder of First Advantage to initiate a putative derivative
and class action lawsuit against First Advantage, the members of
First Advantage's board of directors, Reliant, and Merger Sub in
the Chancery Court of Davidson County, Tennessee, 20th Judicial
District at Nashville, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
First Advantage shareholders, captioned Parshall v. First Advantage
Bancorp et al., Case No. 20-0108-III.

The plaintiff generally alleges that (i) First Advantage's board of
directors breached its fiduciary obligations by approving the terms
of the Merger, including allegedly inadequate merger consideration
and certain deal protection devices, and making materially
incomplete disclosures about the Merger to First Advantage
shareholders and (ii) Reliant aided and abetted the First Advantage
board of directors’ breach of its fiduciary obligations.  

The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, unspecified damages, and an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

Reliant Bancorp said, "Each of the defendants believes the claims
asserted in the aforementioned complaint are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against the lawsuit. However, at this
time, it is not possible to predict the outcome of the proceeding
or its impact on Reliant, Merger Sub, First Advantage, or the
Merger."

Reliant Bancorp Inc. attracts deposits and offers commercial
banking services. The Bank offers a wide range of business and
consumer loans. The company is based in Brentwood, Tennessee.


REVOLVE GROUP: MoU Inked in California Wage-and-Hour Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Revolve Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company has
entered into a binding memorandum of understanding in the class
action suit involving wage-and-hour claims.

The company is a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit
filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County,
which was filed in May 2019, arising from employee wage-and-hour
claims under California law for alleged meal period, rest period,
payment of wages at separation, wage statement violations, and
unfair business practices.  

On January 6, 2020, the Company and the individual defendant in the
case entered into a binding memorandum of understanding to settle
the case which will need to be submitted for court approval prior
to becoming final.  

Revolve Group said, "As a result, we have accrued approximately
$1.0 million to general and administrative expenses in the
accompanying consolidated statement of income as of December 31,
2019."

Revolve Group, Inc. is the next-generation fashion retailer for
Millennial and Generation Z consumers. As a trusted, premium
lifestyle brand, and a go-to online source for discovery and
inspiration, we deliver an engaging customer experience from a vast
yet curated offering totaling over 45,000 apparel, footwear,
accessories and beauty styles. The company is based in Cerritos,
California.


RINGCENTRAL INC: Tentative Settlement Reached in Hurley Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
RingCentral, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that parties in the class
action suit initiated by Joann Hurley mediated the case before a
private mediator on January 23, 2020, at which time a tentative
settlement was achieved.

On November 17, 2017, Joann Hurley, filed a second amended
complaint in an ongoing putative class action lawsuit pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia, adding the Company as a named defendant and alleging that
the Company and other defendants violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA") and regulations promulgated thereunder by
allegedly using an automated telephone dialing system to deliver
prerecorded political messages to Hurley, an incumbent running for
reelection, and others.

Hurley alternatively alleged that the Company was vicariously
liable for the actions of the other co-defendants. Hurley seeks
statutory, compensatory, consequential, incidental and punitive
damages, costs, and attorneys' fees in connection with her claims.


The Company was served with the second amended complaint on January
4, 2018. On March 23, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint for lack of standing and failure to sufficiently
state a claim on which relief may be granted. Hurley filed her
opposition brief on April 6, 2018, and the Company filed its reply
brief on April 13, 2018.

On October 4, 2018, the district court issued its memorandum and
opinion order granting in part and denying in part the Company's
motion to dismiss. The district court dismissed Hurley's vicarious
liability claim but allowed Hurley's TCPA claim to proceed.

The Company filed its answer and affirmative defenses to the second
amended complaint on October 18, 2018. Plaintiff filed a motion to
certify a class on July 9, 2019. The Company and another defendant
filed oppositions to the motion, which have been fully briefed and
is pending decision by the court. Discovery closed on October 25,
2019.

The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on November 14,
2019. The plaintiff opposed the motion, which has been fully
briefed and is pending decision by the court.

The parties mediated the case before a private mediator on January
23, 2020, at which time a tentative settlement was achieved. The
settlement will need to be approved by the court.

Meanwhile, the court has issued an order holding the case in
abeyance pending approval of the settlement.

RingCentral, Inc. provides software-as-a-service solutions that
enable businesses to communicate, collaborate, and connect
primarily in North America. The company was incorporated in 1999
and is headquartered in Belmont, California.

RIZKA FOOD: Faces Ponce et al. Suit in Richmond, New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rizka Food
Corporation. The case is captioned as REYNA PONCE; MARIA ISABEL;
and ROGELIO ORTIZ RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all other
employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RIZKA FOOD CORPORATION
D/B/A C-TOWN SUPERMARKET; SAM HAMDAN; OMAR HAMDAN; JUAN DOE; TOM
DOE; and SOFI DOE, Defendants, Case No. 152555/2019 (N.Y. Sup.,
Richmond Cty., Feb. 11, 2020). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge
Catherine M Didomenico.

Rizka Food Corporation d/b/a C-Town Supermarkets is a chain of
independently owned and operated supermarkets operating in the
northeastern United States. C-Town was founded in 1975. C-Town uses
economies of scale so its small member stores can pool their
resources for purchasing and advertising. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          13620 38th Avenue, Ste 10g
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353-8522

The Defendants are represented by:

          CLIFTON, BUDD & DEMARIA, LLP
          350 Fifth Avenue, Ste. 6110
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 687-7410


SEABOARD CORP: Bid to Dismiss Pork Antitrust Litigation Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Seaboard Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the defendants,
including the company, are seeking dismissal of the amended
complaints filed in the class action suit entitled, In re Pork
Antitrust Litigation.

On June 28, 2018, Wanda Duryea and eleven other indirect purchasers
of pork products, acting on behalf of themselves and a putative
class of indirect purchasers of pork products, filed a class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
against several pork processors, including Seaboard Foods LLC and
Agri Stats, Inc., a company described in the complaint as a data
sharing service.

Subsequent to the filing of this initial complaint, additional
class action complaints making similar claims on behalf of putative
classes of direct and indirect purchasers were filed in the
District Court.

The complaints were amended and consolidated for pre-trial
purposes, into three consolidated putative class actions brought on
behalf of (a) direct purchasers, (b) consumer indirect purchasers
and (c) commercial and institutional indirect purchasers. The
amended complaints named Seaboard Corporation as an additional
defendant.

The consolidated actions are styled In re Pork Antitrust
Litigation.

Subsequent to the original filings, two additional actions making
similar claims, including one by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
were brought in or transferred to the District Court.

The complaints alleged, among other things, that beginning in
January 2009, the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise,
maintain, and stabilize the price of pork products in violation of
U.S. antitrust laws by coordinating their output and limiting
production, allegedly facilitated by the exchange of non-public
information about prices, capacity, sales volume and demand through
Agri Stats, Inc.

The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect
purchasers also included causes of action under various state laws,
including state antitrust laws, unfair competition laws, consumer
protection statutes and state common law claims for unjust
enrichment. The complaints also alleged that the defendants
concealed this conduct from the plaintiffs and the members of the
putative classes.

The relief sought in the respective complaints includes treble
damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs
and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative classes. On August 8,
2019, the District Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the
class action cases while giving the plaintiffs leave to amend. The
classes and the other two plaintiffs filed amended complaints in
November and December 2019. In addition to amending the original
claims, the consumer indirect purchasers have asserted a new claim
alleging that the exchange of information by defendants through
Agri Stats Inc. unreasonably restrained trade.

On January 15, 2020, the defendants, including Seaboard, moved to
dismiss the amended complaints. Seaboard intends to defend these
cases vigorously.

Seaboard said,"It is impossible at this stage either to determine
the probability of a favorable or unfavorable outcome resulting
from these suits, or to reasonably estimate the amount of potential
loss or range of potential loss, if any, resulting from the
suits."

Seaboard Corporation operates as a diverse agribusiness and
transportation company worldwide. The company's Pork division
produces and sells fresh pork products, such as loins, tenderloins,
and ribs, as well as frozen pork products to further processors,
food service operators, grocery stores, distributors, and retail
outlets. Seaboard Corporation was founded in 1918 and is
headquartered in Merriam, Kansas.


SERVICE CORP: Bid for Summary Judgment in Bernstein Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
18, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the
United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
overseeing the case, Caroline Bernstein, on behalf of herself and
Marla Urofsky on behalf of Rhea Schwartz, and both on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SCI Pennsylvania Funeral Services,
Inc. and Service Corporation International, Case No.
2:17-cv-04960-GAM, has granted the company's motion for summary
judgment on the named plaintiff's individual claims.

This case was filed in November 2017 as a purported national or
alternatively as a Pennsylvania class action regarding our Forest
Hills/Shalom Memorial Park in Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania and
the company's Roosevelt Memorial Park Cemetery in Trevose,
Pennsylvania.

Plaintiffs allege wrongful burial and sales practices.

Plaintiffs seek compensatory, consequential and punitive damages,
attorneys’ fees and costs, interest, and injunctive relief.

