/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200501.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, May 1, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 88

                            Headlines

22ND CENTURY GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Bull Class Suit Pending
AC & SONS: Celestain Suit Seeks Overtime Pay for Restaurant Staff
ACS PRIMARY: Bennett ERISA Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Flaccus Class Action Underway in Pennsylvania
AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Appeal in Karth Class Suit Ongoing

AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Keryx Merger Suit Pending
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Revival Chiropractic Seeks to Certify Class
ALTERRA MOUNTAIN: Fails to Refund Skiers, Kramer Claims
ALTRIA GROUP: Licari Sues Over Anticompetitive Deals With Juul
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces McQueen Suit Over Unlawful Price Increases

AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Partovich Suit Over Automobile Defects
AMYRIS INC: Awaits Court Decision on Bid to Nix Calif. Suit
AQUA METALS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending in California
ASHFORD HOSPITALITY: Membrives Class Suit Ongoing
AVECTUS HEALTHCARE: Appeals Decision in Raymond Suit to 6th Cir.

AVENTURE INVESTMENT: Faces Ganpat FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Wages
AXA EQUITABLE: Continues to Defend Brach Family Foundation Suit
AXA EQUITABLE: O'Donnell Class Action Underway
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Litovich Antitrust Suit in S.D. New York
BELLICUM PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Kakkar Class Suit Still Pending

BIODELIVERY SCIENCES: Continues to Defend Drachman Class Suit
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Bid to Dismiss Boyd Class Suit Still Pending
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Bid to Dismiss Landon Suit Granted in Part
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Deal Reached in Hernandez Class Suit
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Wijesinha Class Action Remains Stayed

BREVARD EXTRADITIONS: Bid for Class Certification Denied
CARTER'S RETAIL: Christensen Labor Suit Moved to C.D. California
CHAMPION WINDOWS: Guttierrez Seeks OT Pay for Windows Installers
CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Appeal in Naylor Farms Class Suit Pending
CHESAPEAKE OPERATING: CEOG LLC Seeks to Certify Settlement Class

CHICO'S FAS: Fisher Class Suit Re-Filed in San Diego State Court
CHUBB LIMITED: Fails to Cover COVID-19 Losses, Cafe Int'l Alleges
COAST TO COAST: Anderson Sues Over Unpaid OT, Misclassification
COLTON, CA: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Aragon et al Claim
CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Approval of Settlement Class Notice Sought

COSTA CROCIERE: Exposes Passengers to COVID-19, Turner Alleges
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Agreement Reached in Jadan Class Action
COSTCO WHOLESALE: California Wage & Hour Class Suits Ongoing
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Opioid Claims in NJ and Okla. Dismissed
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Settlement of Seating Claims Suits Approved

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Wants Johnson Second Amended Complaint Tossed
COVENANT TRANSPORTATION: Unit Continues to Defend Tabizon Suit
CRAFT BREW: Continues to Defend Suits over Anheuser-Busch Merger
CREDENCE RESOURCE: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Amer Suit
CROSS TIMBERS: To Review Chieftain Royalty Suit Settlement

CVR REFINING: Artificially Depressed Share Price, Investors Claim
DAWN FOOD: Howell Suit Over BIPA Violation Moved to N.D. Illinois
DIXIE GROUP: Faces Johnson Class Suit in Georgia
EARTHSTONE ENERGY: Olenik Class Action Still Ongoing
ECA MARKETING: Faces Odom Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls

EVENFLO COMPANY: Sells Defective Booster Seats, Juanich Alleges
F.D. THOMAS: Sykes Seeks Meal & Rest Premiums, OT Pay for Staff
FARFETCH LTD: Continues to Defend Securities Suits in New York
FEIN & SUCH: Faces Perez FDCPA Suit in District of New Jersey
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Indirect Customers' Suit Ongoing in Missouri

FIORELLA INSURANCE: Jones Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Ads
FOAMIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Sabatini Class Suit
FOAMIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Wilson Class Suit
GALDERMA LABORATORIES: Faces Ware Suit Over False Advertising
GENTLEMAN'S CLUB: Anderson Sues over Unpaid Wages, Bias Tip Credit

GERON CORPORATION: Faces Class Suits over Reports on IMbark Trials
GOGO INC: Bid to Nix 2nd Amended Pierrelouis Complaint Pending
GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: Appeal in Transient Tax-Related Suit Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Accord in Adeptus IPO Suit Wins Initial Court OK
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Drop Direct Forex Buyers' Suit Still Pending

GOLDMAN SACHS: Dismissal of Venator Securities Litigation Sought
GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement in GSE Bonds Suit Wins Initial OK
GOLDMAN SACHS: Suit over Camping World IPO Still Stayed
HAT WORLD: Rafferty Seeks Approval of Arbitration Settlement
HEADWAY TECH: Alonso Alleges Price-Fixing of HDD Assemblies

HEART OF GOLD: Faces Blanco Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
HIRERIGHT LLC: Figueroa Sues over Inaccurate SSN Report
IDT CORP: Arbitration in Samara Suit Still Ongoing
IDT CORP: Stipulation of Dismissal Entered in Sanchez Suit
IDT CORP: Units Continue to Defend Rosales Class Suit

IEC CORPORATION: Enriched by Federal Student Loans, Britt Claims
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Appeal in Marentes Class Suit Ongoing
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Appeal in Timm Class Suit Still Pending
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Trial in Consolidated Suit Set for Sept. 8
INTERNATIONAL MONEY: In Talks Over Settlement of Sawyer Class Suit

JANI-KING FRANCHISING: Misclassifies Cleaners, Palmer Claims
JET AUTOMOTIVE: Rivera Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
JONES FINANCIAL: Appeal in Anderson Suit Still Pending
JONES FINANCIAL: Appeals Court Declines Petition for Rehearing
JONES FINANCIAL: Approval of Watson Settlement Pending

JONES FINANCIAL: Bland Class Suit Over Race Bias Ongoing
JONES FINANCIAL: Renewed Motion to Dismiss Bland Suit Pending
LADENBURG THALMANN: Court Approves Settlement in ARCP-Related Suit
LADENBURG THALMANN: Faces Class Suits Related to Proxy Statement
LADENBURG THALMANN: Suits Against Miller Remanded to State Court

LAKSHMI LLC: Fails to Pay Accurate Wages, Alexander Claims
LEXICON PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Manopla Class Suit Pending
LHC GROUP: Stone Seeks Unpaid OT Wages for Home Health Aides
LINEAGE CELL: Continues to Defend Ross Class Suit
LINEAGE CELL: Says Lampe Class Suit Concluded

LIPOCINE INC: Continues to Defend Abady Class Suit
LUCKIN COFFEE: IPO Documents Misleading, Wai Chun Shek Alleges
MARK A. FIXLER: Runs a Bogus Lending Scheme, EB Pinnacle Alleges
MDL 2445: Daubert Briefing Ongoing in Suboxone Suit
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Court Approves $80-Mil. Owens Settlement

MOBILE MINI: Plumley Securities Suit Balks at Sale to WillScot
MTA: Valdes Seeks OT Pay for Subway Train Operators
MUDRICK CAPITAL: Faces Putative Class Suit in Delaware
NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS: Court Mulls Dismissal of Investors Suit
NATURAL ENERGY: Sizemore Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

NEW YORK: Aboubakar et al. Allege Jail Overcrowded, Dirty
NEW YORK: Discriminates Female Firefighters, Feeley Claims
NEXTIER OILFIELD: Continues to Defend C&J Merger-Related Suits
OCULAR THERAPEUTIX: Appeal in DEXTENZA Class Suit Pending
OPUS BANK: Parshall Securities Suit Challenges Sale to Pacific

OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Utah
OZ LEASING: Halawani Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
PDL BIOPHARMA: City of Providence Suit Underway
PEI WEI ASIAN: Underpays General Managers, Clarke Claims
PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Burgos Seeks Refund of Tuition Fee

PERSONAL TOUCH: Booker Sues Over Data Breach
POLARITYTE INC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Litigation Still Pending
PREMIER CHEVROLET: Silva Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MD: Seth Wants Prisoners COVID-19-Safe
RA MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Derr Securities Suit

RADIUS GLOBAL: Court Stays Class Certification Proceedings
REGULUS THERAPEUTICS: Asks Court for Initial Settlement Approval
RELIANCE WORLDWIDE: Elder Sues Over Defective SharkBite Hoses
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Ferris Sues over Securities Trading Losses
ROBINSON DRILLING: Austin Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

ROSELAND RESIDENTIAL: Conley Appeals D. Mass. Ruling to 1st Cir.
ROUNDY'S SUPERMARKETS: Underpays Managers, Depyper et al Claim
RUI MANAGEMENT: Underpays Debt Collectors, Watterson Alleges
SABLE PERMIAN: Underpays and Misclassifies Engineers, Clark Claims
SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Bid for Class Certification Pending

SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Ponsa-Rabell Suit Pending
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Dismissed from Mexican Bonds Antitrust Suit
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Merit Discovery in Deka Suit Still Stayed
SELLAS LIFE: Bid to Dismiss Suits over Abstral(R) Promos Pending
SEXUAL MD: Novus Sues over Erectile Dysfunction Treatment

SHERATON OPERATING: Alvarez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholder Class Suits in Calif. Ongoing
SMILEDIRECTCLUB LLC: Rice Sues Over Unsolicited Calls & Messages
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Fails to Refund Canceled Flights, Bombin Says
STUBHUB INC: Fails to Refund Cancelled Event Tickets, Alcaraz Says

TA OPERATING: Underpays Servers & Bartenders, Alvarado Claims
TABLESEIDE RESTAURANT: Underpays Servers, Allen Claims
TARGET CORP: Appeal in ERISA Related Class Action Pending
TARGET CORP: Awaits 8th Cir. Decision on Class Action Appeal
TASTY BAKING: Withholds Pay Owed to Distributors, Bertino Claims

TREVENA INC: Bid to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pending
TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Faces Credit Facility Related Class Suits
TURTLE BEACH: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for May 18
U.S. BANK: Kunzer Sues Over Fraud, Concealment of Herschler Trust
U.S.A.: Deanda Balks at Distribution of Contraceptive to Minors

UNITED AIRLINES: Denies Ticket Refunds, Rudolph Claims
UNITED AIRLINES: Illegally Refuses Passengers Refund, Compo Says
UNITED NATURAL: 8th Cir. Affirms Grant of Summary Judgment
UNITED NATURAL: Resolution Reached in North County Store Suit
UNITI GROUP: Investor Group Named as Lead Plaintiffs

VENATOR MATERIALS: IPO Related Class Suits Ongoing
VEON LTD: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Westway Suit Pending
VERMONT: Secretary Smith Appeals Decision in West Class Suit
VIEWRAY INC: Suit by Plymouth County Retirement Assoc. Underway
VIVINT SOLAR: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Moved to June 2

YRC WORLDWIDE: Bid to Dismiss Lewis Class Action Still Pending

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l. Has $1.7MM Gain for Lawsuits 1Q 2020
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Had $1.21BB Net Reserves at March 31


                            *********

22ND CENTURY GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Bull Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
22nd Century Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion to dismiss
the class action suit entitled, Matthew Bull, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. 22nd Century Group,
Inc., Henry Sicignano III, and John T. Brodfuehrer, Case No.
1:19-cv-00409, is pending.

On January 21, 2019, Matthew Jackson Bull, a resident of Denver,
Colorado, filed a Complaint against the Company, the Company's then
Chief Executive Officer, Henry Sicignano III, and the Company's
then Chief Financial Officer, John T. Brodfuehrer, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
entitled: Matthew Bull, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. 22nd Century Group, Inc., Henry Sicignano
III, and John T. Brodfuehrer, Case No. 1:19-cv-00409.

The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff Mr. Bull purchased shares of
the Company's common stock. Mr. Bull sues individually and seeks to
bring a class action for persons or entities who acquired the
Company's common stock between February 18, 2016 and October 25,
2018, and alleges in Count I that the Company's Annual Reports on
Form 10-K for the years 2015, 2016 and 2017 allegedly contained
false statements in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleges in
Count II that Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer are liable for the
allegedly false statements pursuant to Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act.

The Complaint seeks declaratory relief, unspecified money damages,
and attorney's fees and costs.  

On January 29, 2019, Ian M. Fitch, a resident of Essex County
Massachusetts, filed a Complaint against the Company, the Company's
then Chief Executive Officer, Henry Sicignano III, and the
Company's then Chief Financial Officer, John T. Brodfuehrer, in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
entitled: Ian Finch, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. 22nd Century Group, Inc., Henry Sicignano
III, and John T. Brodfuehrer, Case No. 2:19-cv-00553.

The Complaint filing alleges that the Plaintiff Mr. Fitch purchased
shares of the Company's common stock. Mr. Fitch sues individually
and seeks to bring a class action for persons or entities who
acquired the Company's common stock between February 18, 2016 and
October 25, 2018, and alleges in Count I that the Company's Annual
Reports on Form 10-K for the years 2015, 2016 and 2017 allegedly
contained false statements in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
alleges in Count II that Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer are
liable for the allegedly false statements pursuant to Section 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act.

The Complaint seeks declaratory relief, unspecified money damages,
and attorney's fees and costs.

On March 25, 2019, Plaintiffs' counsel in the Fitch litigation
filed a motion in both the Fitch and Bull actions: (1) proposing
Joseph Noto, Garden State Tire Corp, and Stephens Johnson for Mr.
Fitch as purportedly representative plaintiffs, (2) moving to
consolidate the Fitch litigation with the Bull litigation, and (3)
seeking to be appointed as lead counsel in the consolidated action.


Plaintiffs' counsel in the Bull litigation filed and then withdrew
a comparable motion seeking to consolidate the cases and be
appointed as lead counsel.

On May 28, 2019, plaintiff in the Fitch case voluntarily dismissed
that action. On August 1, 2019, the Court in the Bull case issued
an order designating Joseph Noto, Garden State Tire Corp, and
Stephens Johnson as lead plaintiffs.

On September 16, 2019, pursuant to a joint motion by the parties,
the Court in the Bull case transferred the class action to federal
district court in the Western District of New York, where it
remains pending as Case No. 1:19-cv-01285.

On October 9, 2019, the Court in the Bull case, now pending in the
federal district court in the Western District of New York, entered
an order requiring Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by
November 19, 2019, for the Company and Messrs. Sicignano and
Brodfuehrer to file any motion to dismiss the amended complaint by
January 29, 2020, for Plaintiffs then to file their response to the
motion to dismiss by March 30, 2020, and for the Company and
Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer to file their final reply in
support of their motion to dismiss by April 29, 2020.

Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint on November 19, 2019. The
Amended Complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs purchased shares of
the Company's common stock and sues individually and to bring a
class action for all persons or entities who acquired the Company's
common stock between February 18, 2016 and July 31, 2019.

The Amended Complaint alleges three counts: Count I sues the
Company and Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer and alleges that the
Company's quarterly and annual reports, SEC filings, press releases
and other public statements and documents contained false
statements in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5; Count II sues Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer
pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule
10b5(a) and (c); and Count III sues Messrs. Sicignano and
Brodfuehrer for the allegedly false statements pursuant to Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.

The Amended Complaint seeks to certify a class, and unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, and attorney's fees and costs.

On January 29, 2020, the Company and Messrs. Sicignano and
Brodfuehrer filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint.
Plaintiffs have until March 30, 2020 to file a response to the
Motion to Dismiss.

22nd Century said, "We believe that the claims are frivolous,
meritless and that the Company and Messrs. Sicignano and
Brodfuehrer have substantial legal and factual defenses to the
claims. We intend to vigorously defend the Company and Messrs.
Sicignano and Brodfuehrer against such claims."

22nd Century Group, Inc., a plant biotechnology company, provides
technology that allows increasing or decreasing the level of
nicotine and other nicotinic alkaloids in tobacco plants, and
cannabinoids in hemp/cannabis plants through genetic engineering
and plant breeding. 22nd Century Group, Inc. was founded in 1998
and is headquartered in Williamsville, New York.