The court granted the company's motion for summary judgment on the
named plaintiff's individual claims in January 2020.

Service Corporation said, "Given the nature of this lawsuit, we are
unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or ranges of loss,
if any."

Service Corporation International provides deathcare products and
services in the United States and Canada. The company operates
through Funeral and Cemetery segments. The company was founded in
1962 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


SHORE ROAD: Underpays Waiters, Lopez Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------
MARCELO BARROSO LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHORE ROAD DINER CORP. d/b/a SHORE
ROAD DINER; and OMAR ORTIZ, Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-01675
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2020) is an action the Defendants for failure
to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, spread of hours wages,
and reimbursement of costs of purchasing a required uniform.

The Plaintiff Lopez was employed by the Defendants as waiter.

Shore Road Diner Corp. is engaged in the restaurant business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 1007-2036
          Telephone: (212) 229-2249
          Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
          E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com


SIFCO INDUSTRIES: Posts Another $65,000 Loss in California Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
SIFCO Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a wage-and-hour class action suit in California
and recorded an additional loss of $65,000.

The Company is a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, which
was filed in August 2017, arising from employee wage-and-hour
claims under California law for alleged meal period, rest break,
hourly and overtime wage calculation, timely wage payment and
necessary expenditure indemnification violations; failure to
maintain required wage records and furnish accurate wage
statements; and unfair competition, which is similar to the one
previously settled in fiscal 2018.

As mentioned previously, the Company records reserves for legal
disputes and other matters in accordance with GAAP, the ultimate
outcomes of these types of matters are inherently uncertain. Actual
results may differ significantly from current estimates.

Given the current status of this matter, the Company recorded an
estimated loss of $250 as of September 30, 2019 and an additional
loss of $65 was recorded as of December 31, 2019.

SIFCO Industries, Inc. produces and sells forgings and machined
components primarily for the aerospace and energy markets in the
United States and Europe. It was founded in 1916 and is
headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio.


SIX FLAGS: Still Faces Class Suit over Staff Overtime, Rest Breaks
------------------------------------------------------------------
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation continues to face a class
action suit related to alleged violations of Massachusetts law
governing employee overtime and rest breaks, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.

On March 8, 2016, certain plaintiffs filed a complaint against one
of the Company's subsidiaries in the Superior Court of
Massachusetts, Suffolk County, on behalf of a purported class of
current and former employees of Six Flags New England.  The
complaint alleges violations of Massachusetts law governing
employee overtime and rest breaks, and seeks damages in the form of
unpaid wages for overtime and meal breaks and related penalties.

On July 2, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification of two classes, an overtime class and a meal break
class.

On November 8, 2018, the court granted class certification for the
overtime class and denied class certification for the meal break
class.

On June 20, 2019, in response to competing motions for summary
judgment on the application of an overtime wage exemption
applicable to amusement parks that operate no more than 150 days
per year, the court agreed that the defendant park did not operate
more than 150 days in 2013, 2014, and 2016, but found that it did
operate more than 150 days in 2015, 2017 and 2018, for which the
defendant park would owe overtime wages.

On September 26, 2019, the Company filed a motion for
reconsideration with respect to 2017 and 2018, because the
defendant park relied on a separate overtime wage law exemption
applicable to a separate and distinct operation of the business in
those years.

On December 6, 2019, the court denied the Company's motion for
reconsideration.

The Company said, "We continue to vigorously defend ourselves
against this litigation.  However, there can be no assurance
regarding the ultimate outcome of this litigation and we have
accrued our best estimate of exposure, the amount of which is not
material to our consolidated financial statements."

Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, incorporated on December 9,
1997, is a regional theme park operator. The Company operates in
the theme parks segment. The Company operates approximately 19
regional theme and water parks. Its parks occupy approximately
4,500 acres of land. Its parks are located in geographically
diverse markets across North America. The company is based in Grand
Prairie, Texas.


SOLCO HEALTHCARE: Removes Shanov Suit to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of HARRY SHANOV, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOLCO
HEALTHCARE US, LLC; WALGREEN CO.; and WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE,
INC., Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the
Circuit Court of the State of Illinois, County of Cook (Case No.
2018 CH 15872) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois on February 11, 2020. The clerk of court for the
Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-00988. The
case is assigned to Judge Robert M Dow, Jr.

Solco Healthcare U.S., headquartered in Somerset, New Jersey, is
engaged in marketing and distributing generic pharmaceuticals.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas A. Zimmerman , Jr., Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 440-0020
          E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com

The Defendants are represented by"

          Paul Evans Chronis, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3700
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 499-6765
          E-mail: pechronis@duanemorris.com

               - and -

          Keith M St. Aubin, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3700
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 499-6700
          E-mail: KStAubin@duanemorris.com


SOUTHERN CREDIT ADJUSTERS: Covarrubia Files Suit in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southern Credit
Adjusters, Inc. The case is styled as Ricardo Covarrubia Jr.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Southern Credit Adjusters, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
5:20-cv-00339 (W.D. Tex., March 18, 2020).

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

Southern Credit Adjusters Inc (SCA) is a debt collection agency
located in Rocky Mount, North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David Michael Barshay, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Ste 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 741-4799
   Fax: (516) 706-5055
   Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com

      - and -

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com


SUBARU OF AMERICA: Stone Sues Over Electrical Defect in Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Stone and Shirley Albright, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., a New
Jersey Corporation, and SUBARU CORPORATION, a Japanese Corporation,
Case No. 1:20-cv-03232 (D.N.J., March 25, 2020), is brought on
behalf of a proposed class of past and present owners and lessees
of these model year Subaru vehicles: MY2015-19 Outback; MY2015-19
WRX; MY2015-19 Forester; MY2015-19 Legacy; and MY2019 Ascent.

According to the complaint, the Class Vehicles suffer from one or
more defects in materials and/or workmanship in that the electrical
system within Class Vehicles suffers from a defect that subjects
vehicle batteries and charging systems to a continuous parasitic
drain. As a result, the batteries equipped therein are incapable of
powering Vehicles for the times and mileages that consumers
reasonably expect--due to the continuous parasitic
drain--predisposing Class Vehicles to sudden and unexpected battery
failure and premature battery replacement ("Electrical Defect" or
"Defect").

Unfortunately, even when Class Vehicle owners present their
vehicles for repair during the warranty period, Subaru informs them
that the Defect does not exist and the battery simply needs to be
recharged in an effort to evade its warranty obligations, the
Plaintiffs allege. Subaru's warranty practices, thus, invariably
force them to pay out of pocket for premature battery replacement,
regardless of whether Class Vehicles still were under warranty when
the Electrical Defect first manifested, the Plaintiffs argue.

Despite its longstanding knowledge of this known, material defect,
Subaru failed to disclose the Electrical Defect to Plaintiffs and
similarly situated consumers, at the point of sale or otherwise,
according to the complaint. Not only did Subaru actively conceal
that Class Vehicles' electrical systems suffer from a defect in
manufacturing and/or workmanship in that a continuous parasitic
drain exists and causes original equipment manufacturer (OEM)
batteries to fail prematurely, it also did not reveal that the
existence of the Electrical Defect would diminish the intrinsic and
resale value of the Class Vehicles and cause consumers to incur an
additional out-of-pocket expense to replace the OEM batteries in
their Class Vehicles on a more frequent basis than consumers expect
or should be required.

Subaru's conduct in marketing and selling the Class Vehicles is in
breach of its warranties and in violation of state law, the
Plaintiffs contend. They aver that Subaru has and will continue to
benefit from its unlawful conduct--by selling more vehicles, at a
higher price, and by avoiding its warranty obligations—while
harming consumers at both the point of sale and as the batteries in
their vehicles begin to fail. Had the Plaintiffs and known about
the latent Electrical Defect at the time of purchase or lease, they
would not have bought or leased the Class Vehicles or would have
paid substantially less for them, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are current and former owners of the Class
Vehicles.

Subaru Corporation is responsible for the design, production,
distribution, marketing, sale, and serving of Subaru vehicles,
including the Class Vehicles, around the world, including in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
          Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
          SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
          1109 Lancaster Avenue
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Phone: (610) 200-0581
          Email: mds@sstriallawyers.com
                 jbk@sstriallawyers.com

               - and -

          Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
          Kaitlin Naughton, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          150 S. Wacker, Suite 3000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 782-4880
          Email: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com
                 knaughton@caffertyclobes.com


TELADOC HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Reiner Class Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Teladoc Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion to dismiss
the class action suit entitled, Reiner v. Teladoc Health, Inc., et
al., is pending.

On December 12, 2018, a purported securities class action complaint
(Reiner v. Teladoc Health, Inc., et al.) was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York against
the company and certain of its officers and a former officer.

The complaint is brought on behalf of a purported class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of the company's common stock during the period March 3,
2016 through December 5, 2018. The complaint asserts violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
based on allegedly false or misleading statements and omissions
with respect to, among other things, the alleged misconduct of one
of the company's previous executive officers.

The complaint seeks certification as a class action and unspecified
compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees.