AC & SONS: Celestain Suit Seeks Overtime Pay for Restaurant Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BEVERLY CELESTAIN and PAUL JONES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AC & SONS, INC. d/b/a WILLY BURGER and
COLBURN McCLELLAND, Case No. 1:20-cv-00157 (E.D. Tex., April 20,
2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to pay their restaurant staff overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

The Plaintiffs contend that they and all similarly situated
persons, who worked as cashiers, cooks, line persons, and other
similar job positions performed non-exempt duties and are entitled
to overtime pay, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs as
allowed by the FLSA.

The Defendants operate a restaurant business.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott E. Brady, Esq.
          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          Amanda E. McGowen, Esq.
          BOHRER BRADY, LLC
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Telephone: (225) 925-5297
          Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
          E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
                  scott@bohrerbrady.com
                  amcgowen@bohrerbrady.com

               - and -

          Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
          TRAN LAW FIRM, LLP
          2537 S. Gessner, Suite 104
          Houston, TX 77063
          Telephone: (713) 223-8855
          Facsimile: (713) 623-6399
          E-mail: ttran@tranlawllp.com


ACS PRIMARY: Bennett ERISA Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Jessica Bennett, individually
and on behalf of those similarly situated v. ACS Primary Care
Physicians-South P.C., Case No. 2020-CP-26-01982 (Filed March 17,
2020), was removed from the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas,
Horry County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina on April 20, 2020.

The District of South Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-01501-RBH to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges claims for breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, and equity, asserting that the Defendant erroneously
billed the Plaintiff for services the Plaintiff's Plans should have
been billed for directly and in amounts that were greater than
should have been billed. These claims fall within, and are
completely preempted by, the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 ERISA.

ACS is a health care organization with primary practice located in
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Josh Dixon, Esq.
          Victoria T. Kepes, Esq.
          GORDON & REES LLP
          40 Calhoun Street, Suite 350
          Charleston, SC 29401
          Telephone: (843) 278-5900
          E-mail: jdixon@grsm.com
                  vkepes@grsm.com


ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Flaccus Class Action Underway in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. 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 "Flaccus Class Action Suit"
in Chester County, Pennsylvania, is still pending.

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries have been named as
defendants in various class action suits.  Past suits have been
brought against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries in the
following jurisdictions: (i) 2009, Circuit Court of Macon County,
Alabama (the "Tiger Pride" suit), (ii) 2011, Duval County, Florida
(the "JWG" suit), (iii) 2013, Quitman County, Georgia and Barbour
County, Alabama (the "Bach" suit), (iv) 2014, Chester County,
Pennsylvania (the "Flaccus" suit), and (v) 2015, Gwinnett County,
Georgia (the "Sims" suit).

The plaintiffs in these cases primarily allege that the defendants
charged improper charges (fuel, administrative and environmental
charges) that were in breach of the plaintiffs' service agreements
with the Company and seek damages for unspecified amounts.

The 2013 Quitman County, Georgia complaint was dismissed in March
2014.

The Company has reached a settlement for US$9.0 (inclusive of
plaintiff attorneys' fees and costs), resolving the Tiger Pride,
JWG, Bach and Sims suits.  As of December 31, 2019, all of this
settlement has been paid.

The Flaccus suit has not been settled and is still pending.

The Company said, "Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation,
including the early stage of the Flaccus case, the unknown size of
any potential class, and legal and factual issues in dispute, the
outcome of this case cannot be predicted and a range of loss, if
any, cannot currently be estimated."

Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. provides non-hazardous solid waste
collection, transfer, recycling, and disposal services. The company
was formerly known as ADS Waste Holdings, Inc. and changed its name
to Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. in January 2016. Advanced
Disposal Services, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in
Ponte Vedra, Florida.


AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Appeal in Karth Class Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the appeal in the
class action suit entitled, Karth v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., is ongoing.

Four putative class action lawsuits were filed against Keryx
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., or Keryx, and certain of its former
officers (Gregory P. Madison, Scott A. Holmes, Ron Bentsur, and
James Oliviero) and consolidated in the Massachusetts District
Court, captioned Karth v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
(filed October 26, 2016, with an amended complaint filed on
February 27, 2017).

Plaintiff sought to represent all stockholders who purchased shares
of Keryx common stock between May 8, 2013 and August 1, 2016. The
complaint alleges that Keryx and the named individual defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading
statements concerning Keryx, its supplier relationships, and future
prospects, and that the allegedly misleading statements were not
made known to the market until Keryx's August 1, 2016 announcement
of an interruption in its supply of Auryxia.

By order dated July 19, 2018, the Massachusetts District Court
granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint. On February 27, 2019, defendants filed a
motion for judgment on the pleadings. On April 30, 2019, plaintiff
filed a motion to further amend his complaint, and also moved for
class certification.  

The Massachusetts District Court heard oral argument on the motions
for judgment on the pleadings and class certification on June 19,
2019.

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

On September 24, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.
Plaintiff tendered his appeal brief for filing on December 16, 2019
and tendered a corrected version of such brief on December 30,
2019.

The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has not yet set a
deadline for Defendants' appeal brief or set an oral argument date
for the appeal.

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


AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Keryx Merger Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion to dismiss
the class action suit entitled, In re Keryx Biopharmaceuticals,
Inc., is pending.

On June 28, 2018, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with Keryx and Alpha Therapeutics Merger Sub, Inc., or the
Merger Sub, pursuant to which the Merger Sub would merge with and
into Keryx, with Keryx becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of ours,
or the Merger.

On December 12, 2018, the company completed the Merger.

In October and November 2018, four purported shareholders of Keryx
filed four separate putative class actions, or the Merger
Securities Actions, against Keryx, a former officer and director of
Keryx (Jodie P. Morrison, who is now a director of the company),
former directors of Keryx (Kevin J. Cameron, Mark J. Enyedy, Steven
C. Gilman, Michael T. Heffernan, Daniel P. Regan and Michael
Rogers, some of whom are current members of the company's Board of
Directors), and, with respect to the Rosenblatt action, the Merger
Sub and Akebia, challenging the disclosures made in connection with
the Merger.

Three of the Merger Securities Actions were filed in the Delaware
District Court: Corwin v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
(filed October 16, 2018); Van Hulst v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al. (filed October 24, 2018); and Andreula v. Keryx
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (filed November 1, 2018).

The fourth Merger Securities Action was filed in the Massachusetts
District Court: Rosenblatt v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al. (filed October 23, 2018). On February 19, 2019, the plaintiff
in the Rosenblatt action filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of
the action without prejudice. On March 27, 2019, the plaintiff in
the Van Hulst action filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the
action without prejudice.

On April 2, 2019, the Delaware District Court granted Abraham
Kiswani, a member of the putative class in both the Andreula and
Corwin actions, and plaintiff John Andreula's motion to consolidate
the remaining two Merger Securities Actions pending in the Delaware
District Court and consolidated the Corwin and Andreula cases under
the caption In re Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., or the
Consolidated Action.

The Delaware District Court also appointed Kiswani and plaintiff
Andreula as lead plaintiffs for the Consolidated Action. On June 3,
2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in
the Consolidated Action, or the Consolidated Complaint.

The Consolidated Complaint generally alleges that the registration
statement filed in connection with the Merger contained allegedly
false and misleading statements or failed to disclose certain
allegedly material information in violation of Section 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder.

The alleged misstatements or omissions relate to (i) certain
financial projections for Keryx and Akebia and certain financial
analyses performed by our advisors and (ii) any alleged
negotiations that may have taken place regarding the conversion of
certain convertible notes of Keryx in connection with the Merger.

The Consolidated Complaint seeks compensatory and/or rescissory
damages, a declaration that the defendants violated Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 thereunder, and an
award of lead plaintiffs' costs, including reasonable allowance for
attorneys' fees and experts' fees.

The defendants in the Consolidated Action moved to dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint in its entirety on August 2, 2019. Briefing
on the defendant' motion to dismiss was completed on November 20,
2019, and a decision on the motion to dismiss has not yet been
issued.

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


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Revival Chiropractic Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as REVIVAL CHIROPRACTIC LLC v.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY And ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 6:19-cv-00445-PGB-LRH (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "any and all Defendant's insureds, and health care
      providers as assignees of Defendant's insureds, who
      submitted charges for less than the amount allowed under
      Fla. Stat. section 627.736(5)(a)1 and received payment of
      80% of the charge rather than the full amount of the
      charge submitted or 80% of the Schedule of Maximum
      Charges";

   2. appointing itself as the named representative of the
      class;

   3. appointing its counsel as Class Counsel;

   4. directing the Defendants to adjust the individual class
      members' claims pursuant to the Court's summary judgment
      ruling; and

   5. directing the Defendants to send notice of their Court
      ordered readjustment to ensure protection of the class
      members' rights, and grant such further relief as this
      Court deems just and proper.

The complaint sought declarative relief, and not money damages, but
supplemental declaratory relief through Defendants' readjustment of
the class members claims and provision of notice of that
readjustment to class members through class wide
notice is entirely proper.

The Plaintiff was the assignee of Personal Independence Payment
(PIP) benefits owed to the Defendants' insureds, Jazmine Padin and
Natalie Rivera. Padin was injured in a motor vehicle accident on
September 29, 2017. Rivera was injured in a motor vehicle accident
on July 30, 2017. Both Padins and Rivera's injuries' were covered
under the PIP portions of their insurance policies with the
Defendants.

Allstate Property operates as an insurance service provider.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence M. Kopelman, Esq.
          LAWRENCE M. KOPELMAN, P.A.
          7900 Peters Road, Suite B-200
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 462-6855
          E-mail: LMK@kopelblank.com

               - and -

          Alyson M. Laderman, Esq.
          ALYSON M. LADERMAN, ESQ.
          BLOODWORTH LAW, PLLC
          801 N. Magnolia Avenue, Suite 216
          Orlando, FL 32803
          Telephone: (407) 777-8541
          E-mail: ALaderman@LawyerFightsForYou.com
                  MAcevedo@LawyerFightsforYou.com



ALTERRA MOUNTAIN: Fails to Refund Skiers, Kramer Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT STEPHEN KRAMER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALTERRA MOUNTAIN
COMPANY and IKON PASS INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01057-SKC
(D. Colo., April 14, 2020), the Plaintiff, individually and on
behalf of all others skiers who purchased Ikon passes for the
2019-2020 season, alleges that the Defendants failed to give refund
or even partial refund to the Plaintiff and all others pass holders
for the benefits that they paid for but can no longer use following
the early closure of ski resorts in mid-March 2020. Under the terms
of paying for the passes, purchasers should be entitled to receive
unlimited access to ski or ride as many days as they want at the
Defendants' resorts for the 2019-2020 season.

Alterra Mountain Company is a ski resort owner with principal place
of business located at 3501 Wazee St., Denver, Colorado.

Ikon Pass, Inc. is a fully-owned subsidiary of Alterra Mountain
Company, headquartered at 3501 Wazee St., Denver, Colorado. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory Dovel, Esq.
          DOVEL & LUNER LLP
          201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (301) 656-7066
          Facsimile: 301-656-7069
          E-mail: greg@dovel.com

ALTRIA GROUP: Licari Sues Over Anticompetitive Deals With Juul
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Licari, on his own behalf and all others similarly situated
v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC., and JUUL LABS, INC., 3:20-cv-02778 (N.D.
Cal., April 21, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act relating to their
control of the e-cigarettes market.

The Defendants engaged in anticompetitive agreements amongst
themselves in which Altria agreed to refrain from competing against
Juul in the United States market for closed-system electronic
cigarettes in return for a substantial ownership interest in Juul,
according to the complaint. In light of declining sales in the
market for traditional cigarettes and a shift by consumers to
alternative nicotine delivery devices, Altria viewed participation
in the e-cigarette market as essential to its long-term survival.
In 2013, Altria entered the market through its subsidiary Nu Mark
LLC. The flagship product was the MarkTen e-cigarette.

Altria continued to press the acquisition and in the fall of 2018,
Juul agreed to negotiate with Altria under the condition that
Altria stop competing with Juul in the market for e cigarettes.
Juul refused to enter into negotiations with Altra until Altria had
pulled its products off the shelves. Altria, at first, refused to
consider this condition, but in October 2018 it succumbed to the
pressure and began to withdraw its e-cigarette products from the
relevant market. Two months later in December 2018, Altria
announced its intention to cease competing entirely in the relevant
market.

Approximately two weeks after making this announcement, Altria
disclosed that, on October 20, 2018, it had executed a Purchase
Agreement and related agreements (the "Transaction") with Juul.
Under the Purchase Agreement, Altria purchased a 35% non-voting
stake in Juul, which Altria could convert to a voting stake upon
receiving Hart-Scott Rodino approval. Altria's investment in Juul
and its exit from the market not only eliminated its existing
e-cigarette product but also, through the Non-Compete, halted its
ongoing innovation efforts toward developing a new and improved
portfolio of products. Thus, consumers lost the benefit of current
and future head-to-head competition between Altria and Juul, and
between Altria and other competitors.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' conduct has illegally
restrained competition in the relevant market in violation of
federal antitrust laws. As a direct and proximate result of the
Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, prices for e-cigarettes were
raised, fixed and stabilized at supracompetitive levels, according
to the complaint. Altria's investment in Juul and its exit from the
market eliminated its existing e-cigarette product and halted its
ongoing innovation efforts towards developing new and improved
products. Thus, consumers were overcharged and lost the benefit of
current and future head-to-head competition between Altria and
Juul, and between Altria and other competitors.

Plaintiff Aaron Licari purchased Juul products directly from Juul
on the Juul.com website.

Juul is the leading manufacturer of closed-system e-cigarettes,
generating over $1 billion in sales in 2018.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Terry Gross, Esq.
          Adam C. Belsky, Esq.
          GROSS & BELSKY P.C.
          201 Spear Street, Suite 1100
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: (415) 544-0200
          Fax: (415) 544-0201
          Email: terry@grossbelsky.com
                 adam@grossbelsky.com

               - and -

          Stanley D. Bernstein, Esq.
          Stephanie M. Beige, Esq.
          Matthew E. Guarnero, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD, LLP
          10 East 40th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-779-1414
          Fax: 212-779-3218
          Email: bernstein@bernlieb.com
                 beige@bernlieb.com
                 mguarnero@bernlieb.com


AMAZON.COM INC: Faces McQueen Suit Over Unlawful Price Increases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary McQueen and Victoria Ballinger, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 4:20-cv-02782 (N.D. Cal., April 21, 2020),
seeks to hold Amazon accountable for its unlawful price increases
during the COVID-19 pandemic.

California law rightly prohibits profiteering from a public health
crisis. In enacting some of the nation's strongest prohibitions on
price gouging, California's legislature recognized that
unscrupulous sellers can take advantage of emergency conditions to
overcharge consumers for goods that are vital to their health,
safety, general welfare, and normal daily lives. Exploiting
consumers in their most vulnerable hour is not only contrary to
basic human decency--it is a criminal offense in California and
presumptively unlawful under California's Unfair Competition Law.

Like every seller, Amazon has an obligation under California law to
ensure that its pricing does not exploit consumers facing emergency
conditions, the Plaintiffs aver. They allege that Amazon has not
abided by that obligation. In fact, they allege, as the COVID-19
crisis has escalated, so too have Amazon's prices for the goods
consumers require to remain healthy, protected, and nourished. Many
of Amazon's price increases exceeded the statutory threshold by
more than 600 percent.

According to the complaint, some of the unlawful increases were on
sales of products supplied by third parties, sales which Amazon
controls and reaps huge profits from. Amazon is the functional
seller of these products and is responsible when price-gouged sales
violate the law. But in addition, Amazon has inflated prices on its
own inventory of products, which Amazon supplies and sells directly
to consumers.

To safely obtain essential goods during the COVID-19 crisis, the
Plaintiffs say they purchased items from Amazon at prices that far
exceeded California's statutory threshold. Amazon profited
unlawfully from these sales, and the Plaintiffs were harmed
commensurately, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs use Amazon to purchase essential consumer goods for
themselves and family, and they have relied on Amazon during the
COVID-19 crisis to obtain such items.

Amazon is the world's largest online retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, DC 98101
          Phone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
                 toml@hbsslaw.com

               - and –

          Ben M. Harrington, Esq.
          Benjamin J. Siegel, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Phone: (510) 725-3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
          Email: benh@hbsslaw.com
                 Email: bens@hbsslaw.com


AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Partovich Suit Over Automobile Defects
------------------------------------------------------------
ROBY PARTOVICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC. and HONDA
MOTOR COMPANY LTD., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00676-CAB-AHG
(S.D. Cal., April 7, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants
for various violations including California's Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and breach of implied
warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly-situated individuals who purchased or leased model year
2016 to 2020 Acura MDX or 2019-2020 RDX vehicles, alleges that the
Defendants' Class Vehicles contain design, manufacturing, and/or
workmanship defects which cause sudden, rapid deceleration, engine
stalls, hesitation upon depressing the gas pedal, abrupt shutdowns
and shifts into neutral while driving, especially at highway
speeds, due to miscommunication among the computers and software
which control the engine, throttle and transmission. The defects
expose the Plaintiff and Class members to unsafe driving
conditions.

American Honda Motor Company, Inc. is a North American subsidiary
of automobile manufacturer Honda Motor Company, Ltd., with
principal place of business at 1919 Torrance Boulevard, Torrance,
California.

Honda Motor Company, Ltd. is an automobile manufacturer and
distributor headquartered in Tokyo, Japan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven Weinmann, Esq.
          Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
          Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
          Trisha K. Monesi, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: Steven.Weinmann@capstonelawyers.com
                  Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
                  Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
                  Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com

               - and -
          
          Russell D. Paul, Esq.
          Amey J. Park, Esq.
          Abigail J. Gertner, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103          
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: rpaul@bm.net

AMYRIS INC: Awaits Court Decision on Bid to Nix Calif. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amyris, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company is awaiting a
ruling on its motion to dismiss filed in the class action suit
pending before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

On April 3, 2019, a securities class action complaint was filed
against Amyris and its CEO, John G. Melo, and former CFO (and
current Chief Business Officer), Kathleen Valiasek, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class that would comprise all persons and entities that purchased
or otherwise acquired the company's securities between March 15,
2018 and March 19, 2019.

The complaint, which was amended by the lead plaintiff on September
13, 2019, alleges securities law violations based on statements and
omissions made by the Company during such period. On October 25,
2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the securities class
action complaint.

The hearing on such motion to dismiss was held on February 18, 2020
and the company is awaiting a ruling from the Court.

Subsequent to the filing of the securities class action complaint,
on June 21, 2019 and October 1, 2019, respectively, two separate
purported shareholder derivative complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (Bonner v.
Doerr, et al., and Carlson v. Doerr, et al.) based on similar
allegations to those made in the securities class action complaint
and named the Company and certain of the Company's current and
former officers and directors as defendants.

The derivative lawsuits sought to recover, on the Company's behalf,
unspecified damages purportedly sustained by the Company in
connection with allegedly misleading statements and omissions made
in connection with the Company's securities filings.

The derivative lawsuits were dismissed on October 18, 2019 (Bonner)
and December 10, 2019 (Carlson), without prejudice.

Amyris said, "We believe the securities class action complaint
lacks merit, and intend to continue to defend ourselves vigorously.
Given the early stage of these proceedings, it is not yet possible
to reliably determine any potential liability that could result
from these matters."

Amyris, Inc. provides various alternatives to a range of
petroleum-sourced products worldwide. The company uses its
industrial bioscience technology to design microbes primarily
yeast, as well as to convert plant-sourced sugars into renewable
ingredients. The company is based in Emeryville, California.


AQUA METALS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aqua Metals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the defendants' motion to
dismiss the class action suit entitled, In Re: Aqua Metals, Inc.
Securities Litigation Case No 3:17-cv-07142, is pending.

Beginning on December 15, 2017, three purported class action
lawsuits were filed in the United Stated District Court for the
Northern District California against the company, Stephen Clarke,
Thomas Murphy and Mark Weinswig.

On March 23, 2018, the cases were consolidated under the caption In
Re: Aqua Metals, Inc. Securities Litigation Case No 3:17-cv-07142.
On May 23, 2018, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs and approved
counsel for the lead plaintiffs.

On July 20, 2018, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the
company's securities between May 19, 2016 and November 9, 2017,
against the company, Stephen Clarke, Thomas Murphy and Selwyn
Mould. The Amended Complaint alleges the defendants made false and
misleading statements concerning the company's lead recycling
operations in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks to hold
the individual defendants as control persons pursuant to Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.  

The Amended Complaint also alleges a violation of Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 based on alleged false and misleading
statements concerning our lead recycling operations contained in,
or incorporated by reference in, the company's Registration
Statement on Form S-3 filed in connection with our November 2016
public offering.

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

The Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages and plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees and costs.

On September 18, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint in its entirety and the plaintiff subsequently
filed its opposition to the motion. In an Order dated August 14,
2019, the Court granted in part, and denied in part, the
defendants' motion to dismiss.

The Court granted the motion to dismiss the Securities Act Section
11 claim and the Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim
based on alleged false and misleading statements and gave the
plaintiffs leave to amend to address the deficiencies.

The Court denied the motion to dismiss the Exchange Act Section
10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims regarding site visits.

On September 20, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Complaint that dropped the Securities Act Section 11 claim but
otherwise alleges the same claims as were alleged previously.

The Second Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages and
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.

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

Aqua Metals said, "We deny that the claims in the Second Amended
Complaint have any merit and we intend to vigorously defend the
action."

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

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

ASHFORD HOSPITALITY: Membrives Class Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------
Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Remington Lodging
& Hospitality, LLC, a company subsidiary, continues to defend a
class action suit initiated by Pedro Membrives.

On December 4, 2015, Pedro Membrives filed a class action lawsuit
against HHC TRS FP Portfolio LLC, Remington Lodging & Hospitality,
LLC, Remington Holdings LLC, Mark A. Sharkey, Archie Bennett, Jr.,
Monty J. Bennett, Christopher Peckham, and any other related
entities in the Supreme Court of New York, Nassau County,
Commercial Division.

On August 30, 2016, the complaint was amended to add Michele Spero
as a Plaintiff and Remington Long Island Employers, LLC as a
defendant.

The lawsuit is captioned Pedro Membrives and Michele Spero,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. HHC TRS
FP Portfolio LLC, Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC, Remington
Holdings LLC, Remington Long Island Employers, LLC, et al., Index
No. 607828/2015 (Sup. Ct. Nassau Cty.).

The plaintiffs allege that the owner and management company of the
Hyatt Regency Long Island hotel violated New York law by improperly
retaining service charges rather than distributing them to
employees. In 2017, the class was certified.

On July 24, 2018, the trial court granted the plaintiffs' motion
for summary judgment on liability. The defendants appealed the
summary judgment and that appeal is still pending.

Notwithstanding the pending appeal on the summary judgment issue,
the trial court continued the litigation with respect to the
plaintiffs' alleged damages.

The plaintiffs filed an application for damages on August 28, 2019.
The defendants filed their opposition to the plaintiffs'
application for damages on October 11, 2019. The plaintiffs filed
their reply on October 25, 2019.

The defendants intend to vigorously defend against the plaintiffs'
claims and the Company does not believe that an unfavorable outcome
is probable.

Ashford said, "If the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on
liability is upheld and the Company is unsuccessful in any further
appeals, the Company estimates that damages could range between
approximately $5.8 million and $11.9 million plus attorneys' fees.
As of December 31, 2019, no amounts have been accrued."

Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is
an externally-advised REIT. While the company's portfolio currently
consists of upscale hotels and upper upscale full-service hotels,
our investment strategy is predominantly focused on investing in
upper upscale full-service hotels in the U.S. that have a revenue
per available room ("RevPAR") generally less than two times the
U.S. national average. The company is based in Dalas, Texas.


AVECTUS HEALTHCARE: Appeals Decision in Raymond Suit to 6th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Avectus Healthcare Solutions filed an appeal from the
District Court's decision in the lawsuit entitled KEITH RAYMOND, et
al. v. AVECTUS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-00559, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Ohio at Cincinnati.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
arises out of the Defendants' common scheme of seeking compensation
from health insured patients in the State of Ohio in violation of
statutory and common law prohibitions. For example, Ohio Revised
Code section 1751.60 provides a hold harmless requirement whereby a
health provider "shall seek compensation for covered services
solely from the health insuring corporation and not, under any
circumstances, from the enrollees or subscribers, except for
approved co-payments and deductibles." Mercy operates medical
facilities providing medical care and treatment to patients
throughout Ohio, including hospitals, clinics and other treatment
facilities. The business practices and joint scheme of Mercy and
Avectus violated both common law and various statutes, including
R.C. section 1751.60.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: Avectus Healthcare
Solutions, Case No. 20-302, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents KEITH RAYMOND and TIMOTHY STRUNK,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

         Charles David Ewing, Esq.
         EWING & WILLIS
         6009 Brownsboro Park Boulevard, Suite B
         Louisville, KY 40207
         Telephone: (502) 585-5800

                   – and –

         Gary Francis Franke, Esq.
         Michael Dillon O'Neill, Esq.
         GARY F. FRANKE CO., L.P.A.
         120 E. Fourth Street, Suite 1040
         Cincinnati, OH 45202
         Telephone: (513) 564-9222

Defendant-Petitioner AVECTUS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, is
represented by:

         Ronald D. Holman, II, Esq.
         Michael J. Zbiegien, Jr., Esq.
         TAFT, STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER
         200 Public Square, Suite 3500
         Cleveland, OH 44114
         Telephone: (216) 241-2838
         Email: rholman@taftlaw.com
                Mzbiegien@taftlaw.com

                   – and –

         Chad Robert Ziepfel, Esq.
         TAFT, STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER
         425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800
         Cincinnati, OH 45202
         Telephone: (513) 381-2838
         Email: cziepfel@taftlaw.com


AVENTURE INVESTMENT: Faces Ganpat FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
JUNE GANPAT and RICARDO TONG CHIN v. AVENTURE INVESTMENT REALTY,
INC., a Florida Corporation, ANDRE PIGUET, an individual, and,
MYRON BAILEY, an individual, Case No. 0:20-cv-60816-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., April 20, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards
Act on behalf of the Plaintiffs and those similarly-situated
seeking to recover money damages for unpaid minimum wage, unpaid
overtime wages, retaliation, tax fraud and misclassification.

The Plaintiffs contend that Defendants Piguet and Bailey willfully
and intentionally caused them not to receive overtime
compensation.

Mr. Piguet was and is the owner and/or officer of the Corporate
Defendant and conducts business in Broward County, Florida. Mr.
Bailey was the bookkeeper and Registered Agent for the Corporate
Defendant. The Corporate Defendant is the owner of three apartment
buildings and performs the commercial activity of rental of
residential apartments, in Broward County, where the Plaintiffs
worked and lived.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ria N. Chattergoon, Esq.
          RC LAW GROUP
          3900 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 301
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (954) 400-1620
          Facsimile: (954) 400-1676
          E-mail: ria@therclawgroup.com


AXA EQUITABLE: Continues to Defend Brach Family Foundation Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Brach Family
Foundation, Inc. v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company.

In February 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York entitled Brach Family
Foundation, Inc. v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. This
lawsuit is a putative class action brought on behalf of all owners
of universal life ("UL") policies subject to Equitable Life's COI
rate increase.

In early 2016, Equitable Life raised COI rates for certain UL
policies issued between 2004 and 2007, which had both issue ages 70
and above and a current face value amount of $1 million and above.


A second putative class action was filed in Arizona in 2017 and
consolidated with the Brach matter.

The current consolidated amended class action complaint alleges the
following claims: breach of contract; misrepresentations by
Equitable Life in violation of Section 4226 of the New York
Insurance Law; violations of New York General Business Law Section
349; and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, and
the California Elder Abuse Statute. Plaintiffs seek; (a)
compensatory damages, costs, and, pre- and post-judgment interest;
(b) with respect to their claim concerning Section 4226, a penalty
in the amount of premiums paid by the plaintiffs and the putative
class; and (c) injunctive relief and attorneys' fees in connection
with their statutory claims.

Five other federal actions challenging the COI rate increase are
also pending against Equitable Life and have been coordinated with
the Brach action for the purposes of pre-trial activities.

They contain allegations similar to those in the Brach action as
well as additional allegations for violations of various states'
consumer protection statutes and common law fraud.

Three actions are also pending against Equitable Life in New York
state court.

Equitable Life is vigorously defending each of these matters.

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

AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, together with its
subsidiaries, provides insurance, financial advisory, and
investment management products and services in the United States
and internationally. The company was founded in 1859 and is
headquartered in New York, New York. AXA Equitable Life Insurance
Company operates as a subsidiary of AXA Equitable Financial
Services, LLC.


AXA EQUITABLE: O'Donnell Class Action Underway
----------------------------------------------
AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Richard T.
O'Donnell.

In August 2015, a lawsuit was filed in Connecticut Superior Court,
Judicial Division of New Haven entitled Richard T. O'Donnell, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AXA
Equitable Life Insurance Company.

This lawsuit is a putative class action on behalf of all persons
who purchased variable annuities from Equitable Life, which were
subsequently subjected to the volatility management strategy and
who suffered injury as a result thereof.

Plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of contract alleging that
Equitable Life implemented the volatility management strategy in
violation of applicable law.

Plaintiff seeks an award of damages individually and on a
class-wide basis, and costs and disbursements, including attorneys'
fees, expert witness fees and other costs.  

In November 2015, the Connecticut Federal District Court
transferred this action to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. In March 2017, the Southern District
of New York granted Equitable Life's motion to dismiss the
complaint.

In April 2017, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. In April
2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
reversed the trial court's decision with instructions to remand the
case to Connecticut state court.

In September 2018, the Second Circuit issued its mandate, following
Equitable Life's notification to the court that it would not file a
petition for writ of certiorari.

The case was transferred in December 2018 and is pending in
Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford.

AXA Equitable said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

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

AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, together with its
subsidiaries, provides insurance, financial advisory, and
investment management products and services in the United States
and internationally. The company was founded in 1859 and is
headquartered in New York, New York. AXA Equitable Life Insurance
Company operates as a subsidiary of AXA Equitable Financial
Services, LLC.


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Litovich Antitrust Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Isabel Litovich, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION; MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE,
FENNER & SMITH, INC.; BofA SECURITIES, INC.; BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC.;
CITIGROUP INC.; CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.; CREDIT SUISSE
SECURITIES (USA) LLC; DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC.; THE GOLDMAN
SACHS GROUP, INC.; GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., LLC; JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.;
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; MORGAN STANLEY; MORGAN STANLEY & CO.,
LLC; MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC; NATWEST MARKETS SECURITIES
INC.; WELLS FARGO & CO.; WELLS FARGO SECURITIES LLC; and WELLS
FARGO CLEARING SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-03154 (S.D.N.Y.,
April 21, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for damages and
injunctive relief pursuant to the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.

The case involves an alleged conspiracy by the Defendants from at
least August 1, 2006, to the present to unreasonably restrain the
trade of odd-lots of corporate bonds in the secondary market. The
Plaintiff and other similarly situated investors have bought and
sold odd-lots of corporate bonds in the secondary market directly
from the Defendants, who are horizontal competitors. As a result of
the Defendants' conspiracy, the Plaintiff avers that she and the
Class paid more when buying, and received less when selling, their
corporate bonds, suffering antitrust injury under Section 1 of the
Sherman Act.

Within the secondary market, corporate bonds are also categorized
based on the size of each bond trade. "Round-lots" consist of any
bond trade that is greater than and divisible by $1 million in par
value. "Odd-lots" consist of any bond trade that is less than $1
million in par value. Because the underlying bonds are fungible,
odd-lots of a given underlying bond can be combined into a
round-lot of that bond, and a round-lot of a given underlying bond
can be broken into odd-lots of that bond.

In contrast to the Defendants, the Plaintiff and the Class prefer
narrower bid-offer spreads. Plaintiff and the Class want to buy for
less and sell for more, increasing their ability to make profits
when buying or selling bonds. In a competitive market, Defendants
compete for Plaintiff's and the Class' trading volume. Because
bonds within a given series are fungible, Defendants should compete
on price. To win trading volume, Defendants should raise their bid
prices and/or lower their offer prices. In other words, competition
should narrow the bid-offer spreads Defendants show to Plaintiff
and the Class.