Teladoc said, "We believe that the claims against us and our
officers are without merit, and we and our named officers intend to
defend ourselves vigorously, including filing a motion to dismiss
the complaint, which motion was filed on September 13, 2019."

Teladoc Health, Inc. provides telehealth services. It offers a
portfolio of services and solutions covering 450 medical
subspecialties, such as flu and upper respiratory infections,
cancer, and congestive heart failure. Teladoc Health, Inc. was
founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.


TELADOC HEALTH: Unit Continues to Defend Thomas TCPA Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Teladoc Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Best Doctors, Inc., a
company subsidiary, continues to defend a purported class action
suit entitled, Thomas v. Best Doctors, Inc.

On May 14, 2018, a purported class action complaint (Thomas v. Best
Doctors, Inc.) was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts against our wholly owned subsidiary,
Best Doctors, Inc. The complaint alleges that on or about May 16,
2017, Best Doctors violated the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA) by sending unsolicited facsimiles to plaintiff and
certain other recipients without the recipients’ prior express
invitation or permission.

The lawsuit seeks statutory damages for each violation, subject to
trebling under the TCPA, and injunctive relief.

Teladoc said, "We will vigorously defend the lawsuit and any
potential loss is currently deemed to be immaterial."

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

Teladoc Health, Inc. provides telehealth services. It offers a
portfolio of services and solutions covering 450 medical
subspecialties, such as flu and upper respiratory infections,
cancer, and congestive heart failure. Teladoc Health, Inc. was
founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.


TRANS UNION LLC: Gottlieb Sues over Background Checks
-----------------------------------------------------
LUIS W. GOTTLIEB, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRANS UNION, LLC; DEPARTMENT STORES NATIONAL
BANK; MACY'S, INC.; and CREDIT CONTROL SERVICES, INC. D/B/A CREDIT
COLLECTION SERVICES, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00958 (E.D.N.Y.,
Feb. 21, 2020) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.

Trans Union LLC develops and delivers information and risk
management solutions. The Company offers various credit monitoring
products, risk management solutions, marketing services, and other
related solutions. TransUnion provides its products and services
throughout the world. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J. Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
          735 Central Avenue
          Woodmere, NY 11598
          Telephone: (516) 668-6945
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


TWITTER INC: Continues to Defend Against Hasan Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Twitter, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend against a putative class action suit entitled, Hasan v.
Twitter, Inc., et al.

On October 29, 2019, a putative class action (captioned Hasan v.
Twitter, Inc., et al.) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company and certain of
the Company's officers alleging violations of securities laws in
connection with the Company's announcements that it had discovered
and taken steps to remediate issues related to certain user
settings designed to target advertising that were not working as
expected and seeking unspecified damages.

The Company disputes the claims and intends to defend the lawsuit
vigorously.

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

Twitter, Inc. operates as a platform for public self-expression and
conversation in real time. The company offers various products and
services, including Twitter that allows users to consume, create,
distribute, and discover content; and Periscope, a mobile
application that enables user to broadcast and watch video live
with others. Twitter, Inc. was founded in 2006 and is headquartered
in San Francisco, California.


TWITTER INC: Oral Argument on Summary Judgment Set for April 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
Twitter, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that oral argument on the
motion for summary judgment is scheduled for April 1, 2020.

Beginning in September 2016, multiple putative class actions and
derivative actions were filed in state and federal courts in the
United States against the Company and the Company's directors
and/or certain former officers alleging that false and misleading
statements, made in 2015, are in violation of securities laws and
breached fiduciary duty.

The putative class actions were consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California. On October 16, 2017,
the court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion
to dismiss.

On July 17, 2018, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the consolidated securities action. The Company
filed a motion for summary judgment on September 13, 2019, and oral
argument on the motion is scheduled for April 1, 2020.

The Company disputes the claims and intends to continue to defend
the lawsuits vigorously.

Twitter, Inc. operates as a platform for public self-expression and
conversation in real time. The company offers various products and
services, including Twitter that allows users to consume, create,
distribute, and discover content; and Periscope, a mobile
application that enables user to broadcast and watch video live
with others. Twitter, Inc. was founded in 2006 and is headquartered
in San Francisco, California.


UNITED COLLECTION: Listebarger Files FDCPA Suit in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Collection
Bureau, Inc. The case is styled as Sandra K. Listebarger,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
4:20-cv-01049 (S.D. Tex., March 24, 2020).

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

United Collection Bureau Inc. provides debt collection and accounts
receivable management services to creditors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
   Sulaiman Law Group Ltd
   2500 S Highland Ave, Ste 200
   Lomgard, IL 60148
   Tel: (630) 575-8181
   Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com

      - and -

   Joseph Scott Davidson, Esq.
   Sulaiman Law Group Ltd
   2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
   Lombard, IL 60148
   Tel: (630) 575-8181
   Email: jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com



UNUM GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Tenn. Securities Class Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Unum Group said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion to dismiss the
class action suit entitled, In re Unum Group Securities Litigation,
is pending.

Three alleged securities class action lawsuits have been filed
against Unum Group and individual defendants as follows:

On June 13, 2018, an alleged securities class action lawsuit
entitled Cynthia Pittman v. Unum Group, Richard McKenney, John
McGarry, and Daniel Waxenberg was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

The plaintiff seeks to represent purchasers of Unum Group publicly
traded securities between January 31, 2018 and May 2, 2018.

The plaintiff alleges the Company caused its shares to trade at
artificially high levels by failing to disclose information about
the rate of long-term care policy terminations and long-term care
claim incidence resulting in misleading statements about capital
management plans and long-term care reserves.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and seeks
compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

The Company strongly denies these allegations and will vigorously
defend the litigation.

On July 13, 2018, an alleged securities class action lawsuit
entitled Scott Cunningham v. Unum Group, Richard McKenney, John
McGarry, and Daniel Waxenberg was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

The allegations, class period, and damages claimed mirror those in
the Pittman matter.

The Company strongly denies these allegations and will vigorously
defend the litigation.

On July 25, 2018, an alleged securities class action lawsuit
entitled City of Taylor Police and Fire Retirement System v. Unum
Group, Richard McKenney, John McGarry, Steve Zabel, and Daniel
Waxenberg was filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee.

The plaintiff seeks to represent purchasers of Unum Group publicly
traded securities between October 27, 2016 and May 1, 2018.

The allegations and damages claimed mirror those in the Pittman
matter.

The Company strongly denies these allegations and will vigorously
defend the litigation.

On November 9, 2018, the court consolidated the Pittman,
Cunningham, and City of Taylor Police and Fire Retirement System
cases into one matter entitled In re Unum Group Securities
Litigation, appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's
counsel, and directed the plaintiff to file a consolidated amended
complaint.

On January 15, 2019, the plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and seeks
compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial as well as
costs, expenses, and attorney's fees.

On March 18, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. On November 4, 2019 the court heard
oral argument on the motion.

The company is awaiting the court's ruling.

Unum said, "These lawsuits are in a very preliminary stage, the
outcome is uncertain, and the Company is unable to estimate a range
of reasonably possible losses. Reserves have not been established
for these matters. Although we believe these claims lack merit, an
adverse outcome in one or more of these actions could, depending on
the nature, scope, and amount of the ruling, materially adversely
affect our consolidated results of operations in a period."

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

Unum Group, together with its subsidiaries, provides financial
protection benefit solutions in the United States, the United
Kingdom, and internationally. It operates through Unum US, Unum
International, Colonial Life, and Closed Block segments. The
company was founded in 1848 and is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee.



USA TECHNOLOGIES: Awaits PA Superior Court to Decide Appealability
------------------------------------------------------------------
USA Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the Pennsylvania
Superior Court has not yet decided the appealability of a stay
order issued by a court in Chester County.

A putative shareholder class action complaint was filed against the
Company, its chief executive officer and chief financial officer at
the relevant time, its directors at the relevant time, and the
Underwriters, in the Court of Common Pleas, Chester County,
Pennsylvania, Docket No. 2019-04821-MJ. The complaint alleged
violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

As also previously reported, on September 20, 2019 the Court
granted the defendants' Petition for Stay and stayed the Chester
County action until the Consolidated Action reaches a final
disposition.

On October 18, 2019, plaintiff filed an appeal to the Pennsylvania
Superior Court from the Order granting defendants' Petition for
Stay, Docket No. 3100 EDA 2019.

On December 6, 2019, the Pennsylvania Superior Court issued an
Order stating that the Stay Order does not appear to be final or
otherwise appealable and directed plaintiff to show cause as to the
basis of the Pennsylvania Superior Court's jurisdiction.

The plaintiff filed a Response to the Order to Show Cause on
December 16, 2019, and the defendants filed an Application to Quash
Appeal on December 26, 2019. The Pennsylvania Superior Court has
not yet decided the appealability of the Chester County Stay
Order.

USA Technologies, Inc. provides wireless networking, cashless
transactions, asset monitoring, and other value-added services in
the United States and internationally. USA Technologies, Inc. was
founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Malvern, Pennsylvania.