Despite the high number of odd-lot trades and the fact that they
are qualitatively identical to round-lot bonds, odd-lot investors,
such as the Plaintiff and the Class, persistently pay bid offer
spreads that are 25% to 300% wider than investors trading in round
lots of the same underlying bonds. Odd-lot investors therefore face
substantially higher trading costs per bond than round-lot
investors. The Defendants dealing in odd-lot transactions reap
higher compensation from these wider bid-offer spreads.

According to the complaint, taken together, these allegations,
plausibly demonstrate that beginning at least as early as August 1,
2006, the Defendants agreed to unreasonably restrain competition in
the secondary trading market for odd-lots of corporate bonds in the
United States. Further, as a direct and proximate result of the
Defendants' unreasonable restraint, Plaintiff and the Class
suffered harm in the form of artificially higher transaction costs
for odd-lot corporate bonds, by way of artificially higher bid-ask
spreads, than they would have paid but for the Defendants'
antitrust violations. The Plaintiff, therefore, brings this class
action alleging a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act to
obtain relief for herself and the Class.

Plaintiff Litovich held a client account with Defendant Morgan
Stanley, in which she traded odd-lots of corporate bonds.

BAC operates four business segments, including Consumer Banking,
Global Wealth and Investment Management, Global Banking, and Global
Markets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-233-4565
          Facsimile: 619-233-0508

               - and -

          Walter W. Noss, Esq.
          Kate Lv, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          600 West Broadway, Suite 3300
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619/233-4565

               - and -

          George A. Zelcs, Esq.
          Robert E. Litan, Esq.
          Randall P. Ewing, Jr., Esq.
          Chad E. Bell, Esq.
          Ryan Z. Cortazar, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
          205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1950
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: 312-641-9750
          Facsimile: 312-641-9751

               - and -

          Stephen M. Tillery, Esq.
          Robert L. King, Esq.
          Steven M. Berezney, Esq.
          Michael E. Klenov, Esq.
          Carol L. O'Keefe, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
          505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Phone: 314-241-4844
          Facsimile: 314-241-3525

               - and -

          Michael E. Criden, Esq.
          Kevin B. Love, Esq.
          Lindsey C. Grossman, Esq.
          CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
          7301 SW 57th Court, Suite 515
          South Miami, FL 33143
          Phone: (305) 357-9000

               - and -

          Jeffrey Erez, Esq.
          EREZ LAW, PLLC
          SunTrust International Center
          1 SE 3rd Avenue, Suite 1670
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 728-3320
          Facsimile: (786) 842-7549

               - and -

          Eliezer Aldarondo, Esq.
          ALDARONDO & LOPEZ-BRAS
          ALB Plaza, Suite 400
          16 Las Cumbres Ave. (Road 199)
          Guaynabo, PR 00969
          Phone: (787) 474-5447
          Facsimile: (787) 474-5451


BELLICUM PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Kakkar Class Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion to
dismiss the class action suit entitled, Nipun Kakkar v. Bellicum
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Rick Fair and Alan Musso, is still pending.

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

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

The lawsuits purport to assert class action claims on behalf of
purchasers of the company's securities during the period from May
8, 2017 through January 30, 2018.

The complaints allege that the defendants violated the Exchange Act
by making materially false and misleading statements concerning the
company's clinical trials being conducted in the U.S. to assess
rivo-cel (rivogenlecleucel, formerly known as BPX-501) as an
adjunct T-cell therapy administered after allogeneic hematopoietic
stem cell transplantation.  

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

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

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

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

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

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


BIODELIVERY SCIENCES: Continues to Defend Drachman Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 12, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that
the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled,
Drachman v. BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 2019-0728-AGB (Del. Ch.).

On September 11, 2019, two purported stockholders of the Company
filed a putative class action against the Company and its directors
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned
Drachman v. BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 2019-0728-AGB (Del. Ch.).

The Complaint alleges that the Amendments did not receive the
requisite vote of stockholders at the 2018 Annual Meeting and
asserts claims for violation of the Delaware General Corporation
Law, breach of fiduciary duties, and declaratory judgment. The
Complaint seeks, inter alia, a declaration that the Amendments were
not validly approved and invalidation of the Amendments, including
altering the one-year terms of all directors duly elected at the
2018 and 2019 Annual Meetings to three-year terms.

The Complaint also seeks costs and disbursements, including
attorneys' fees.

The Company will respond to the complaint by the December 6, 2019
deadline set by the Court and defend against it vigorously.

On November 5, 2019, the Board determined that ratifying the
declassification of the Board and the change in the voting standard
as set forth in the Amendments, as well as ratifying the filing and
effectiveness of the Amendments, is in the best interests of the
Company and its stockholders. The Board thus approved resolutions
ratifying such acts and the filing and effectiveness of the
Amendments under Section 204 of the Delaware General Corporation
Law. The Company will submit the ratification to its stockholders
for their adoption in accordance with Section 204 at its 2020
Annual Meeting.

BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., a specialty
pharmaceutical company, engages in the development and
commercialization of pharmaceutical products in the United States
and internationally. It was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in
Raleigh, North Carolina.


BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Bid to Dismiss Boyd Class Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bluegreen Vacations Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion to
dismiss the case, Eddie Boyd et al. v. Bluegreen Vacations
Unlimited, Inc. et al., Case No. 19CT-CC00126, Circuit Court of
Christian County, Missouri, is still pending.

On July 18, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a petition alleging that
Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited (BVU) and its co-defendants violated
the Missouri Merchandise Practices Act for allegedly making false
statements and misrepresentations with respect to the sale of
vacation ownership interests (VOIs).

Plaintiffs further have filed a purported class action allegation
that BVU's charging of an administrative processing fee constitutes
the unauthorized practice of law.

Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive
relief.

Bluegreen said, "We have moved to dismiss the petition. We believe
the lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the
action."

Bluegreen Vacations Corporation operates as a vacation ownership
company in the United States. It operates through two segments,
Sales of VOIs and Financing; and Resort Operations and Club
Management. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation was founded in 1966 and
is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. Bluegreen Vacations
Corporation is a subsidiary of Woodbridge Holdings, LLC.


BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Bid to Dismiss Landon Suit Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bluegreen Vacations Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion to
dismiss in the class action suit entitled, Melissa S. Landon,
Edward P. Landon, Shane Auxier and Mu Hpare, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Bluegreen Vacations
Unlimited, Inc. and Bluegreen Vacations Corporation, Case No.
18-cv-994, United States District Court, Eastern District of
Wisconsin, has been granted in part.

On June 28, 2018, Melissa S. Landon, Edward P. Landon, Shane Auxier
and Mu Hpare, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a purported class action lawsuit against the
Company and Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited (BVU) asserting claims
for alleged violations of the Wisconsin Timeshare Act, Wisconsin
law prohibiting illegal referral selling, and Wisconsin law
prohibiting illegal attorney's fee provisions.

Plaintiffs allegations include that the company failed to disclose
the identity of the seller of real property at the beginning of our
initial contact with the purchaser; that the company misrepresented
who the seller of the real property was; that the company
misrepresented the buyer's right to cancel; that the company
included an illegal attorney's fee provision in the sales
document(s); that the company offered an illegal "today only"
incentive to purchase; and that we utilize an illegal referral
selling program to induce the sale of VOIs.

Plaintiffs seek certification of a class consisting of all persons
who, in Wisconsin, purchased from us one or more VOIs within six
years prior to the filing of this lawsuit.

Plaintiffs seek statutory damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive
relief.

The company moved to dismiss the case, and on November 27, 2019,
the court issued a ruling granting the dismissal in part.

Bluegreen said, "We have answered the remaining claims. We believe
the lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the
action."

Bluegreen Vacations Corporation operates as a vacation ownership
company in the United States. It operates through two segments,
Sales of VOIs and Financing; and Resort Operations and Club
Management. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation was founded in 1966 and
is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. Bluegreen Vacations
Corporation is a subsidiary of Woodbridge Holdings, LLC.


BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Deal Reached in Hernandez Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Bluegreen Vacations Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the parties in
the class action suit initiated by Oscar Hernandez and Estella
Michael have mediated and agreed to settle the matter for an
immaterial amount.

Oscar Hernandez, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated; Estella Michael,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, vs. Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc. an
unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. CIVDS1804956, San Bernardino Superior Court, California.

On February 28, 2018, Oscar Hernandez and Estella Michael filed a
purported class action litigation in San Bernardino Superior Court
againstBluegreen Vacations Unlimited (BVU).   

The central claims in the complaint, as amended during June 2018,
include alleged failures to pay overtime and wages at termination
and to provide meal and rest periods, as well as claims relating to
non-compliant wage statements and unreimbursed business expenses;
and a claim under the Private Attorney's General Act.

Plaintiffs sought to represent a class of approximately 660 hourly,
non-exempt employees who worked in the state of California since
March 1, 2014.

In April 2019, the parties mediated and agreed to settle the matter
for an immaterial amount.

Bluegreen said, "It is expected that the court will approve the
settlement and the dismissal of the lawsuit after the settlement
documents are executed."

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

Bluegreen Vacations Corporation operates as a vacation ownership
company in the United States. It operates through two segments,
Sales of VOIs and Financing; and Resort Operations and Club
Management. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation was founded in 1966 and
is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. Bluegreen Vacations
Corporation is a subsidiary of Woodbridge Holdings, LLC.


BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Wijesinha Class Action Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------
Bluegreen Vacations Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has issued a ruling consistent
with Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited's (BVU's) position, but the
class action suit entitled, Shehan Wijesinha, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Bluegreen Vacations
Unlimited, Inc., Case No. 19CV20073, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, currently remains stayed.

On January 7, 2019, Shehan Wijesinha filed a purported class action
lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (the "TCPA").

It is alleged that Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited (BVU) called
plaintiff's cell phone for telemarketing purposes using an
automated dialing system, and that plaintiff did not give BVU his
express written consent to do so.

Plaintiffs seek certification of a class comprised of other persons
in the United States who received similar calls from or on behalf
of BVU without the person's consent.  

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive
relief.

The company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intend to
vigorously defend the action.

On July 15, 2019, the court entered an order staying this case
pending a ruling from the Federal Communications Commission
clarifying the definition of an automatic telephone dialing system
under the TCPA and the decision of the Eleventh Circuit in a
separate action brought against a vacation ownership interests
(VOI) company by a plaintiff alleging violations of the TCPA.

On January 27, 2020, the Eleventh Circuit issued a ruling
consistent with BVU's position, but the case currently remains
stayed.

Bluegreen Vacations Corporation operates as a vacation ownership
company in the United States. It operates through two segments,
Sales of VOIs and Financing; and Resort Operations and Club
Management. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation was founded in 1966 and
is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. Bluegreen Vacations
Corporation is a subsidiary of Woodbridge Holdings, LLC.


BREVARD EXTRADITIONS: Bid for Class Certification Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as KEVIN LANGELLIER v. BREVARD
EXTRADITIONS INC, Case No. 6:19-cv-01316-RBD-EJK (M.D. Fla.), the
Hon. Judge Roy B. Dalton denied Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification and approval of court-authorized notice on behalf of
a class consisting of:

   "all current and former "Extradition Agents" who worked for
   Defendant any time during the last three years within the
   United States who were not paid minimum wage for all hours
   worked during any workweek."

The Court said, "Federal courts across the Middle and Southern
Districts of Florida have routinely denied requests for conditional
certification where, as here, the plaintiffs attempt to certify a
broad class based on only the conclusory allegations of few
employees. As Plaintiff has not met his burden, the Motion is
denied on that basis alone."

The Plaintiff sued his former employer, Brevard Extraditions, under
the Fair Labor Standards Act for failing to pay minimum wages for
all hours worked. The Plaintiff worked as an "Extradition Agent"
for USPT from July 2018 through February 2019.

Brevard is in the local passenger transportation business in
Melbourne, Florida.[CC]


CARTER'S RETAIL: Christensen Labor Suit Moved to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as NATHAN CHRISTENSEN, an
individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. CARTER'S RETAIL, INC., a Corporation; and
Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, Case No. 30-2020-01138792-CU-OE-CXC
(Filed March 16, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Orange to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on April 20, 2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:20-cv-00776 to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts causes of action for unfair competition in
violation of the California Business & Professions Code and failure
to pay overtime and minimum wages in violation of the California
Labor Code.

Carter's Retail Inc. retails clothing and accessories. The Company
offers tops, dresses, jackets, pajamas, socks, shoes, jeans,
blankets, and outerwears.[BN]

Defendant Carter's Retail is represented by:

          Jon Meer, Esq.
          Leo Li, Esq.
          Romtin Parvaresh, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          E-mail: jmeer@seyfarth.com
                  lli@seyfarth.com
                  rparvaresh@seyfarth.com


CHAMPION WINDOWS: Guttierrez Seeks OT Pay for Windows Installers
----------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO E. REYES GUTTIERREZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. CHAMPION WINDOWS, INC. and DOES
1-50, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV14197 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., April 13, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants
pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 382 for
various labor code violations including by failing to pay the
Plaintiff and all others similarly-situated non-exempt employees
minimum wages and accurately pay overtime, failing to reimburse
expenses, and failing to provide rest and meal periods.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an installer from
approximately March 2017 until his separation in January 2020.

Champion Windows, Inc. is an owner and operator of a window
installation/framing business, which provides services to
construction projects for residential and commercial customers
throughout California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Gregory Mauro, Esq.
          Michael Calvo, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
          E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com

CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Appeal in Naylor Farms Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company has filed its
notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit on the Bankruptcy Court's denial of the company's
objection, ruling the plaintiffs may file a claim on behalf of the
class in the class action suit entitled, Naylor Farms, Inc.,
individually and as class representative on behalf of all similarly
situated persons v. Chaparral Energy, L.L.C.  

On June 7, 2011, an alleged class action was filed against the
company in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma alleging that the company  improperly deducted
post-production costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs and other
non-governmental Royalty Interest owners from crude oil and natural
gas wells the company operates in Oklahoma.

The plaintiffs have alleged a number of claims, including breach of
contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and
other claims and seek termination of leases, recovery of
compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and attorney fees
on behalf of the alleged class.

Plaintiffs indicated they seek damages in excess of $5,000, the
majority of which consist of interest and may increase with the
passage of time. The company responded to the Naylor Farms
petition, denied the allegations and raised arguments and defenses.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in October 2015.


In addition, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment
asking the Naylor Trial Court to determine as a matter of law that
natural gas is not marketable until it is in the condition and
location to enter an interstate pipeline.

On May 20, 2016, the company filed a Notice of Suggestion of
Bankruptcy with the Naylor Trial Court. Subsequently the bankruptcy
stay was lifted for the limited purpose of determining the class
certification issue.

On January 17, 2017, the Naylor Trial Court certified a modified
class of plaintiffs with oil and gas leases containing specific
language. The modified class constitutes less than 60% of the
leases the plaintiffs originally sought to certify.

After additional briefing on the subject, on April 18, 2017, the
Naylor Trial Court issued an order certifying the class to include
only claims relating back to June 1, 2006. On May 3, 2019, the
company appeal of that class certification was denied by the Tenth
Circuit Court of Appeals.

In addition to filing claims on behalf of the named and putative
plaintiffs, on August 15, 2016, plaintiffs' attorneys filed a proof
of claim on behalf of the putative class claiming damages in excess
of $150.0 million in our Chapter 11 Cases.

The Company objected to treatment of the claim on a class basis,
asserting the claim should be addressed on an individual basis.

On April 20, 2017, plaintiffs filed an amended proof of claim
reducing the claim to an amount in excess of $90.0 million
inclusive of actual and punitive damages, statutory interest and
attorney fees. On May 24, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court denied the
Company's objection, ruling the plaintiffs may file a claim on
behalf of the class.

This order did not establish liability or otherwise address the
merits of the plaintiffs' claims, to which we will also object. The
Bankruptcy Court order was affirmed by the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware on September 24, 2019. On
October 24, 2019, the Company filed its notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Chaparral said, "We continue to dispute the plaintiffs' allegations
and are objecting to the claims both individually and on a
class-wide basis."

Chaparral Energy, Inc. engages in the acquisition, exploration,
development, production, and operation of onshore oil and natural
gas properties primarily in Oklahoma, the United States. The
company sells crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids
primarily to refineries and gas processing plant. The company was
founded in 1988 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


CHESAPEAKE OPERATING: CEOG LLC Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CEOG, LLC, for itself and all
others similarly situated v. CHESAPEAKE OPERATING, LLC, and
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY MARKETING, LLC, Case No. 5:16-cv-00776-HE (W.D.
Okla.), the Plaintiff ask the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a Class for settlement purposes;

   2. preliminarily approving the Settlement;

   3. appointing itself as Class Representative of the
      Settlement Class;

   4. appointing Pate & Wolfe and Taylor, Foster, Mallett,
      Downs, Ramsey & Russell, P.C., as Class Counsel for the
      Settlement Class;

   5. approving the form and manner of providing notice of the
      Settlement to the Settlement Class;

   6. appointing a Settlement Administrator; and

   7. setting a hearing date for final approval of the
      Settlement including payment to Class Counsel of fees and
      expenses and class representative award, all as set forth
      in the Settlement Agreement.

Chesapeake Operating Inc. produces oil and natural gas. The company
offers natural gas liquids, drilling, crude petroleum, liquefied
gas, and other related products.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kandi Jepsen Pate, Esq.
          Mark A. Wolfe, Esq.
          PATE & WOLFE
          1900 Northwest Expressway
          50 Penn Place, Suite 1300
          Oklahoma City, OK 73118
          Telephone: (405) 858.0012
          Facsimile: (405) 858.0013

               - and -

          Stratton Taylor, Esq.
          Darrell Downs, Esq.
          Mark Ramsey, Esq.
          TAYLOR, FOSTER, MALLETT,
          DOWNS, RAMSEY & RUSSELL
          P.O. Box 309
          Claremore, OK 74018-0309
          Telephone: (918) 343.4100
          Facsimile: (918) 343.4900

CHICO'S FAS: Fisher Class Suit Re-Filed in San Diego State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended February 1, 2020, that the plaintiff in Fisher v.
Chico's FAS, Inc., voluntarily dismissed the case from federal
court on March 5, 2020, and re-filed the complaint in San Diego
County Superior Court.

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

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

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

The Company was served on May 10, 2019. On October 22, 2019, the
parties attended a mediation, where they discussed potential
settlement terms, subject, to among other things, agreement upon
final terms, the execution of definitive documentation and court
approval.

The settlement agreement terms have been finalized and the
settlement agreement will be signed by both parties in the coming
weeks, and Plaintiff will move for preliminary approval. The terms
of the settlement are not material to our annual consolidated
financial statements.

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed the case from federal court on March 5, 2020, and
re-filed the complaint in San Diego County Superior Court.

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

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


CHUBB LIMITED: Fails to Cover COVID-19 Losses, Cafe Int'l Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CAFE INTERNATIONAL HOLDING COMPANY LLC, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. CHUBB LIMITED and WESTCHESTER
SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-21641-MGC (S.D.
Fla., April 20, 2020), alleges that the Defendants breached their
contractual obligation with the Plaintiff by failing to pay for
losses and expenses when it was forced to suspend business
operations at its restaurant as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Cafe International is the owner and operator of IT Italy, a fine
dining restaurant located at 500 East Las Olas Boulevard, in
downtown Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

The Plaintiff says that to protect the restaurant and the income
from operation of the restaurant, the Plaintiff purchased a
property insurance policy with policy number FSF15184188001. The
Policy was issued by Defendant Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance
Company. Under the Policy, Chubb is responsible for receiving and
managing claims and loss notices, responding to questions about
insurance and coverage, and receiving process served on
Westchester's designated agent. The Policy is a bilateral contract:
the Plaintiff agreed to pay monthly premiums to the Defendants, in
exchange for the Defendants' promises of coverage for certain
losses.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to pay for
similar losses and expenses by at least thousands of other insureds
holding policies that are, in all material respects, identical. In
fact, the CEO of Chubb has publicly announced--on national
television--that the insurer intends to take the position that its
standard property insurance policies do not cover claims related to
COVID-19 and, thus, it does not intend to pay any business
interruption claims related to COVID-19.

Chubb Limited is Westchester's parent company. The Defendants
engaged in substantial and not isolated activity on a continuous
and systematic basis in the state of Florida, namely by issuing and
selling insurance policies in Florida and by contracting to insure
property located in Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven C. Marks, Esq.
          Aaron S. Podhurst, Esq.
          Lea P. Bucciero, Esq.
          Matthew P. Weinshall, Esq.
          Kristina M. Infante, Esq.
          PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
          SunTrust International Center
          One Southeast 3rd Ave., Suite 2300
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 358-2800
          Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
          E-mail: smarks@podhurst.com
                  apodhurst@podhurst.com
                  lbucciero@podhurst.com
                  mweinshall@podhurst.com
                  kinfante@podhurst.com

               - and -

          Stephen N. Zack, Esq.
          Bruce Weil, Esq.
          James Lee, Esq.
          Marshall Dore Louis, Esq.
          David Boies, Esq.
          Nick Gravante, Esq.
          Alex Boies, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
          100 Southeast 2nd Street, Suite 2800
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 539-8400
          Facsimile: (305) 539-1307
          E-mail: szack@bsfllp.com
                  bweil@bsfllp.com
                  jlee@bsfllp.com
                  mlouis@bsfllp.com
                  dboies@bsfllp.com
                  ngravante@bsfllp.com
                  aboies@bsfllp.com


COAST TO COAST: Anderson Sues Over Unpaid OT, Misclassification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, NICHOLAS ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly-situated v. COAST TO COAST INSURANCE SERVICES,
LLC; JOSEPH ESPARZA; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No.
20STCV14151 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 10, 2020), arises
from the Defendants' violations of the California Labor Code, the
California Civil Code, the Industrial Welfare Commission, the
California Government Code, and the California Business and
Professions Code including misclassifying the Plaintiff and all
others similarly-situated employees as independent contractors,
failing to pay all wages, including commissions, and failing to
reimburse business expenses.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an insurance sales
employee from February 2015 to April 18, 2019.

Coast to Coast Insurance Services, LLC is a provider of insurance
products and services. It also does business in California as THINK
Insurance & Financial Services LLC, with a principal place of
business located at 101 W. Mission Blvd, Suite 224, Pomona,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul J. Denis, Esq.
          Ethan E. Rasi, Esq.
          DENIS & RASI PC
          38 Corporate Park
          Irvine, CA 92606
          Telephone: (714) 242-4557
          Facsimile: (213) 443-9601                  

COLTON, CA: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Aragon et al Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD ARAGON, JOEY ARMENDAREZ, JONATHAN BOGGS, RAY BRUNO, CON
CENDEJAS, ADAM CHITTENDEN, CHRISTOPHER DEANDA, THOMAS DEBELLIS,
MICHAEL DELCID, JONATHON ENGLE, WILMER FLEENOR, LUKE GRANGER, CALEB
GUINN, AMANDA HARTEL, RONALD HELMS, SERVANDO HERNANDEZ, RICHARD
HOUSLEY, BRANDON HUMPHREY, TY HUTCHISON, BRIAN KALOUSEK, JUSTIN
LODARSKI, MICHAEL LOYA, JEFF MILLER, AARON MULHALL, JAKE NOVAK,
NATHAN PALMER, HENRY PEREZ, MICHAEL RUSTUN, STEVEN SANDS, DAVID
SANTOS, DAVID SILVA, RYAN STESLICKI, SHAUN TARCON, JASON TOOLEY,
JOHN VAIL, KEVIN VALENTIN, STEVEN VALLEZ, JUSTIN WEEMS, JAKE
ZAVOSKY, and JEFFREY ZUIDEMA, on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF COLTON,
Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-00776 (C.D. Cal., April 14, 2020) is a
collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its
alleged unlawful practice of computing compensation in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiffs are, or were, employed by
Defendant within the last three years and were permitted to work
hours beyond statutory thresholds for overtime compensation
required by the FLSA. However, Plaintiffs were underpaid by
Defendants because Defendant's past and current practice of
computing their overtime failed to include all statutorily required
amounts into the calculation of their regular rate of pay.

Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid overtime and other compensation,
interest thereon, liquidated damages, costs of suit, and reasonable
attorney fees.

City of Colton is a political subdivision of the State of
California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David E. Mastagani, Esq.
          Isaac S. Stevens, Esq.
          Tashayla D. Billington, Esq.
          Joel M. Weinstein, Esq.
          MASTAGANI HOLSTEDT
          1912 "I" Street
          Sacramento, CA 95811
          Tel: (916)446-4692
          Fax: (916)447-4614
          Emails: davidm@mastagani.com
                  istevens@mastagani.com
                  tbillington@mastagani.com
                  jweinstein@mastagani.com


CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Approval of Settlement Class Notice Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DEBORAH PIERRE-CHARLES, on
behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. CONSUMER
PORTFOLIO SERVICES, INC., Case No: 3:17-cv-10025-BRM-DEA (D.N.J.),
the Plaintiff will move the Court on May 4, 2020 for an order:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion to make a front end
      determination shall be made that it is appropriate to
      send Notice to the proposed Settlement Class under
      Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)((2)(B);

   2. appointing Plaintiff's Counsel as Interim Counsel to
      represent the proposed Settlement; and

   3. scheduling a hearing to determine if the proposed
      Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate pursuant to
      Rule 23(e)(2).[CC]

Consumer Portfolio operates as a specialty finance company. The
company provides automobile financing to individuals.

Attorneys for th Plaintiff and others similarly situated are:

          Andrew R. Wolf, Esq.
          THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC
          1520 U.S. Highway 130 - Suite 101
          North Brunswick, NJ 08902
          Telephone: 732-545-7900
          Facsimile: 732-545-1030

               - and -

          Christopher J. McGinn, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. McGINN
          240 N. Union St. - Suite 220
          Lambertville, NJ 08530
          Telephone: (609) 683-1900
          Facsimile: (800) 931-2408
          E-mail: cjmcginn@njconsumerprotection.com

COSTA CROCIERE: Exposes Passengers to COVID-19, Turner Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL TURNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COSTA CROCIERE S.P.A. and COSTA CRUISE LINES
INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-21481-KMM (S.D. Fla., April 7,
2020) is a class action against the Defendants for various
violations including negligence, negligent infliction of emotional
distress, and misleading advertising.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated passengers aboard the Costa Luminosa vessel for a
transatlantic cruise in Fort Lauderdale, Florida on March 5, 2020,
alleges that the Defendants failed to inform him and other
passengers at any time prior to boarding and/or while they were on
board the Costa Luminosa that there was a significantly increased
risk of exposure to COVID-19. The Plaintiff claims that the
Defendants knowingly and intentionally decided to sail the Costa
Luminosa across the Atlantic Ocean for seven days to the Canary
Islands, knowing at least two passengers who disembarked the ship
had symptoms of the coronavirus. The Defendants' negligence placed
him and other passengers at significantly increased risk of
exposure to the coronavirus.

Costa Crociere S.P.A. is an Italian cruise line with principal
place of business in Genoa, Italy, and doing business in Florida at
880 SW 145th Ave, Suite 102 Pembroke Pines.

Costa Cruise Lines Inc. is a cruise line with its principal place
of business in Pembroke Pines, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Winkleman, Esq.
          Jason R. Margulies, Esq.
          Marc E. Weiner, Esq.
          Daniel W. Grammes, Esq.
          LIPCON, MARGULIES, ALSINA & WINKLEMAN PA
          One Biscayne Tower, Suite 1776
          2 South Biscayne Boulevard
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 373-3016
          Facsimile: (305) 373-6204
          E-mail: mwinkleman@lipcon.com
                  jmargulies@lipcon.com
                  mweiner@lipcon.com
                  dgrammes@lipcon.com

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Agreement Reached in Jadan Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended February 16, 2020, that the parties in
Jadan v. Costco Wholesale Corp., have reached an agreement on a
class settlement.

In January 2019, a former seasonal employee filed a class action,
alleging failure to provide California seasonal employees meal and
rest breaks, proper wage statements, and appropriate wages. Jadan
v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 19-CV-340438 Santa Clara
Superior Court filed Jan. 3, 2019).

The complaint seeks relief under the California Labor Code,
including civil penalties and attorneys' fees.

In October the parties reached an agreement on a class settlement,
which is subject to court approval.

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

Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label
products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was
formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale
Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah,
Washington.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: California Wage & Hour Class Suits Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended February 16, 2020, that the company
continues to defend class action suits related to the company's
failure to pay overtime, to provide meal and rest periods and
itemized wage statements, to timely pay wages due to terminating
employees, to pay minimum wages, and for unfair business
practices.

In March 2019, employees filed a class action against the Company
alleging claims under California law for failure to pay overtime,
to provide meal and rest periods and itemized wage statements, to
timely pay wages due to terminating employees, to pay minimum
wages, and for unfair business practices. Relief is sought under
the California Labor Code, including civil penalties and attorneys'
fees. Nevarez v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 2:19-cv-03454
C.D. Cal. filed Mar. 25, 2019).

The Company filed an answer denying the material allegations of the
complaint.

In May 2019, an employee filed a class action against the Company
alleging claims under California law for failure to pay overtime,
to provide itemized wage statements, to timely pay wages due to
terminating employees, to pay minimum wages, and for unfair
business practices. Rough v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No.
2:19-cv-01340 E.D. Cal. filed May 28, 2019).

Relief is sought under the California Labor Code, including civil
penalties and attorneys' fees.

In June 2019, an employee filed a class action against the Company
alleging claims under California law for failure to pay overtime,
to provide meal and rest periods, itemized wage statements, to
timely pay wages due to terminating employees, to pay minimum
wages, and for unfair business practices. Martinez v. Costco
Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 3:19-cv-05624 N.D. Cal. filed June 11,
2019).

The Company filed an answer denying the material allegations of the
complaint.

In August 2019, Rough filed a companion case in state court seeking
penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General
Act. Rough v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. FCS053454, Sonoma
County Superior Court, filed August 23, 2019).

Relief is sought under the California Labor Code, including civil
penalties and attorneys' fees.

In September 2019, an employee re-filed a class action against the
Company alleging claims under California law for failure to pay
wages, to provide meal and rest periods and itemized wage
statements, to timely pay wages due to terminating employees, to
pay minimum wages, and for unfair business practices. Mosley v.
Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 2:19-cv-07935, C.D. Cal. filed
Sept. 12, 2019). Relief is sought under the California Labor Code,
including civil penalties and attorneys' fees.

Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label
products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was
formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale
Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah,
Washington.



COSTCO WHOLESALE: Opioid Claims in NJ and Okla. Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended February 16, 2020, that the claims
against the company in the opioid related class suits before state
courts in New Jersey and Oklahoma have been dismissed.

In December 2017, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation consolidated numerous cases filed against various
defendants by counties, cities, hospitals, Native American tribes,
third-party payors, and others concerning the impacts of opioid
abuse.

In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804) (N.D.
Ohio). Included are federal cases that name the Company, including
actions filed by counties and cities in Michigan, New Jersey,
Oregon, Virginia and South Carolina, a third-party payor in Ohio,
and class actions filed in thirty-eight states on behalf of infants
born with opioid-related medical conditions.

In 2019 similar actions were commenced against the Company in state
courts in Utah and Arizona.

Claims against the Company in state courts in New Jersey and
Oklahoma have been dismissed. The Company is defending all of these
matters.

Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label
products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was
formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale
Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah,
Washington.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Settlement of Seating Claims Suits Approved
-------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended February 16, 2020, that the parties in
"Canela Action", "Rodriguez Action", and "Lane Action" reached an
agreement to settle the seating claims on a class basis, which
received court approval in February 2020.

The Company is a defendant in a class action alleging violation of
California Wage Order 7-2001 for failing to provide seating to
member service assistants who act as greeters in the Company's
California warehouses. Canela v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al.
(Case No. 5:13-CV-03598, N.D. Cal. filed July 1, 2013).