USA TECHNOLOGIES: Mediation Ongoing in E.D. Pa. Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
USA Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that mediation is ongoing
in the consolidated class action suit with Docket No. 19-cv-04565
pending before the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

As previously reported, various putative shareholder class action
complaints had been filed in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey against the Company, its chief executive
officer and chief financial officer at the relevant time, its
directors at the relevant time, and the investment banks who served
as underwriters in the May 2018 follow-on public offering of the
Company (the "Underwriters"). These complaints alleged violations
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

These various actions were consolidated by the Court into one
action (the "Consolidated Action"), and the Court granted the
Motion to Transfer filed by the Company and its former chief
executive officer, and transferred the Consolidated Action to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, Docket No. 19-cv-04565.

On November 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and
defendants filed motions to dismiss on February 3, 2020. The Court
has not yet ruled on the motions to dismiss.

The parties intend to participate in a private mediation on
February 27, 2020.

USA Technologies, Inc. provides wireless networking, cashless
transactions, asset monitoring, and other value-added services in
the United States and internationally. USA Technologies, Inc. was
founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Malvern, Pennsylvania.


VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Gordon Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a securities class action suit entitled, Gordon
v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc.

In February 2019, a securities class action, Gordon v. Vanda
Pharmaceuticals Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York naming the company and certain of its
officers as defendants.

An amended complaint was filed in July 2019. The amended complaint,
filed on behalf of a purported stockholder, asserts claims on
behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased the
company's publicly traded securities between November 4, 2015 and
February 11, 2019, for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements and/or omissions regarding Fanapt(R),
HETLIOZ(R) and the company's interactions with the FDA regarding
tradipitant between November 3, 2015 and February 11, 2019.

Vanda said, "We believe that we have meritorious defenses and
intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit. We do not anticipate that
this litigation will have a material adverse effect on our
business, results of operations or financial condition. However,
this lawsuit is subject to inherent uncertainties, the actual cost
may be significant, and we may not prevail. We believe we are
entitled to coverage under our relevant insurance policies, subject
to a retention, but coverage could be denied or prove to be
insufficient."

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

Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc., incorporated on November 13, 2002, is a
biopharmaceutical company. The Company is focused on the
development and commercialization of therapies to address unmet
medical needs. The company is based in Washington, D.C.


VEREIT INC: American Realty Capital Properties Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vereit, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that a final judgment
dismissing the class action entitled, In re American Realty Capital
Properties, Inc. Litigation, No. 15-MC-00040 (AKH), was entered on
January 22, 2020.

Between October 30, 2014 and January 20, 2015, the Company and
certain of its former officers and directors, among other
individuals and entities, were named as defendants in ten
securities class action complaints filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The court consolidated these actions under the caption In re
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. Litigation, No.
15-MC-00040 (AKH).

The plaintiffs filed a second amended class action complaint on
December 11, 2015, which asserted claims for violations of Sections
11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On September 30, 2016, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint
to reflect certain prior rulings by the court in connection with
various motions to dismiss.

On August 31, 2017, the court issued an order granting plaintiffs'
motion for class certification. Defendants' petitions seeking leave
to appeal the court's order granting class certification were
denied on January 24, 2018.

On September 8, 2019, the Company, along with the other parties to
the Class Action, signed a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU")
providing for the settlement of the Class Action, and on September
30, 2019, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement (the
"Class Action Settlement") consistent with the terms of the MOU.

Pursuant to the Class Action Settlement, certain defendants agreed
to pay in the aggregate $1.025 billion, comprised of contributions
from the principals of the Company's former external manager, ARC
Properties Advisors, LLC, (the "Former Manager") totaling $225.0
million, $12.5 million from the Company's Former CFO, $49.0 million
from the Company's former auditor, and the balance of $738.5
million from the Company, which is included in litigation and
non-routine costs, net in the accompanying consolidated statements
of operations for the year ended December 31, 2019.

The contribution from the Company's Former Manager is inclusive of
the value of substantially all of the Limited Partner OP Units and
dividends surrendered to the Company in July 2019 as a result of a
settlement by the Former Manager and certain of its principals with
the SEC, totaling approximately $32.0 million, which is included in
litigation and non-routine costs, net in the accompanying
consolidated statements of operations for the year ended December
31, 2019.

The Class Action Settlement does not contain any admission of
liability, wrongdoing or responsibility by any of the parties. The
Class Action Settlement was approved by the court on January 21,
2020, and a final judgment dismissing the Class Action was entered
on January 22, 2020.

Vereit, Inc. is a full-service real estate operating company which
owns and manages one of the largest portfolios of single-tenant
commercial properties in the U.S. The company is based in Phoenix,
Arizona.


VEREIT INC: Realistic Partners' Class Action Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Vereit, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit entitled, Realistic Partners v.
American Realty Capital Partners, et al.

In December 2013, Realistic Partners filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the Company and the then-members of its board of
directors in the Supreme Court for the State of New York, captioned
Realistic Partners v. American Realty Capital Partners, et al., No.
654468/2013.

The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the board of the
Company breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the
transactions contemplated under the agreement and plan of merger
with Cole Real Estate Investments, Inc.

In January 2014, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding regarding settlement of all claims asserted on behalf
of the alleged class of the Company's stockholders. The proposed
settlement terms required the Company to make certain additional
disclosures related to this merger, which were included in a
Current Report on Form 8-K filed by the Company with the SEC on
January 17, 2014.

The memorandum of understanding also contemplated that the parties
would enter into a stipulation of settlement, which would be
subject to customary conditions, including confirmatory discovery
and court approval following notice to the Company's stockholders,
and provided that the defendants would not object to a payment of
up to $625,000 for attorneys' fees.

Vereit said, "If the parties enter into a stipulation of
settlement, which has not occurred, a hearing will be scheduled at
which the court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and
adequacy of the settlement. There can be no assurance that the
parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the court
will approve any proposed settlement, or that any eventual
settlement will be under the same terms as those contemplated by
the memorandum of understanding."

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

Vereit, Inc. is a full-service real estate operating company which
owns and manages one of the largest portfolios of single-tenant
commercial properties in the U.S. The company is based in Phoenix,
Arizona.


WALMART INC: Court OKs Conditional Certification in Thomas Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum granting Plaintiff's Motion for
FLSA Conditional Certification in the case captioned TANIELLE
THOMAS, v. WALMART, INC., Civil Action No. 18-4717, (E.D. Pa.).

Under the putative collective action, Tanielle Thomas contends that
Walmart, Inc. and Sam's West, Inc. violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA)
by maintaining policies and procedures that caused employees to
underreport the number of hours they worked, resulting in
ineligibility for overtime that the employees otherwise would have
qualified for.  

Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants on November 1, 2018
alleging that their practices violated the overtime provisions of
the FLSA. The practices that Plaintiff complains of include:
Defendants' routine requests that she report to work early, the
electronic time clock's refusal to allow her to punch in prior to
her scheduled shift; and Defendants' failure to provide a reliable
procedure to ensure tracking of overtime hours.

In August 2019, Plaintiff moved to conditionally certify a
collective class of "all persons who have worked as a full-time,
hourly-paid employee in any position or department in the 18 Sam's
Club stores in the geographic market where Plaintiff worked
(including Delaware, Eastern Maryland, Southern New Jersey and
Eastern Pennsylvania) during the past three years" under 29 U.S.C.
Sec. 216(b).

In October 2019, Defendants responded in opposition, but asked in
the alternative that the Court direct Plaintiff and Defendants to
meet and confer regarding Plaintiff's proposed notice1 and plan of
distribution.

Upon review, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff has met the
lenient burden she bears in establishing her entitlement to
conditional certification. The record at this preliminary stage in
the certification process supports Plaintiff's claim that
Defendants' hourly employees are subject to the time clock
procedures and overtime policies established in the manual, and the
declarations of Plaintiff and Bryheem Barr indicate that the
allegedly violative policy transcended store boundaries.  

The cases cited by Defendants are not to the contrary, the Court
cites. Defendants reference various district court opinions that,
in their view, indicate the declarations of Plaintiff and Barr are
insufficient to justify conditional certification.  However, many
of these cases are distinguishable on the facts.
   
Here, by contrast, Plaintiff not only submitted her own affidavit,
but also provided a corroborating affidavit of a colleague who
worked at a separate location, as well as the official pay policies
maintained by Defendants. This evidence fulfills Plaintiff's burden
at the conditional certification stage, the Court notes.

Because the declarations and pleadings establish a modest showing
that Plaintiff is similarly situated to the proposed FLSA
collective members, Plaintiff's Motion will be granted. However, if
future certification discovery reveals that some opt-in plaintiffs
are not similarly situated, the Court may decertify the class.

Given Defendants' concern about a collective class that is broader
than what is justified by the evidence, the Court will carefully
scrutinize the evidence before granting final certification of the
employees to be included.

In sum, Plaintiff's Motion for FLSA Conditional Certification is
GRANTED, and Plaintiff shall modify the proposed notice and plan of
distribution in accordance with the Court's instructions, the Court
rules.