The complaint seeks relief under the California Labor Code,
including civil penalties and attorneys' fees.

The Company filed an answer denying the material allegations of the
complaint. The action has been stayed pending review by the Ninth
Circuit of the order certifying a class.

In January 2019, an employee brought similar claims for relief
concerning Costco employees engaged at member services counters in
California. Rodriguez v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No.
RG19001310, Alameda Superior Court filed Jan. 4, 2019).

The Company filed an answer denying the material allegations of the
complaint.

In December 2018, a depot employee raised similar claims, alleging
that depot employees in California did not receive suitable seating
or appropriate workplace temperature conditions. Lane v. Costco
Wholesale Corp. (Dec. 6, 2018 Notice to California Labor and
Workforce Development Agency).

The Company filed an answer denying the material allegations of the
complaint.

In October the parties reached an agreement to settle the seating
claims on a class basis, which received court approval in February
2020.

Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label
products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was
formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale
Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah,
Washington.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Wants Johnson Second Amended Complaint Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants are asking the District Court to dismiss the second
amended complaint filed in Johnson v. Costco Wholesale Corporation
et al. Case No. 2:18-cv-01611 (W.D. Wash.), for failure to state a
claim. Defendants also requested oral argument.

Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on March 9.

Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended February 16, 2020, that the Company and
its CEO and CFO are defendants in putative class actions brought on
behalf of shareholders who acquired Company stock between June 6
and October 25, 2018. Johnson v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al.
(W.D. Wash. filed Nov. 5, 2018); Chen v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et
al. (W.D. Wash. filed Dec. 11, 2018).

The complaints allege violations of the federal securities laws
stemming from the Company's disclosures concerning internal control
over financial reporting.

They seek unspecified damages, equitable relief, interest, and
costs and attorneys' fees.

On January 30, 2019, an order was entered consolidating the
actions, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on April
16.

On November 26, the Hon. Thomas S Zilly entered an order dismissing
the consolidated amended complaint and granting the plaintiffs
leave to file a further amended complaint within 90 days.

Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label
products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was
formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale
Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah,
Washington.


COVENANT TRANSPORTATION: Unit Continues to Defend Tabizon Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Covenant Transportation Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that a company
subsidiary remains a defendant in the class action suit initiated
by Richard Tabizon.

The company's subsidiary Covenant Transport, Inc. subsidiary is a
defendant in a lawsuit filed on November 9, 2018 in the Superior
Court of Los Angeles County, California.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Richard Tabizon (a California
resident and former driver), who is seeking to have the lawsuit
certified as a class action.

The complaint asserts that the time period covered by the lawsuit
is from October 31, 2014 to the present and alleges claims for
failure to properly pay drivers for rest breaks, failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements and/or reimbursement of business
related expenses, unlawful deduction of wages, failure to pay
proper minimum wage and overtime wages, failure to provide all
wages due at termination, and other related wage and hour claims
under the California labor Code.  

Since the original filing date, the case has been removed from the
Los Angeles Superior Court to the U.S. District court in the
Central District of California and subsequently the case was
transferred to the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of
Tennessee where the case is now pending.  

Covenant said, "We do not currently have enough information to make
a reasonable estimate as to the likelihood, or amount of a loss, or
a range of reasonably possible losses as a result of this claims,
as such there have been no related accruals recorded as of December
31, 2019."

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

Covenant Transportation Group, Inc., together with its
subsidiaries, provides truckload transportation and brokerage
services primarily in the continental United States. Covenant
Transportation Group, Inc. was founded in 1986 and is headquartered
in Chattanooga, Tennessee.


CRAFT BREW: Continues to Defend Suits over Anheuser-Busch Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Craft Brew Alliance Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend class action suits related to its merger with
Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC.

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, several lawsuits were filed on behalf of shareholders of
the Company.

On January 3, 2020, 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, was filed in the Superior Court of Washington,
King County (the "Kost Action").

On January 14, 2020, a second purported class action complaint
brought on behalf of a putative class of the Company's
shareholders, captioned Birkby 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 (the "Birkby Action").


The Birkby and Kost Actions assert state law claims for alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty against the Company and its directors.

The Kost Action also brings claims against the Company's Chief
Executive Officer and ABC, and includes allegations of material
misstatements and omissions in the Company's definitive proxy
statement filed with the SEC on January 21, 2020 (the "Proxy
Statement").

In addition, four complaints were filed in federal court asserting
claims against the Company and its directors under the federal
securities laws and alleging material misstatements and omissions
in the Company's Proxy Statement:  

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 "Dennis Roberts Action").

The Sabatini Action also brings claims against ABC and Merger Sub.

On February 18, 2020, the Company announced the resolution of
claims with the plaintiffs in the Kost, Sabatini, Halberstam, and
Michael Roberts Actions, whereby the Company filed supplemental
disclosures and plaintiffs in the Kost, Sabatini, Halberstam, and
Michael Roberts Actions agreed to dismiss their individual claims
with prejudice, and plaintiffs in the Kost, Sabatini, and Michael
Roberts Actions agreed to dismiss their class claims without
prejudice. The Birkby and Dennis Roberts Actions have not been
resolved.

The Company did not view the supplemental disclosures as material
or required by applicable law, but determined to make the
disclosures in order to avoid the expense and risks inherent in
further litigation.

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.


CREDENCE RESOURCE: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Amer Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MOHAMMAD AMER, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CREDENCE RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00580-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in
order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action
defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from
proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to
"moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff
individual (but not classwide) relief.

The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's
attorneys as class counsel.

In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).

In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                 meldridge@ademilaw.com
                 jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                 bslatky@ademilaw.com

CROSS TIMBERS: To Review Chieftain Royalty Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Cross Timbers Royalty Trust said it intends to review any claimed
reductions in payment to the Trust based on the facts and
circumstances of the settlement in Chieftain Royalty Company v. XTO
Energy Inc.

Cross Timbers Royalty Trust disclosed in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that a federal
district court approved the settlement of a royalty class action
lawsuit against XTO Energy Inc. (Chieftain Royalty Company v. XTO
Energy Inc.) in March 2018.

In July 2018, the class plaintiffs submitted their plan to allocate
the settlement funds among members of the class. After that plan of
allocation was approved, XTO Energy advised the Trustee that, based
upon that plan, approximately $40,000 should be allocated to the
Trust as additional production costs.

The Trustee has objected to similar claims relating to the
Chieftain settlement with respect to another trust for which it
serves as trustee (the Hugoton Royalty Trust) pursuant to a demand
for arbitration styled Simmons Bank (successor to Southwest Bank
and Bank of America, N.A.) vs. XTO Energy Inc. through the American
Arbitration Association seeking a declaratory judgment that the
Chieftain settlement is not a production cost and that XTO Energy
is prohibited from charging the settlement as a production cost
under the conveyance or otherwise reducing the Hugoton Royalty
Trust's payments now or in the future as a result of the Chieftain
litigation.

Therefore, the Trustee and XTO have agreed that XTO will defer
making the accounting entries to allocate to the Trust its
proportional share of the Chieftain settlement until the panel in
the pending arbitration issues its final award on the Trustee's
request for a declaratory judgment. The Trustee intends to review
any claimed reductions in payment to the Trust based on the facts
and circumstances of the settlement.

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

Cross Timbers Royalty Trust operates as an express trust in the
United States. It holds 90% net profits interests in certain
producing and nonproducing royalty and overriding royalty interest
properties in Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico; and 75% net profits
minterests in certain working interest properties in Texas and
Oklahoma. The company was founded in 1991 and is based in Dallas,
Texas.


CVR REFINING: Artificially Depressed Share Price, Investors Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WHITE PINE INVESTMENTS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CVR REFINING, LP; CVR ENERGY,
INC.; CVR REFINING GP, LLC; CVR REFINING HOLDINGS, LLC; ICAHN
ENTERPRISES, L.P.; and DAVID L. LAMP, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-02863 (S.D.N.Y., April 6, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of all former owners of CVR Refining, LP
(CVRR) common units who sold their units, and were damaged thereby,
during the period from July 30, 2018 through January 28, 2019,
allege that the Defendants executed a fraudulent scheme to
artificially depress the price of publicly traded CVRR common units
through an exchange offer announced by CVR Energy, Inc. on May 29,
2018, in which it would exchange CVI stock for most of CVRR's
outstanding common units, and through a partnership agreement which
gave the General Partner the choice to exercise and/or assign to
its affiliates the right to acquire CVRR's remaining outstanding
units. The Plaintiff and class members claim that the scheme was
used by Defendants in order to acquire the common units for a
substantial discount, thereby enriching themselves at the expense
of public unit holders.

White Pine Investments is a financial advisory firm headquartered
in Wolfeboro, New Hampshire. It is owned by financial advisor
Andrew Kustas.

CVRR Refining, LP is an owner and operator of oil refineries with
principal place of business at 2277 Plaza Drive Suite 500 Sugar
Land, Texas.

CVR Energy, Inc. is a diversified holding company based in Sugar
Land, Texas which is primarily engaged in the petroleum refining
and nitrogen fertilizer manufacturing industries.

CVR Refining GP, LLC is a company that owns and operates refining
and related logistics businesses, with principal place of business
at 2277 Plaza Drive Suite 500 Sugar Land, Texas.

CVR Refining Holdings, LLC is a Sugar Land, Texas-based holding
company that, through its subsidiaries, provides energy services
and gas stations, as well as offers oil refining and marketing
services.

Icahn Enterprises, LP, a master limited partnership, is a New
York-based diversified holding company engaged in several primary
business segments including investment, energy, automotive, food
packaging, metals, real estate and home fashion. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
          Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
          Francis P. McConville, Esq.
          David J. Schwartz, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005          
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com
                  ebelfi@labaton.com
                  fmcconville@labaton.com
                  dschwartz@labaton.com

DAWN FOOD: Howell Suit Over BIPA Violation Moved to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ALRIC HOWELL and TELLY
WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. DAWN FOOD PRODUCTS, INC., Case No. 2020CH02635, was removed from
the Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on April 17, 2020.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-02213 to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts that the Defendant violated the Biometric
Information Privacy Act by failing to provide a publicly available
retention schedule or guidelines for permanently destroying
biometric identifiers and biometric information and by
systematically and automatically collecting, using, storing and
disclosing the Plaintiffs' biometric identifiers and/or biometric
information without first obtaining the written release required by
740 ILCS 14/15(b)(3).

Dawn Foods is the one-stop resource for bakery products and bakery
ingredients.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David J. Fish, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          200 E. 5th Ave., Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60565
          Telephone: (630) 355-7590
          Facsimile: (630) 929-7590
          E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Molly K. McGinley, Esq.
          Kenn Brotman, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          70 West Madison Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60602-4207
          Telephone: (312) 372-1121
          Facsimile: (312) 827-8108
          E-mail: molly.mcginley@klgates.com
                  kenn.brotman@klgates.com


DIXIE GROUP: Faces Johnson Class Suit in Georgia
------------------------------------------------
The Dixie Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company and 3M
Company are defending against a putative class action suit in
Georgia entitled, Jarrod Johnson v. 3M Company, et al., Civil
Action No. 19-CV-02448-JFL-003).  

The Company has been sued, together with 3M Company and
approximately 30 other named defendants and unnamed "fictitious
defendants" including various carpet manufacturers and suppliers,
in four lawsuits whereby the plaintiffs seek monetary damages and
injunctive relief related to the manufacture, supply, and/or use of
certain chemical products in the manufacture, finishing, and
treatment of carpet products in the Dalton, Georgia area.

These chemical products allegedly include without limitation
perflourinated compounds ("PFC") such as perflourinated acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonate ("PFOS"). In each lawsuit,
the plaintiff(s) alleges that, as a consequence of these actions,
these chemical compounds discharge or leach into the water systems
around Dalton and then flow into the waters in or near the water
bodies from which the plaintiff(s) draw for drinking water.

A lawsuit in Georgia was filed on November 26, 2019 and is
presented as a class action lawsuit by and on behalf of a class of
persons who obtain drinking water from the City of Rome, Georgia
and the Floyd County Water Department (and similarly situated
persons) (generally, for these purposes, residents of Floyd County)
(styled Jarrod Johnson v. 3M Company, et al., Civil Action No.
19-CV-02448-JFL-003) (the "Class Action Lawsuit").

The plaintiffs in this case allege their damages include without
limitation the surcharges incurred for the costs of partially
filtering the chemicals from their drinking water.

The Complaint requests a jury trial and asserts damages unspecified
in amount, in addition to requests for injunctive relief.

The Dixie Group, Inc. manufactures, markets, and sells floor
covering products for residential and commercial applications
primarily in the United States. The company was founded in 1920 and
is based in Dalton, Georgia.


EARTHSTONE ENERGY: Olenik Class Action Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Earthstone Energy, Inc., said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Olenik v. Lodzinksi et al.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


ECA MARKETING: Faces Odom Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Odom, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v.
ECA MARKETING, INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-00851 (C.D. Cal., April 21,
2020), arises from the illegal actions of the Defendant in
negligently contacting the Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby,
invading his privacy.

The Defendant regularly makes autodialed telephone calls to
consumers in order to solicit business, according to the complaint.
At no point did the Plaintiff inquire the Defendant about its
services or provide authorization to receive autodialed calls or
prerecorded messages on his cellular telephone from the Defendant.
Nonetheless, on March 8, 2020, the Defendant called the Plaintiff's
cellular telephone. The Plaintiff did not give "prior express
consent," to receive calls from an ATDS or leave a pre-recorded
voice mail message. The Defendant's call was not for the purpose of
an emergency. The Defendant's call was unsolicited and not in
response to an inquiry from the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is a natural person residing in the City of Corona,
County of Riverside, in the State of California.

ECA Marketing is a National Annuity and Life Marketing Organization
doing business in all 50 states and several U.S. territories.[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


EVENFLO COMPANY: Sells Defective Booster Seats, Juanich Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JANET JUANICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EVENFLO COMPANY, INC. and GOODBABY
INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LIMITED, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03443
(C.D. Cal., April 14, 2020) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, California Civil Code, California False Advertising Law,
California Business and Professions Code, Unfair Competition Law,
California Business & Professions Code, Unjust Enrichment,
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, and Fraudulent Concealment.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly-situated consumers, alleges that the Defendants use
misleading and deceptive marketing claims and make material
statements and misrepresentations concerning the safety of their
Big Kid Belt-Positioning Booster seats. The Defendants used their
own safety tests as support for their marketing claims that the Big
Kid Belt-Positioning Booster seat is safe for children as small as
30 pounds and three years old, contrary to the safety
recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics and National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The Plaintiff and Class
members claim that the Defendants' wrongful marketing practice put
their children's safety at risk.

Evenflo Company, Inc. is a manufacturer and marketer of infant and
juvenile products, headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.

Goodbaby International Holdings Limited is a juvenile products
company based in Shanghai, China. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          Krista K. Freier, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: rapeterson@locklaw.com
                  rkshelquist@locklaw.com
                  kkfreier@locklaw.com

               - and -
          
          Jon W. Borderud, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JON BORDERUD
          7 West Figueroa Street, 3rd Floor
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (310) 621-7004
          E-mail: borderudlaw@cox.net

               - and -
          
          J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
          SHINDLER ANDERSON GOPELRUD & WEESE PC
          5015 Grand Ridge Drive
          West Des Moines, IA 50265
          Telephone: (515) 223-4567
          E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com

F.D. THOMAS: Sykes Seeks Meal & Rest Premiums, OT Pay for Staff
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DEVONNEA SYKES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated v. F.D. THOMAS, INC.; ASRC INDUSTRIAL SERVICES,
LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. CGC-20-584144
(Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., April 14, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' alleged violations of the Labor Code and Business and
Professions Code including failing to provide the Plaintiff and all
others similarly-situated employees with meal and rest periods,
failing to compensate them for missed meal and/or rest periods, and
failing to provide them at least minimum wage for all hours worked
and overtime pay at the correct rate.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt hourly
employee through March 8, 2020.

F.D. Thomas, Inc. is a provider of coatings and specialty
contracting services, headquartered in Sacramento, California.

ASRC Industrial Services, LLC is a construction engineering company
based in Concord, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          William Pao, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109

FARFETCH LTD: Continues to Defend Securities Suits in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Farfetch Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend two putative class action suits entitled, Omdahl v. Farfetch
Limited et al and City of Coral Springs Police Officers' Retirement
Plan v. Farfetch Limited et al.

In September 2019, following periods of volatility in the market
price of the company's Class A ordinary shares, two putative class
action lawsuits were filed in the United States against the company
and certain of its  directors and officers, among others, under the
U.S. federal securities laws.

The lawsuits are captioned Omdahl v. Farfetch Limited et al and
City of Coral Springs Police Officers' Retirement Plan v. Farfetch
Limited et al, both pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

The Omdahl lawsuit asserts claims against the company, certain of
its current and former directors and officers, and the underwriters
of the company's September 2018 Initial Public Offering (IPO)
pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act.

The City of Coral Springs lawsuit asserts claims against the same
individuals under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act,
and also asserts claims against the company and certain of its
current and former directors and officers for alleged violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 of the
Exchange Act.

In each case, the named plaintiff seeks to represent a proposed
class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired our common
stock during the period of September 21, 2018 to August 8, 2019.

The complaints seek damages purportedly caused by alleged
materially misleading statements and/or material omissions by the
company and the individual officers regarding its growth potential
and business model.

The company's deadline to respond to these lawsuits has been stayed
pending appointment of a lead plaintiff.

Farfetch said, "We intend to vigorously contest these claims. While
the outcome of any complex legal proceeding is inherently
unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties, based upon
information presently known to management, we believe that the
potential liability, if any, will not have a material adverse
effect on our financial condition, cash flows or results of
operations."

Farfetch Limited is an online luxury fashion retail platform that
sells products from over 700 boutiques and brands from around the
world. The company was founded in 2007 by the Portuguese
entrepreneur Jose Neves with its headquarters in London and main
branches in Porto, Guimaraes, Braga, Lisbon, New York, Los Angeles,
Tokyo, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Sao Paulo and Dubai.


FEIN & SUCH: Faces Perez FDCPA Suit in District of New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fein, Such, Khan &
Shepard, P.C., et al. The case is captioned as JOCELYN PEREZ, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. FEIN, SUCH,
KHAN & SHEPARD, P.C.; ARS, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No.
2:20-cv-03809-SDW-LDW (D.N.J., April 8, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Susan D. Wigenton.

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

Fein & Such operates as a law firm. The Company offers legal
advisory services in the field of business and elder law, and
commercial real estate, estate planning, asset protection,
collections, creditor's rights, personal injury, and municipal
court.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben A. Kaplan, Esq.
          280 Prospect Ave. 6G
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 803-6611
          Facsimile: (877) 827-3394
          E-mail: ben@chulskykaplanlaw.com


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Indirect Customers' Suit Ongoing in Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2020, that there are 13
remaining state law claims brought by a putative class of indirect
customers.

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


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

The lawsuits seek treble damages, attorneys' fees, injunctive
relief and costs on behalf of the putative class.

These lawsuits have been coordinated for pretrial purposes by the
multidistrict litigation panel.

The Federal Court for the Western District of Missouri initially
dismissed all claims brought by direct and indirect customers other
than state law claims of indirect customers under Wisconsin, Maine
and Vermont law. The direct customer plaintiffs filed an appeal,
which resulted in a reversal of the district court's dismissal. The
company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari which was denied.


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

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

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

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

Ferrellgas believes it has strong defenses and intends to
vigorously defend itself against these remaining claims.  

Ferrellgas does not believe loss is probable or reasonably
estimable at this time related to the putative class action
lawsuit

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


FIORELLA INSURANCE: Jones Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, PAUL JONES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIORELLA INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-14105-RLR (S.D. Fla., April 6, 2020)
arises from Defendant's alleged violation of the consumer-privacy
provision of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff has received a pre-recorded
message on April 2, 2020 in his telephone number (407)808-XXXX from
an employee at Fiorella who offers him a Blue Cross "Medigap"
insurance policy. Plaintiff did not consent to receive Defendant's
calls prior to the receipt of the unsolicited conduct.

Allegedly, Defendant used prerecorded messages to solicit potential
consumers as one of its telemarketing strategies in order to sell
its services.

The complaint asserts that Plaintiff's privacy has been invaded and
intruded upon his right to seclusion by Defendant's calls.

Plaintiff seeks statutory damages.

Fiorella Insurance Agency, Inc. offers Blue Cross insurance
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FOAMIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Sabatini Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Foamix Pharmaceuticals Ltd. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Sabatini v. Foamix
Pharmaceuticals Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02257.

On November 10, 2019, Foamix's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Menlo.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Foamix's
stockholders will receive 0.5924 shares of Parent common stock and
one contingent stock right for each share of Foamix common stock
they own.

On December 11, 2019, a purported Foamix shareholder filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware against Foamix, the members of the
Foamix Board, Menlo and Merger Sub, claiming generally that the
joint proxy statement/prospectus issued in connection with the
Merger omitted material information in violation of Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The action, captioned Sabatini v. Foamix Pharmaceuticals Ltd., et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02257 (D. Del.), or the Sabatini Action,
purports to be brought on behalf of all public shareholders of
Foamix, excluding defendants and certain affiliated persons or
entities, and seeks, among other things, to enjoin consummation of
the Merger, or alternatively rescission or rescissory damages; to
compel the individual defendants to disseminate a joint proxy
statement/prospectus that does not contain any untrue statements of
material fact and that states all material facts required in it or
necessary to make the statements contained therein not misleading;
a declaration that defendants violated Sections 14(a) and/or 20(a)
of the Exchange Act; and an award of costs, including attorneys'
and experts' fees and expenses.

Foamix Pharmaceuticals Ltd. a specialty pharmaceutical company
focused on the development and commercialization of innovative
therapies in dermatology. Utilizing its expertise in the
development of topical minocycline, the company is working to
develop and commercialize topical drugs for dermatological therapy,
including the first topical minocycline products in the United
States. The company is based in Rehovot, Israel.

FOAMIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Wilson Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Foamix Pharmaceuticals Ltd. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Wilson v. Foamix
Pharmaceuticals Ltd., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-21563 (D.N.J.).

On November 10, 2019, Foamix's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Menlo.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Foamix's
stockholders will receive 0.5924 shares of Parent common stock and
one contingent stock right for each share of Foamix common stock
they own.

On December 18, 2019, a purported Foamix shareholder filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the New Jersey District Court
against Foamix, the members of the Foamix Board, Menlo and Merger
Sub, alleging generally claims for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding
and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty, and violations of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The action, captioned Wilson v. Foamix Pharmaceuticals Ltd., et
al., Case No. 3:19-cv-21563 (D.N.J.), or the Wilson Action,
purports to be brought on behalf of all public shareholders of
Foamix, excluding defendants and certain affiliated persons or
entities, and alleges, among other things, that certain members of
the Foamix Board and management are conflicted because they will
receive unique benefits in connection with the Merger, that the
Merger Agreement contains preclusive deal protection provisions,
that the disclosures issued in connection with the Merger are false
and misleading, and that the Merger consideration is inadequate.
The Wilson Action seeks, among other things, to enjoin the Merger,
or alternatively rescission or rescissory damages; a declaration
that the Merger Agreement was entered into in breach of fiduciary
duty and is therefore invalid and unenforceable; an order directing
the individual defendants to commence a sale process for Foamix and
obtain a transaction; an accounting of damages allegedly suffered
by plaintiff and the putative class; and an award of costs,
including attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses.

Foamix Pharmaceuticals Ltd. a specialty pharmaceutical company
focused on the development and commercialization of innovative
therapies in dermatology. Utilizing its expertise in the
development of topical minocycline, the company is working to
develop and commercialize topical drugs for dermatological therapy,
including the first topical minocycline products in the United
States. The company is based in Rehovot, Israel.


GALDERMA LABORATORIES: Faces Ware Suit Over False Advertising
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, AVONLEA WARE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated v. GALDERMA LABORATORIES LP, Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-03249-CBM-KS (C.D. Cal., April 7, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, Civil Code Section 1750, the False Advertising Law, Business &
Professions Code Section 17500, the Unfair Competition Law,
Business & Professions Code Section 17200, breach of express
warranty, and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly-situated consumers, alleges that the Defendant made false
and deceptive claims of its product, Cetaphil Gentle Skin Cleanser
and Cleansing Cloths, which caused her and class members to buy it.
The Plaintiff claims that the product is formulated with chemical
irritants including sodium lauryl sulfate and parabens, which can
cause skin irritation, redness and burning.  

Galderma Laboratories LP is a provider of dermatology and skin
health services with principal place of business located at 14501 N
Fwy, Fort Worth, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
          Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq.
          Matthew T. Theriault, Esq.
          Celine Cohan, Esq.
          CLARKSON LAW FIRM P.C.
          9255 Sunset Blvd., Ste. 804
          Los Angeles, CA 90069          
          Telephone: (213) 788-4050
          Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
          E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  mtheriault@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  ccohan@clarksonlawfirm.com

GENTLEMAN'S CLUB: Anderson Sues over Unpaid Wages, Bias Tip Credit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, RANDI ANDERSON a/k/a DOLLY, an individual, Plaintiff v.
DG'S, A GENTLEMAN'S CLUB, INC, TROY BIESEL AND PAULA LORIMER,
individuals, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00854-S (N.D. Tex., April
13, 2020) arises from Defendants' alleged evasion of the mandatory
minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, and unlawful absconding with Plaintiff's tips.

Plaintiff began working as a dancer for Defendants in July 2016
through October 2018 and performed at the adult-oriented
entertainment facility multiple shifts per week.

According to the complaint, Defendants does not pay Plaintiff for
any hours worked at their establishment, but Plaintiff was
compensated exclusively through tips from Defendant's customers.
However, Defendants required Plaintiff to share her tips with the
managers, disc jockeys, and the house mother, who are non-service
employees that do not customarily receive tips.

Plaintiff asserts that:

     -- Defendants failed to maintain records of wages, fines,
fees, tips, and gratuities and/or service charges paid or received
by entertainers;

     -- She was not paid an hourly minimum wage or any hourly wage
or salary despite being present at Defendants' facility and
required to work at any time during a seven-plus hour work shift;

     -- She was not paid overtime wages at one-and-a-half times the
regular minimum wage rate for any hours worked longer than 8 hours
per shift; and

     -- Defendants failed to notify Plaintiff about the tip credit
allowance before the credit was utilized, and to allow Plaintiff to
retain all of her tips which violated the tip-pool law.

Troy Biesel and Paula Lorimer own and operate DG's, an
adult-oriented entertainment facility. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
          Leigh Montgomery, Esq.
          HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
          1105 Milford Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Tel: (713)554-2377
          Fax: (888)995-3335
          Emails: jarrett@hughesellzey.com
                  craft@hughesellzey.com
                  leigh@hughesellzey.com


GERON CORPORATION: Faces Class Suits over Reports on IMbark Trials
------------------------------------------------------------------
Geron Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company has been
named as a defendant in putative class action suits related to
IMbark.

On January 23 and February 14, 2020, putative securities class
action lawsuits were commenced in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants the
company and one of its officers.

On March 5, 2020, a third putative securities class action lawsuit
was commenced in the United Stated District Court for the District
of New Jersey, naming as defendants us and two of our officers.

All three lawsuits allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and misleading
statements made by the company related to IMbark during the period
from March 19, 2018 to September 26, 2018.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the company failed
to disclose facts related to the alleged failure by IMbark to meet
the two primary endpoints of the trial, spleen response rate and
Total Symptom Score, and that the company's stock price dropped
when such information was disclosed.

The plaintiffs seek damages and interest, and an award of
reasonable costs, including attorneys' fees.

Geron said, "It is possible that additional suits will be filed, or
allegations made by stockholders, with respect to these same or
other matters and also naming us and/or our officers and directors
as defendants. We believe that we have meritorious defenses and
intend to vigorously defend against the pending lawsuits."

Geron Corporation is a biopharmaceutical company that currently
supports the clinical stage development of a telomerase inhibitor,
imetelstat, in hematologic myeloid malignancies, by Janssen
Biotech, Inc.


GOGO INC: Bid to Nix 2nd Amended Pierrelouis Complaint Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gogo Inc., said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company is seeking to
dismiss the second amended complaint in Pierrelouis v. Gogo Inc.,
and that motion is pending.  

On June 27, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division styled
Pierrelouis v. Gogo Inc., naming the Company, its former Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer and its current Chief
Financial Officer and President, Commercial Aviation as defendants
purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of our securities from
February 27, 2017 through May 4, 2018.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, alleging misrepresentations or omissions by
the company purporting to relate to its 2Ku antenna's reliability
and installation and remediation costs.

The plaintiffs seek to recover from us and the individual
defendants an unspecified amount of damages.

In December 2018 the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and in
February 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss such amended
complaint.

In October 2019 the judge granted the motion to dismiss on two
independent grounds, finding that plaintiffs failed to plausibly
allege that defendants made materially false or misleading
statements and that plaintiffs failed to plead with particularity
that defendants acted with scienter.

The amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and in
December 2019, defendants filed a second amended complaint.

In February 2020 the company filed a motion to dismiss such second
amended complaint and that motion is pending.

Gogo said, "We believe that the claims are without merit and intend
to continue to defend them vigorously. In accordance with Delaware
law, we will indemnify the individual named defendants for their
defense costs and any damages they incur in connection with the
suit. We have filed a claim with the issuer of our Directors’ and
Officers’ insurance policy with respect to this suit. No amounts
have been accrued for any potential losses under this matter, as we
cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the litigation or any
potential losses."

Gogo Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides inflight broadband
connectivity and wireless entertainment services to the aviation
industry in the United States and internationally. It operates
through three segments: Commercial Aviation North America (CA-NA),
Commercial Aviation Rest of World (CA-ROW), and Business Aviation
(BA). The company was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois.


GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: Appeal in Transient Tax-Related Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Golden Entertainment, Inc., said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the plaintiffs'
appeal from the district court decision granting the defendants'
joint motion to dismiss the Transient Lodging Tax-related suit
remains pending.

On August 31, 2018, prior guests of The Strat filed a purported
class action complaint against the Company in the District Court,
Clark County, Nevada, on behalf of similarly situated individuals
and entities that paid the Clark County Combined Transient Lodging
Tax ("Tax") on the portion of a resort fee that constitutes charges
for Internet access, during the period of February 6, 2014 through
the date the alleged conduct ceases.

The lawsuit alleged that the Tax was charged in violation of the
federal Internet Tax Freedom Act, which imposed a national
moratorium on the taxation of Internet access by states and their
political subdivisions, and sought, on behalf of the plaintiff and
the putative class, damages equal to the amount of the Tax
collected on the Internet access component of the resort fee,
injunctive relief, disgorgement, interest, fees and costs.

All defendants to this matter, including Golden Entertainment,
Inc., filed a joint motion to dismiss this matter for lack of
merit. The District Court granted this joint motion to dismiss on
February 21, 2019.

The plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of Nevada on
April 10, 2019.

The Company, and other defendants, filed an appellate response
brief on October 19, 2019.

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

Golden Entertainment said, "While legal proceedings are inherently
unpredictable and no assurance can be given as to the ultimate
outcome of any of the above matters, based on management's current
understanding of the relevant facts and circumstances, the Company
believes that these proceedings should not have a material adverse
effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash
flows."

Golden Entertainment, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, focuses
on distributed gaming, and resort casino operations in the United
States. The company was formerly known as Lakes Entertainment, Inc.
and changed its name to Golden Entertainment, Inc. in July 2015.
The company was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in Las Vegas,
Nevada.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Accord in Adeptus IPO Suit Wins Initial Court OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas has
preliminarily approved a settlement among the parties in the class
action suit related to Adeptus Health Inc.'s initial public
offering (IPO), according to The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") is among the underwriters named
as defendants in several putative securities class actions, filed
beginning in October 2016 and consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas.  In addition to the
underwriters, the defendants include certain former directors and
officers of Adeptus Health Inc. (Adeptus), as well as Adeptus'
sponsor.