The Court requires Plaintiff to include the contact information of
defense counsel in any notice that goes out to the conditionally
certified class. Moreover, as Plaintiff agreed, the notice must
state that any member of the proposed class has the right to retain
an attorney of their own choosing at their own expense. The Court
will allow Plaintiff to post the notice in the Willow Grove,
Pennsylvania and Cinnaminson, New Jersey stores - the two locations
for which Plaintiff has personal knowledge. The Court will delay
any ruling as to posting notice in additional stores until some
certification discovery has taken place. At this time however, the
Court will not allow reminder notices to be sent to potential
collective members.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 19, 2019
Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/w7p5suf from
Leagle.com

TANIELLE THOMAS, FOR HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiff, represented by DAVID J. COHEN - dcohen@stephanzouras.com
- STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP, JAMES B. ZOURAS - jzouras@stephanzouras.com -
STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP & RYAN F. STEPHAN , STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP, 100 N
Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150, Chicago, IL 60606

WALMART, INC. & SAM'S WEST, INC., doing business as SAM'S CLUB,
Defendants, represented by JAMES N. BOUDREAU - boudreauj@gtlaw.com
- GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP & SARAH RACHEL GOODMAN -
goodmansa@gtlaw.com - Greenberg Traurig, LLP.


WELLS FARGO: Lizana Sues over Foreclosure Practices
---------------------------------------------------
ANN LIZANA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; JANE DOE; JANE DOE;
and DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE, Case No. 20STCV06951 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Feb. 21, 2020) is an action seeking to address the
alleged "unlawful and malicious" business activities of the
Defendants.

On or about June 10, 2016, the former owner of subject property
received an Order for quiet title from the state court, which was
registered with the County Recorder's Office of Los Angeles.  That
Order specifically quieted the Deed of Trust ("DOT"), recorded with
the County Recorder's Office of Los Angeles.

On June 16, 2016, a general warranty deed ("WD"), granted by former
owner to the religious organization Miricle Island ("Third Party"),
was recorded with the County Recorder's Office of Los Angeles. In
June of 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a tenant work agreement,
as caretaker of subject property for MI. This agreement went into
effect as of July 1, 2016.

On February 13, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a Contract for
Deed ("CFD") with the third party, giving her legal right to
possess subject property. On or about June 19, 2018, Wells Fargo
commenced with a trustee sale on subject property without standing
or rights to do so as the former owner's DOT had been "stripped" or
quieted from the subject property.

Starting March of 2019, the Defendant and their team of REO and
eviction professionals began harassing the Plaintiff and people
similarly situated on the subject property, local homeless seeking
shelter, by roaming the premises of subject property, threatening
eviction and plastering the property with Notices to Vacate.

The Defendants' collective acts are and have been facetious and
steeped in fraud. They were told on numerous occasions, verbally
and in writing, and during several court appearances, that there
was a new owner of subject property, who had a warranty deed and
had gone ahead and entered a contract with the Plaintiff. Despite
this knowledge, the Defendants continue pursuing persons who either
have no right to possess subject property or do not reside on the
property.

The Defendants' conduct has damaged the Plaintiff by wrongfully
selling the subject property for an alleged debt owed by the former
owner who had no holding or title to subject property, then moving
to frivolously sue her in a half dozen meritless and malicious
forfeiture cases without standing or rights to do so, and
substantially injured the Plaintiff, interfering with a contract
between her and the third party.

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association operates as a bank. The Bank
offers online and mobile banking, home mortgage, loans and credit,
investment and retirement, wealth management, and insurance
services. Wells Fargo Bank serves commercial, retail, and
institutional customers in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented pro se.


WESTLAKE CHEMICAL: Bid to Dismiss Caustic Soda Class Suits Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Westlake Chemical Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that defendants
are seeking dismissal of class action suits related to alleged
price-fixing of caustic soda.

The Company and other caustic soda producers were named as
defendants in multiple purported class action civil lawsuits filed
since March 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York.

The lawsuits allege the defendants conspired to fix, raise,
maintain and stabilize the price of caustic soda, restrict domestic
(U.S.) supply of caustic soda and allocate caustic soda customers.


The other defendants named in the lawsuits are Olin Corporation,
K.A. Steel Chemicals (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Olin),
Occidental Petroleum Corporation, Occidental Chemical Corporation
d/b/a OxyChem, Shin-Etsu Chemical Co., Ltd., Shintech Incorporated,
Formosa Plastics Corporation, and Formosa Plastics Corporation,
U.S.A.

Each of the lawsuits is filed on behalf of the respective named
plaintiff or plaintiffs and a putative class comprised of either
direct purchasers or indirect purchasers of caustic soda in the
U.S. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages and
injunctive relief.

The Company has already moved to dismiss the majority of the
lawsuits filed and plans to file similar motions with respect to
the remaining lawsuits.

Westlake said, "At this time, the Company is not able to estimate
the impact, if any, that these lawsuits could have on the Company's
consolidated financial statements either in the current period or
in future periods."

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

Westlake Chemical Corporation manufactures and markets basic
chemicals, vinyls, polymers, and fabricated products. The Company
serves a range of consumer and industrial markets, including
flexible and rigid packaging, automotive products, coatings, and
residential and commercial construction.


WILLIS TOWERS: 5th Cir. Denies Second Petition for Rehearing
------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 26, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019,
that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has denied the
second petition for rehearing filed by the plaintiff-appellants in
the lawsuits related to the collapse of The Stanford Financial
Group.

The Company has been named as a defendant in 15 similar lawsuits
relating to the collapse of The Stanford Financial Group
("Stanford"), for which Willis of Colorado, Inc. acted as broker of
record on certain lines of insurance. The complaints in these
actions generally allege that the defendants actively and
materially aided Stanford's alleged fraud by providing Stanford
with certain letters regarding coverage that they knew would be
used to help retain or attract actual or prospective Stanford
client investors. The complaints further allege that these letters,
which contain statements about Stanford and the insurance policies
that the defendants placed for Stanford, contained untruths and
omitted material facts and were drafted in this manner to help
Stanford promote and sell its allegedly fraudulent certificates of
deposit.

The 15 actions are as follows:

     -- Troice, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 3:9-CV-1274-N, was filed on July 2, 2009 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas against Willis Group
Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and a Willis associate,
among others.

On April 1, 2011, plaintiffs filed the operative Third Amended
Class Action Complaint individually and on behalf of a putative,
worldwide class of Stanford investors, adding Willis Limited as a
defendant and alleging claims under Texas statutory and common law
and seeking damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages and
costs. On May 2, 2011, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Third Amended Class Action Complaint, arguing, inter alia, that the
plaintiffs' claims are precluded by the Securities Litigation
Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ('SLUSA').

On May 10, 2011, the court presiding over the Stanford-related
actions in the Northern District of Texas entered an order
providing that it would consider the applicability of SLUSA to the
Stanford-related actions based on the decision in a separate
Stanford action not involving a Willis entity, Roland v. Green,
Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-0224-N ('Roland'). On August 31, 2011, the
court issued its decision in Roland, dismissing that action with
prejudice under SLUSA.

On October 27, 2011, the court in Troice entered an order (i)
dismissing with prejudice those claims asserted in the Third
Amended Class Action Complaint on a class basis on the grounds set
forth in the Roland decision discussed above and (ii) dismissing
without prejudice those claims asserted in the Third Amended Class
Action Complaint on an individual basis. Also on October 27, 2011,
the court entered a final judgment in the action.

On October 28, 2011, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a notice of
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Subsequently, Troice, Roland and a third action captioned Troice,
et al. v. Proskauer Rose LLP, Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-01600-N,
which also was dismissed on the grounds set forth in the Roland
decision discussed above and on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit, were consolidated for purposes of briefing
and oral argument.

Following the completion of briefing and oral argument, on March
19, 2012, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded the actions. On
April 2, 2012, the defendants-appellees filed petitions for
rehearing en banc. On April 19, 2012, the petitions for rehearing
en banc were denied. On July 18, 2012, defendants-appellees filed a
petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme
Court regarding the Fifth Circuit's reversal in Troice. On January
18, 2013, the Supreme Court granted the company's petition. Opening
briefs were filed on May 3, 2013 and the Supreme Court heard oral
argument on October 7, 2013. On February 26, 2014, the Supreme
Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit’s decision.

On March 19, 2014, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a Motion to Defer
Resolution of Motions to Dismiss, to Compel Rule 26(f) Conference
and For Entry of Scheduling Order.

On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and the Janvey, et al. v.
Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al. action stipulated to the
consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes under Rule
42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March 28, 2014,
the Court 'so ordered' that stipulation and, thus, consolidated
Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule 42(a).

On September 16, 2014, the court (a) denied the plaintiffs' request
to defer resolution of the defendants' motions to dismiss, but
granted the plaintiffs' request to enter a scheduling order; (b)
requested the submission of supplemental briefing by all parties on
the defendants’ motions to dismiss, which the parties submitted
on September 30, 2014; and (c) entered an order setting a schedule
for briefing and discovery regarding plaintiffs’ motion for class
certification, which schedule, among other things, provided for the
submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification
(following the completion of briefing and discovery) on April 20,
2015.

On December 15, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motions to dismiss. On January 30, 2015, the
defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc answered the Third
Amended Class Action Complaint.

On April 20, 2015, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification, the defendants filed their opposition to plaintiffs'
motion, and the plaintiffs filed their reply in further support of
the motion. Pursuant to an agreed stipulation also filed with the
court on April 20, 2015, the defendants on June 4, 2015 filed
sur-replies in further opposition to the motion. The Court has not
yet scheduled a hearing on the motion.

On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. On
November 17, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc withdrew the motion.

On March 31, 2016, the parties in the Troice and Janvey actions
entered into a settlement in principle.

     -- Ranni v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
9-22085, was filed on July 17, 2009 against Willis Group Holdings
plc and Willis of Colorado, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan
and other South American Stanford investors and alleges claims
under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder) and Florida statutory and common law and
seeks damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

On October 6, 2009, Ranni was transferred, for consolidation or
coordination with other Stanford-related actions (including
Troice), to the Northern District of Texas by the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the 'JPML'). The defendants have
not yet responded to the complaint in Ranni. On August 26, 2014,
the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action
without prejudice.

     -- Canabal, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 3:9-CV-1474-D, was filed on August 6, 2009 against Willis Group
Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis
associate named as a defendant in Troice, among others, also in the
Northern District of Texas.

The complaint was filed individually and on behalf of a putative
class of Venezuelan Stanford investors, alleged claims under Texas
statutory and common law and sought damages in excess of $1
billion, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

On December 18, 2009, the parties in Troice and Canabal stipulated
to the consolidation of those actions (under the Troice civil
action number), and, on December 31, 2009, the plaintiffs in
Canabal filed a notice of dismissal, dismissing the action without
prejudice.

     -- Rupert, et al. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2009C115137, was
filed on September 14, 2009 on behalf of 97 Stanford investors
against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the
same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court (Bexar
County).

The complaint alleges claims under the Securities Act of 1933,
Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks
special, consequential and treble damages of more than $300
million, attorneys' fees and costs.

On October 20, 2009, certain defendants, including Willis of
Colorado, Inc., (i) removed Rupert to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the
pendency of this related action and (iii) moved to stay the action
pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be
transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or
coordination with the other Stanford-related actions.

On April 1, 2010, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the
transfer of Rupert to the Northern District of Texas. On January
24, 2012, the court remanded Rupert to Texas state court (Bexar
County), but stayed the action until further order of the court.

On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay,
which motion was denied by the court on September 16, 2014. On
October 10, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the court's denial of
their motion to lift the stay to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit.

On January 5, 2015, the Fifth Circuit consolidated the appeal with
the appeal in the Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al. action and
the consolidated appeal, was fully briefed as of March 24, 2015.
Oral argument on the consolidated appeal was held on September 2,
2015. On September 16, 2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The
defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Rupert.

     -- Casanova, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 3:10-CV-1862-O, was filed on September 16, 2010 on behalf of
seven Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis
Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate,
among others, also in the Northern District of Texas.

The complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law
and seeks actual damages in excess of $5 million, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs. On February 13, 2015, the parties filed
an Agreed Motion for Partial Dismissal pursuant to which they
agreed to the dismissal of certain claims pursuant to the motion to
dismiss decisions in the Troice action and the Janvey action.

Also on February 13, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group
Holdings plc answered the complaint in the Casanova action. On June
19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs have not
opposed the motion.

     -- Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2011CI2585,
was filed on March 11, 2011 on behalf of two Stanford investors,
individually and as representatives of certain trusts, against
Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of
Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas
state court (Bexar County).

The complaint alleges claims under Texas and Colorado statutory law
and Texas common law and seeks special, consequential and treble
damages of more than $37 million and attorneys' fees and costs.

On April 11, 2011, certain defendants, including Willis of
Colorado, Inc., (i) removed Rishmague to the Western District of
Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related
action and (iii) moved to stay the action pending a determination
by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern
District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other
Stanford-related actions.

On August 8, 2011, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the
transfer of Rishmague to the Northern District of Texas, where it
is currently pending. On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs joined
with the plaintiffs in the Rupert action in their motion to lift
the court’s stay of the Rupert action. On September 9, 2014, the
court remanded Rishmague to Texas state court (Bexar County), but
stayed the action until further order of the court and denied the
plaintiffs’ motion to lift the stay.

On October 10, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the court's denial of
their motion to lift the stay to the Fifth Circuit. On January 5,
2015, the Fifth Circuit consolidated the appeal with the appeal in
the Rupert action, and the consolidated appeal was fully briefed as
of March 24, 2015. Oral argument on the consolidated appeal was
held on September 2, 2015. On September 16, 2015, the Fifth Circuit
affirmed. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in
Rishmague.

     -- MacArthur v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2013-07840, was filed
on February 8, 2013 on behalf of two Stanford investors against
Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of
Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas
state court (Harris County). The complaint alleges claims under
Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks
actual, special, consequential and treble damages of approximately
$4 million and attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 29, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas,
Inc. (i) removed MacArthur to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas and (ii) notified the JPML of the
pendency of this related action.

On April 2, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas,
Inc. filed a motion in the Southern District of Texas to stay the
action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should
be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation
or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions.

Also on April 2, 2013, the court presiding over MacArthur in the
Southern District of Texas transferred the action to the Northern
District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other
Stanford-related actions. On September 29, 2014, the parties
stipulated to the remand (to Texas state court (Harris County)) and
stay of MacArthur until further order of the court (in accordance
with the court's September 9, 2014 decision in Rishmague), which
stipulation was 'so ordered' by the court on October 14, 2014. The
defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in MacArthur.

     -- Florida suits: On February 14, 2013, five lawsuits were
filed against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited and Willis
of Colorado, Inc. in Florida state court (Miami-Dade County),
alleging violations of Florida common law. The five suits are: (1)
Barbar, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et
al., Case No. 13-05666CA27, filed on behalf of 35 Stanford
investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $30 million;
(2) de Gadala-Maria, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited
Company, et al., Case No. 13-05669CA30, filed on behalf of 64
Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $83.5
million; (3) Ranni, et ano. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited
Company, et al., Case No. 13-05673CA06, filed on behalf of two
Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $3
million; (4) Tisminesky, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public
Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05676CA09, filed on behalf of
11 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of
$6.5 million; and (5) Zacarias, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings
Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05678CA11, filed on
behalf of 10 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in
excess of $12.5 million.

On June 3, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. removed all five cases to
the Southern District of Florida and, on June 4, 2013, notified the
JPML of the pendency of these related actions. On June 10, 2013,
the court in Tisminesky issued an order sua sponte staying and
administratively closing that action pending a determination by the
JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern
District of Texas for consolidation and coordination with the other
Stanford-related actions.

On June 11, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. moved to stay the other
four actions pending the JPML's transfer decision. On June 20,
2013, the JPML issued a conditional transfer order for the transfer
of the five actions to the Northern District of Texas, the
transmittal of which was stayed for seven days to allow for any
opposition to be filed. On June 28, 2013, with no opposition having
been filed, the JPML lifted the stay, enabling the transfer to go
forward.

On September 30, 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to
remand in Zacarias, and, on October 3, 2014, the court denied the
plaintiffs’ motions to remand in Tisminesky and de Gadala Maria.
On December 3, 2014 and March 3, 2015, the court granted the
plaintiffs' motions to remand in Barbar and Ranni, respectively,
remanded both actions to Florida state court (Miami-Dade County)
and stayed both actions until further order of the court.

On January 2, 2015 and April 1, 2015, the plaintiffs in Barbar and
Ranni, respectively, appealed the court’s December 3, 2014 and
March 3, 2015 decisions to the Fifth Circuit. On April 22, 2015 and
July 22, 2015, respectively, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the Barbar
and Ranni appeals sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction. The
defendants have not yet responded to the complaints in Ranni or
Barbar.

On April 1, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc
filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky and
de Gadala-Maria. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed
motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky and de
Gadala-Maria for lack of personal jurisdiction.

On July 15, 2015, the court dismissed the complaint in Zacarias in
its entirety with leave to replead within 21 days. On July 21,
2015, the court dismissed the complaints in Tisminesky and de
Gadala-Maria in their entirety with leave to replead within 21
days.

On August 6, 2015, the plaintiffs in Zacarias, Tisminesky and de
Gadala-Maria filed amended complaints (in which, among other
things, Willis Group Holdings plc was no longer named as a
defendant). On September 11, 2015, the defendants filed motions to
dismiss the amended complaints. The motions await disposition by
the court.

     -- Janvey, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:13-CV-03980-D, was filed on October 1, 2013 also in the
Northern District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings plc,
Willis Limited, Willis North America Inc., Willis of Colorado, Inc.
and the same Willis associate. The complaint was filed (i) by Ralph
S. Janvey, in his capacity as Court-Appointed Receiver for the
Stanford Receivership Estate, and the Official Stanford Investors
Committee (the 'OSIC') against all defendants and (ii) on behalf of
a putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors against Willis
North America Inc.

Plaintiffs Janvey and the OSIC allege claims under Texas common law
and the court's Amended Order Appointing Receiver, and the putative
class plaintiffs allege claims under Texas statutory and common
law. Plaintiffs seek actual damages in excess of $1 billion,
punitive damages and costs.

As alleged by the Stanford Receiver, the total amount of collective
losses allegedly sustained by all investors in Stanford
certificates of deposit is approximately $4.6 billion.

On November 15, 2013, plaintiffs in Janvey filed the operative
First Amended Complaint, which added certain defendants
unaffiliated with Willis. On February 28, 2014, the defendants
filed motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, which
motions, other than with respect to Willis Group Holding plc's
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, were granted
in part and denied in part by the court on December 5, 2014.

On December 22, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend the court's
December 5 order to certify an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth
Circuit, and, on December 23, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend
and, to the extent necessary, reconsider the court's December 5
order. On January 16, 2015, the defendants answered the First
Amended Complaint.

On January 28, 2015, the court denied Willis's motion to amend the
court's December 5 order to certify an interlocutory appeal to the
Fifth Circuit. On February 4, 2015, the court granted Willis's
motion to amend and, to the extent necessary, reconsider the
December 5 order.

On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and Janvey stipulated to
the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes under
Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March 28,
2014, the Court 'so ordered' that stipulation and, thus,
consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule
42(a).

On January 26, 2015, the court entered an order setting a schedule
for briefing and discovery regarding the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, which schedule, among other things, provided
for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery)
on July 20, 2015.

By letter dated March 4, 2015, the parties requested that the court
consolidate the scheduling orders entered in Troice and Janvey to
provide for a class certification submission date of April 20, 2015
in both cases. On March 6, 2015, the court entered an order
consolidating the scheduling orders in Troice and Janvey, providing
for a class certification submission date of April 20, 2015 in both
cases, and vacating the July 20, 2015 class certification
submission date in the original Janvey scheduling order.

On November 17, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc withdrew its motion
to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

On March 31, 2016, the parties in the Troice and Janvey actions
entered into a settlement in principle that is described in more
detail below.

     -- Martin v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No.
201652115, was filed on August 5, 2016, on behalf of one Stanford
investor against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis
of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate in Texas state
court (Harris County).

The complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law
and seeks actual damages of less than $100,000, exemplary damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.

On September 12, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
which added five more Stanford investors as plaintiffs and seeks
damages in excess of $1 million.

The defendants have not yet responded to the amended complaint in
Martin.

     -- Abel, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
3:16-cv-2601, was filed on September 12, 2016, on behalf of more
than 300 Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc,
Willis Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis
associate, also in the Northern District of Texas.

The complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law
and seeks actual damages in excess of $135 million, exemplary
damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On November 10, 2016, the
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which, among other things,
added several more Stanford investors as plaintiffs.

The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Abel.

The plaintiffs in Janvey and Troice and the other actions above
seek overlapping damages, representing either the entirety or a
portion of the total alleged collective losses incurred by
investors in Stanford certificates of deposit, notwithstanding the
fact that Legacy Willis acted as broker of record for only a
portion of time that Stanford issued certificates of deposit.

In the fourth quarter of 2015, the Company recognized a $70 million
litigation provision for loss contingencies relating to the
Stanford matters based on its ongoing review of a variety of
factors as required by accounting standards.

On March 31, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement in
principle for $120 million relating to this litigation, and
increased its provisions by $50 million during that quarter.

The settlement is contingent on a number of conditions, including
court approval of the settlement and a bar order prohibiting any
continued or future litigation against Willis related to Stanford,
which may not be given. Therefore, the ultimate resolution of these
matters may differ from the amount provided for. The Company
continues to dispute the allegations and, to the extent litigation
proceeds, to defend the lawsuits vigorously.

                       Settlement

On March 31, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement in
principle, as reflected in a Settlement Term Sheet, relating to the
Stanford litigation matter. The Company agreed to the Settlement
Term Sheet to eliminate the distraction, burden, expense and
uncertainty of further litigation. In particular, the settlement
and the related bar orders described below, if upheld through any
appeals, would enable the Company (a newly-combined firm) to
conduct itself with the bar orders' protection from the continued
overhang of matters alleged to have occurred approximately a decade
ago. Further, the Settlement Term Sheet provided that the parties
understood and agreed that there is no admission of liability or
wrongdoing by the Company.

The Company expressly denies any liability or wrongdoing with
respect to the matters alleged in the Stanford litigation.

On or about August 31, 2016, the parties to the settlement signed a
formal Settlement Agreement memorializing the terms of the
settlement as originally set forth in the Settlement Term Sheet.

The parties to the Settlement Agreement are Ralph S. Janvey (in his
capacity as the Court-appointed receiver (the 'Receiver') for The
Stanford Financial Group and its affiliated entities in
receivership (collectively, 'Stanford')), the Official Stanford
Investors Committee, Samuel Troice, Martha Diaz, Paula
Gilly-Flores, Punga Punga Financial, Ltd., Manuel Canabal, Daniel
Gomez Ferreiro and Promotora Villa Marina, C.A. (collectively,
'Plaintiffs'), on the one hand, and Willis Towers Watson Public
Limited Company (formerly Willis Group Holdings Public Limited
Company), Willis Limited, Willis North America Inc., Willis of
Colorado, Inc. and the Willis associate referenced above
(collectively, 'Defendants'), on the other hand.

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the parties agreed to
settle and dismiss the Janvey and Troice actions (collectively, the
'Actions') and all current or future claims arising from or related
to Stanford in exchange for a one-time cash payment to the Receiver
by the Company of $120 million to be distributed to all Stanford
investors who have claims recognized by the Receiver pursuant to
the distribution plan in place at the time the payment is made.

The Settlement Agreement also provides the parties' agreement to
seek the Court's entry of bar orders prohibiting any continued or
future litigation against the Defendants and their related parties
of claims relating to Stanford, whether asserted to date or not.
The terms of the bar orders therefore would prohibit all
Stanford-related litigation, and not just the Actions, but
including any pending matters and any actions that may be brought
in the future. Final Court approval of these bar orders is a
condition of the settlement.

On September 7, 2016, Plaintiffs filed with the Court a motion to
approve the settlement. On October 19, 2016, the Court
preliminarily approved the settlement. Several of the plaintiffs in
the other actions objected to the settlement, and a hearing to
consider final approval of the settlement was held on January 20,
2017, after which the Court reserved decision.

On August 23, 2017, the Court approved the settlement, including
the bar orders. Several of the objectors appealed the settlement
approval and bar orders to the Fifth Circuit. Oral argument on the
appeals was heard on December 3, 2018, and, on July 22, 2019, the
Fifth Circuit affirmed the approval of the settlement, including
the bar orders.

On August 5, 2019, certain of the plaintiff-appellants filed a
petition for rehearing by the Fifth Circuit en banc (the
'Petition'). On August 19, 2019, the Fifth Circuit requested a
response to the Petition. On August 29, 2019, the Receiver filed a
response to the Petition. On December 19, 2019, the Fifth Circuit
granted the Petition (treating it as a petition for panel
rehearing), withdrew its July 22, 2019 opinion, and substituted a
new opinion that also affirmed the approval of the settlement,
including the bar orders.

On January 2, 2020, certain of the plaintiff-appellants filed
another petition for rehearing by the Fifth Circuit en banc (the
'Second Petition'), in which the other plaintiff-appellants joined.
On January 21, 2020, the Fifth Circuit denied the Second Petition.


Willis Towers said, "The Company will not make the $120 million
settlement payment until the settlement is not subject to any
further appeal."

Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an
advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human
Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan
design, and administrative services for traditional pension and
retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking, and
administration services for health and group benefit programs; and
benefits outsourcing services. The company is based in London,
England.


WILLIS TOWERS: Delaware High Court to Hear Appeal in April
----------------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 26, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019,
that the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware will hear an appeal
from a ruling in a stockholders' class action during its April 2020
session.

On February 27, 2018 and March 8, 2018, two purported former
stockholders of Legacy Towers Watson, City of Fort Myers General
Employees' Pension Fund and Alaska Laborers-Employers Retirement
Trust, filed putative class action complaints on behalf of a
putative class of Legacy Towers Watson stockholders against the
former members of the Legacy Towers Watson board of directors,
Legacy Towers Watson, Legacy Willis and ValueAct, in the Delaware
Court of Chancery, captioned City of Fort Myers General Employees'
Pension Fund v. Towers Watson & Co., et al., C.A. No. 2018-0132,
and Alaska Laborers-Employers Retirement Trust v. Victor F. Ganzi,
et al., C.A. No. 2018-0155, respectively.

The complaints assert claims against the former directors of Legacy
Towers Watson for breach of fiduciary duty and against Legacy
Willis and ValueAct for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary
duty.

On March 9, 2018, the Regents of the University of California filed
a putative class action complaint on behalf of a putative class of
Legacy Towers Watson stockholders against the Company, Legacy
Willis, ValueAct, and John Haley, Dominic Casserley, and Jeffrey
Ubben in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned The Regents of
the University of California v. John J. Haley, et al., C.A. No.
2018-0166.  The complaint asserts claims against Mr. Haley for
breach of fiduciary duty and against all other defendants for
aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty.

Also on March 9, 2018, Regents filed a motion for consolidation of
all pending and subsequently filed Delaware Court of Chancery
actions, and for appointment as Lead Plaintiff and for the
appointment of Bernstein as Lead Counsel for the putative class.

On March 29, 2018, Fort Myers and Alaska responded to Regents'
motion and cross-moved for appointment as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and
for the appointment of their counsel, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. and
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as Co-Lead Counsel.

On April 2, 2018, the court consolidated the Delaware Court of
Chancery actions and all related actions subsequently filed in or
transferred to the Delaware Court of Chancery. On June 5, 2018, the
court denied Regents' motion for appointment of Lead Plaintiff and
Lead Counsel and granted Fort Myers' and Alaska's cross-motion.

On June 20, 2018, Fort Myers and Alaska designated the complaint
previously filed by Alaska (the "Alaska Complaint") as the
operative complaint in the consolidated action. On September 14,
2018, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Alaska Complaint.
On October 31, 2018, Fort Myers and Alaska filed an amended
complaint, which, based on similar allegations, asserts claims
against the former directors of legacy Towers Watson for breach of
fiduciary duty and against ValueAct and Mr. Ubben for aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty. On January 11, 2019, the
defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint, and on
March 29, 2019, the parties completed briefing on the motions.

The court heard argument on the motions on April 11, 2019 and, on
July 25, 2019, dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety. On
August 22, 2019, Fort Myers and Alaska filed a notice of appeal
from the court's July 25, 2019 dismissal order to the Supreme Court
of the State of Delaware. On November 22, 2019, the parties
completed briefing on the appeal, which will be argued during the
Supreme Court's April 2020 Session.

Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an
advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human
Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan
design, and administrative services for traditional pension and
retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking, and
administration services for health and group benefit programs; and
benefits outsourcing services. The company is based in London,
England.


WILLIS TOWERS: Must Defend Against Proxy Litigation
---------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 26, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019,
that the court has denied the motions to dismiss the class action
suit entitled, In re Willis Towers Watson plc Proxy Litigation,
Master File No. 1:17-cv-1338-AJT-JFA.  

On November 21, 2017, a purported former stockholder of Legacy
Towers Watson filed a putative class action complaint on behalf of
a putative class consisting of all Legacy Towers Watson
stockholders as of October 2, 2015 against the Company, Legacy
Towers Watson, Legacy Willis, ValueAct Capital Management
("ValueAct"), and certain current and former directors and officers
of Legacy Towers Watson and Legacy Willis (John Haley, Dominic
Casserley, and Jeffrey Ubben), in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia. The complaint asserted claims
against certain defendants under Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 for allegedly false and misleading statements
in the proxy statement for the Merger; and against other defendants
under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act for alleged "control
person" liability with respect to such allegedly false and
misleading statements.

The complaint further contended that the allegedly false and
misleading statements caused stockholders of Legacy Towers Watson
to accept inadequate Merger consideration. The complaint sought
damages in an unspecified amount.

On February 20, 2018, the court appointed the Regents of the
University of California as Lead Plaintiff and Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossman LLP as Lead Counsel for the putative class,
consolidated all subsequently filed, removed, or transferred
actions, and captioned the consolidated action In re Willis Towers
Watson plc Proxy Litigation, Master File No. 1:17-cv-1338-AJT-JFA.


On March 9, 2018, Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. On
April 13, 2018, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Amended
Complaint, and, on July 11, 2018, following briefing and argument,
the court granted the motions and dismissed the Amended Complaint
in its entirety.

On July 30, 2018, Lead Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the
court's July 11, 2018 dismissal order to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and, on December 6, 2018, the
parties completed briefing on the appeal. On May 8, 2019, the
parties argued the appeal, and on August 30, 2019, the Fourth
Circuit vacated the dismissal order and remanded the case to the
Eastern District of Virginia for further proceedings consistent
with its decision.

On September 13, 2019, the defendants filed a petition for
rehearing by the Fourth Circuit en banc, which the Fourth Circuit
denied on September 27, 2019. On November 8, 2019, the defendants
filed renewed motions to dismiss in the Eastern District of
Virginia based upon certain arguments that were advanced in their
original motions to dismiss, but undecided by both the district
court and the Fourth Circuit.

On December 18, 2019, the parties completed briefing on the
defendants' renewed motions, and, on December 20, 2019, the court
heard argument on the motions. On January 31, 2020, the court
denied the motions.

Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an
advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human
Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan
design, and administrative services for traditional pension and
retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking, and
administration services for health and group benefit programs; and
benefits outsourcing services. The company is based in London,
England.


ZILLOW GROUP: Shotwell Class Certification Bid Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Zillow Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion for class
certification in the consolidated class action suit entitled,
Shotwell v. Zillow Group, Inc. et al., is pending.

In August and September 2017, two purported class action lawsuits
were filed against the company and certain of its executive
officers, alleging, among other things, violations of federal
securities laws on behalf of a class of those who purchased our
common stock between February 12, 2016 and August 8, 2017.

One of those purported class actions, captioned Vargosko v. Zillow
Group, Inc. et al, was brought in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California. The other purported class action
lawsuit, captioned Shotwell v. Zillow Group, Inc. et al, was
brought in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington.

The complaints allege, among other things, that during the period
between February 12, 2016 and August 8, 2017, the company issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding its business
practices.

The complaints seek to recover, among other things, alleged damages
sustained by the purported class members as a result of the alleged
misconduct.

In November 2017, an amended complaint was filed against the
company and certain of its executive officers in the Shotwell v.
Zillow Group class action lawsuit, extending the beginning of the
class period to November 17, 2014.

In January 2018, the Vargosko v. Zillow Group purported class
action lawsuit was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington and consolidated with the Shotwell
v. Zillow Group purported class action lawsuit.

In February 2018, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, and in April 2018, the company filed its motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. In October 2018, the
company's motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice, and in
November 2018, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended
complaint, which the company moved to dismiss in December 2018.

On April 19, 2019, the company's motion to dismiss the second
consolidated amended complaint was denied, and the company filed
its answer to the second amended complaint on May 3, 2019. On
October 11, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.

Zillow said, "We have denied the allegations of wrongdoing and
intend to vigorously defend the claims in this lawsuit. We do not
believe a loss related to this complaint is probable."

Zillow Group, Inc. operates real estate and home-related brands on
mobile and the Web in the United States. Zillow Group, Inc. was
incorporated in 2004 and is headquartered in Seattle, Washington.


ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Continues to Defend Evans Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Zions Bancorporation, National Association said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 26, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019,
that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled,
Evans v. CB&T.

A civil class action lawsuit, Evans v. CB&T, brought against the
company in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California in May 2017.

This case was filed on behalf of a class of up to 50 investors in
International Manufacturing Group (IMG) and seeks to hold the
company liable for losses of class members arising from their
investments in IMG, alleging that the company conspired with and
knowingly assisted IMG and its principal in furtherance of an
alleged Ponzi scheme. In December 2017, the District Court
dismissed all claims against the Bank.

In January 2018, the plaintiff filed an appeal with the Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appeal was heard in early April
2019 with the Court of Appeals reversing the trial court's
dismissal. This case is in the pleadings phase and as a result,
trial will not occur for a substantial period of time.

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

Zions Bancorporation, National Association provides various banking
and related services primarily in Arizona, California, Colorado,
Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming. The company was formerly known as ZB, National Association
and changed its name to Zions Bancorporation, National Association
in September 2018. Zions Bancorporation, National Association was
founded in 1873 and is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah.


ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Trial in Bid to Dismiss Gregory Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Zions Bancorporation, National Association said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 26, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019,
that trial on the motion to dismiss the class action suit entitled,
Gregory, et. al. v. Zions Bancorporation, has not been set.

A civil class action lawsuit, Gregory, et al. v. Zions
Bancorporation, brought against the company in the United States
District Court in Utah in January 2019.

This case was filed on behalf of investors in Rust Rare Coin, Inc.,
alleging that the company aided and abetted a Ponzi scheme fraud
perpetrated by Rust Rare Coin, a Zions Bank customer. The case
follows civil actions and the establishment of a receivership for
Rust Rare Coin by The Commodities Futures Trading Commission and
the Utah Division of Securities in November 2018, as well as a
separate suit brought by the SEC against Rust Rare Coin and its
principal, Gaylen Rust.

The matter is in the early motion practice state and initial phase
discovery has commenced. During the second quarter of 2019, the
company filed a motion to dismiss. Trial has not been scheduled.

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

Zions Bancorporation, National Association provides various banking
and related services primarily in Arizona, California, Colorado,
Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming. The company was formerly known as ZB, National Association
and changed its name to Zions Bancorporation, National Association
in September 2018. Zions Bancorporation, National Association was
founded in 1873 and is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah.



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 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 ***