As to the underwriters, the consolidated complaint, filed on
November 21, 2017, relates to the US$124 million June 2014 initial
public offering, the US$154 million May 2015 secondary equity
offering, the US$411 million July 2015 secondary equity offering,
and the US$175 million June 2016 secondary equity offering.

GS&Co. underwrote 1.69 million shares of common stock in the June
2014 initial public offering representing an aggregate offering
price of approximately US$37 million, 962,378 shares of common
stock in the May 2015 offering representing an aggregate offering
price of approximately US$61 million, 1.76 million shares of common
stock in the July 2015 offering representing an aggregate offering
price of approximately US$185 million, and all the shares of common
stock in the June 2016 offering representing an aggregate offering
price of approximately US$175 million.

On April 19, 2017, Adeptus filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

On January 9, 2020, the court preliminarily approved a settlement
among the parties.  The firm has reserved the full amount of its
proposed contribution to the settlement.

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

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Drop Direct Forex Buyers' Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
The defendant's motion to dismiss the currencies-related litigation
initiated against The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and its
broker-dealer by certain direct purchasers of foreign exchange
instruments remains pending, 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 ("Group Inc.") and its principal U.S. broker-dealer,
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") are among the defendants named
in an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on November 7, 2018, by certain direct
purchasers of foreign exchange instruments that opted out of a
class settlement reached with, among others, GS&Co. and Group Inc.

The second amended complaint, filed on June 11, 2019, generally
alleges that the defendants violated federal antitrust law and
state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy to
manipulate the foreign currency exchange markets and seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified amounts
of compensatory, punitive, treble and other damages.

Defendants moved to dismiss on July 25, 2019.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Dismissal of Venator Securities Litigation Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants have moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint in the
federal action related to Venator Materials PLC's US$522 million
August 2017 initial public offering and US$534 million December
2017 secondary equity offering, according to The Goldman Sachs
Group, Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") is among the underwriters named
as defendants in putative securities class actions in Texas
District Court, Dallas County, and the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, filed beginning in February 2019,
relating to Venator Materials PLC's (Venator) US$522 million August
2017 initial public offering and US$534 million December 2017
secondary equity offering.  In addition to the underwriters, the
defendants include Venator, certain of its officers and directors
and certain of its shareholders.

GS&Co. underwrote 6,351,347 shares of common stock in the August
2017 initial public offering representing an aggregate offering
price of approximately US$127 million and 5,625,768 shares of
common stock in the December 2017 secondary equity offering
representing an aggregate offering price of approximately US$127
million.

On January 21, 2020, the Texas Court of Appeals reversed the Texas
District Court and dismissed the claims against the underwriter
defendants, including GS&Co., in the state court action for lack of
personal jurisdiction.

On February 18, 2020, defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
complaint in the federal action.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement in GSE Bonds Suit Wins Initial OK
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has
preliminarily approved the settlement between Goldman Sachs & Co.
LLC and class plaintiffs in the class action suit related to GSE
Bonds, according to The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") is among the dealers named as
defendants in numerous putative antitrust class actions relating to
debt securities issued by Federal National Mortgage Association,
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Federal Farm Credit Banks
Funding Corporation and Federal Home Loan Banks (collectively, the
GSEs), filed beginning in February 2019 and consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The third consolidated amended complaint, filed on September 10,
2019, asserts claims under federal antitrust law in connection with
an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to manipulate the
secondary market for debt securities issued by the GSEs.  The
complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
treble damages in unspecified amounts.

Beginning in September 2019, the State of Louisiana and the City of
Baton Rouge filed complaints in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana against the class defendants and a
number of dealers alleging the same claims as in the class action.

As previously reported by the Class Action Reporter, the firm and
class plaintiffs reached a settlement in principle on October 2,
2019, subject to documentation and court approval.

On December 12, 2019, the court preliminarily approved the
settlement between the firm and class plaintiffs.  The firm has
reserved the full amount of its contribution to the settlement.

In January 2020, the State of Louisiana and City of Baton Rouge
voluntarily dismissed their actions with prejudice against GS&Co.
in favor of participating in the class settlement.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Suit over Camping World IPO Still Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that an Illinois state court action
related to Camping World Holdings, Inc.'s US$303 million May 2017
offering and a $310 million October 2017 offering is still stayed
pending resolution of the motions to dismiss in a similar lawsuit
pending in Illinois federal district court.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") is among the underwriters named
as defendants in several putative securities class actions pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
New York Supreme Court, County of New York, and the Circuit Court
of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, beginning in December
2018.  In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include
Camping World Holdings, Inc. (Camping World) and certain of its
officers and directors, as well as certain of its stockholders.

As to the underwriters, the complaints relate to three offerings of
Camping World common stock, a US$261 million October 2016 initial
public offering, a US$303 million May 2017 offering and a US$310
million October 2017 offering.  GS&Co. underwrote 4,267,214 shares
of common stock in the October 2016 initial public offering
representing an aggregate offering price of approximately US$94
million, 4,557,286 shares of common stock in the May 2017 offering
representing an aggregate offering price of approximately US$126
million and 3,525,348 shares of common stock in the October 2017
offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately
US$143 million.

GS&Co. and the other defendants moved to dismiss the New York state
court action on February 28, 2019, the Illinois state court action
on April 19, 2019 and the Illinois district court action on May 17,
2019.

The Illinois state court action has been stayed pending resolution
of the motions to dismiss in the Illinois district court action.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


HAT WORLD: Rafferty Seeks Approval of Arbitration Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Rafferty, On behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff/Arbitration Claimants v. HAT WORLD, INC., Case
No. 5:20-cv-00857-BYP (N.D. Ohio, April 21, 2020), files a petition
for approval of arbitration settlement.

The Plaintiffs/Arbitration Claimants move the Court to review the
Parties' Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release (the
"Settlement") and for an Order approving the Settlement as fair and
reasonable.

On February 22, 2017, the Plaintiffs/Arbitration Claimants allege
that the Defendants attempted to pay them one-half times their
regular rate of pay according to the U.S. Department of Labor's
Fluctuating Workweek method of payment. The Plaintiffs/Arbitration
Claimants also allege that the Defendants unlawfully used the FWW
method of payment by failing to pay Plaintiffs/Arbitration
Claimants and other similarly-situated store managers a fixed
weekly salary because of bonuses they were paid.

On October 5, 2017, the action was transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert B. Kapitan, Esq.
          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          The Heritage Building, Suite 250
          34555 Chagrin Boulevard
          Moreland Hills, OH 44022
          Phone: 216-696-5000
          Facsimile: 216-696-7005
          Email: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
                 robert@lazzarolawfirm.com

               - and -

          Patrick Kasson, Esq.
          REMINGER CO., L.P.A.
          200 Civic Center Drive, Suite 800
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: (614) 232-2418
          Fax: (614) 232-2410
          Email: pkasson@reminger.com


HEADWAY TECH: Alonso Alleges Price-Fixing of HDD Assemblies
-----------------------------------------------------------
CESAR ALONSO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., HUTCHINSON
TECHNOLOGY INC., MAGNECOMP PRECISION TECHNOLOGY PUBLIC CO. LTD.,
NAT PERIPHERAL (DONG GUAN) CO., LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (H.K.) CO.,
LTD., NHK SPRING CO. LTD., NHK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, NHK
SPRING (THAILAND) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING PRECISION (GUANGZHOU) CO.,
LTD., SAE MAGNETICS (H.K.) LTD., AND TDK CORPORATION, Defendants,
Case No. 3:20-cv-02466 (N.D. Cal., April 13, 2020) is a class
action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged
unlawful anti-competitive conspiracy in violations of Sherman Act
Section 1, antitrust statutes, consumer protection statutes, and
unjust enrichment.

Plaintiff indirectly purchased a hard disk drive (HDD) for his own
use and not for sale, which included as a component part one or
more HDD suspension assemblies that were manufactured or sold by
Defendants.

According to the complaint, various antitrust authorities, such as
the U.S. Department of Justice, Japanese Fair Trade Commission,
Korean Fair Trade Commission, and Brazilian antitrust authorities,
have conducted an investigation into the HDD Suspension Assemblies
market. Allegedly, Defendants and their co-conspirators
participated in a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition
for HDD suspension assemblies sold in the U.S. and elsewhere which
is an unreasonable restraint of interstate and foreign trade and
commerce.

The complaint asserts that because of the anti-competitive and
unlawful conduct of Defendants, Plaintiff and the Class have
suffered antitrust injury to their business or property because of
paying more for the products containing HDD suspension assemblies
that they otherwise would have paid in a competitive market.

Headway Technologies, Inc., Hutchinson Technology Inc., Magnecomp
Precision Technology Public Co. Ltd., Nat Peripheral (Dong Guan)
Co., Ltd., Nat Peripheral (H.K.) Co., Ltd., NHK Spring Co. Ltd.,
NHK International Corporation, NHK Spring (Thailand) Co., Ltd., NHK
Spring Precision (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd., SAE Magnetics (H.K.) Ltd.,
and TDK Corporation are manufacturers and suppliers of HDD
suspension assemblies that were directed to, sold in and purchased
throughout the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Terry Gross, Esq.
          Adam C. Belsky, Esq.
          GROSS & BELSKY P.C.
          201 Spear St., Suite 1100
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Tel: (415)544-0200
          Fax: (415)544-0201
          Emails: terry@grossbelsky.com
                  adam@grossbelsky.com


HEART OF GOLD: Faces Blanco Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
IVAN BLANCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HEART OF GOLD PROPERTY GROUP, LLC, A Nevada Limited
Liability Company, Case No. 1:20-cv-02428 (N.D. Ill., April 20,
2020), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its
merchandise, in part, by unsolicited text messages to wireless
phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that to gain an advantage over its
competitors and increase its revenue, the Defendant engages in
unsolicited telemarketing, with no regard for consumers' privacy
rights.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's
illegal conduct which has resulted in the invasion of privacy,
harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of
thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory
damages on behalf of himself and members of the class, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies.

The Defendant is a real estate brokerage/investment firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
          Miami, FL  33132
          Telephone: 305-479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@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

               - and -

          Manuel S. Hiraldo. Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954 400 4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com


HIRERIGHT LLC: Figueroa Sues over Inaccurate SSN Report
-------------------------------------------------------
BRENDA FIGUEROA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HIRERIGHT, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
8:20-cv-00721 (C.D. Cal., April 10, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged willful and
systematic violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff applied for employment with
non-party Avance Houston, Inc. in August 2019 and was immediately
offered a position. However, when Avance purchased a background
check from Defendant in conjunction with Plaintiff's new hire
paperwork, Defendant provided an incorrect report about Plaintiff's
Social Security Number.

Because Defendant failed to correct the report when Plaintiff
promptly disputed the results of her report, Plaintiff lost the job
opportunity with Avance.

Allegedly, Defendant failed to comply with 15 U.S.C. Section
1681(b) by failing to follow reasonable procedures to assure
maximum possible accuracy of its reports and to avoid reporting
misinformation regarding the validity and issue dates of SSNs.

HireRight, LLC is a consumer reporting agency that provides
consumer reports for employment purposes. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Galdston, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 340
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Tel: 619-489-0300
          Fax: 215-875-4604
          Email: bgaldston@bm.net

                - and –

          Joseph C. Hashmall, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          43 SE Main St., Suite 505
          Minneapolis, MN 55414
          Tel: 612-594-5999
          Fax: 612-584-4470
          Email: jhashmall@bm.net

                - and –
   
          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          Moshe O. Boroosan, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Tel: 929-575-4175
          Fax: 929-575-4195
          Emails: Edward@cml.legal


IDT CORP: Arbitration in Samara Suit Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------
IDT Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2020, that the arbitration
proceedings in the class action suit initiated by Scarleth Samara
remains ongoing.

On April 12, 2019, Scarleth Samara filed a putative class action
against IDT Telecom in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana alleging certain violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

Plaintiff alleges that in October of 2017, IDT Telecom sent
unauthorized marketing messages to her cellphone.

IDT Telecom filed a motion to compel arbitration.

On or about August 19, 2019, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss the
pending court action and the parties intend to proceed with
arbitration.

IDT said, "At this stage, the Company is unable to estimate its
potential liability, if any. The Company intends to vigorously
defend the claim."

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

IDT Corporation operates primarily in the telecommunications and
payment industries in the United States and internationally. The
company operates in two segments, Telecom & Payment Services, and
net2phone-Unified Communications as a Service. IDT Corporation was
founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.


IDT CORP: Stipulation of Dismissal Entered in Sanchez Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
IDT Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2020, that IDT Telecom and Jean
Carlos Sanchez have entered into a stipulation of dismissal of the
putative class action lawsuit initiated by Jean Carlos Sanchez.

On May 2, 2018, Jean Carlos Sanchez filed a putative class action
against IDT Telecom in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois alleging that the Company sent unauthorized
marketing messages to cellphones in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

On July 26, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal.

The Company is evaluating the claim, and at this stage, is unable
to estimate its potential liability, if any. The Company intends to
vigorously defend this matter.

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

IDT Corporation operates primarily in the telecommunications and
payment industries in the United States and internationally. The
company operates in two segments, Telecom & Payment Services, and
net2phone-Unified Communications as a Service. IDT Corporation was
founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.


IDT CORP: Units Continue to Defend Rosales Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
IDT Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2020, that IDT Domestic Telecom
and IDT International continue to defend a putative class action
suit initiated by Jose Rosales.

On January 22, 2019, Jose Rosales filed a putative class action
against IDT America, IDT Domestic Telecom and IDT International in
California state court alleging certain violations of employment
law.

Plaintiff alleges that these companies failed to compensate members
of the putative class in accordance with California law.

The Company is evaluating the claims, and at this stage, is unable
to estimate its potential liability, if any.

The Company intends to vigorously defend the claims.

In August 2019, the Company filed a cross complaint against Rosales
alleging trade secret and other violations.

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

IDT Corporation operates primarily in the telecommunications and
payment industries in the United States and internationally. The
company operates in two segments, Telecom & Payment Services, and
net2phone-Unified Communications as a Service. IDT Corporation was
founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.


IEC CORPORATION: Enriched by Federal Student Loans, Britt Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
KAREEM BRITT and MONIQUE LAURENCE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. IEC CORPORATION d/b/a INTERNATIONAL
EDUCATION CORPORATION and IEC US HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a FLORIDA
CAREER COLLEGE, Case No. 0:20-cv-60814-RKA (S.D. Fla., April 20,
2020), alleges that the Defendants have substantially damaged their
own students and enriched themselves in the process in connection
with the making of federal student loans for enrollment at FCC or
for the provision of educational services by FCC in violation of
the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs contend that FCC is a private, for-profit vocational
school that operates multiple campuses in Florida and Texas that
purport to offer career training to students; in reality, FCC is a
sham. They add that FCC employs high pressure sales tactics to
enroll as many students as possible in order to profit from their
federal student loans and grants without providing the experience
or career opportunities it promises. This scheme operates to the
substantial detriment of students looking for career training as a
way to improve their financial prospects.

According to the most recent 2015 Gainful Employment data from the
Department of Education, almost all FCC programs evaluated failed
the metric measuring whether graduates' earnings are sufficient to
pay their loans after covering their basic needs. According to
College Scorecard data measured in 2016 and 2017, the median
earnings for students were low. For example, for students, who
attended the FCC Lauderdale Lakes and Orlando campuses in 2014-2015
and 2015-2016, their median earnings ranged only between $12,800
and $24,500.

Kareem Britt is a resident of Miramar, Florida. He enrolled in the
Heating, Ventilation and Air Condition program at FCC's Lauderdale
Lakes campus in 2018. He completed his program in 2019. Mr. Britt
is Black.

Monique Laurence is a resident of Bradenton, Florida. She enrolled
in the Medical Assistant program at FCC's Orlando campus in 2017
and graduated with her diploma in 2018. Ms. Laurence is Latina and
White.

IEC Corporation is the parent company of various for-profit
colleges, including FCC, UEI College, United Education Institute
College, and U.S. Colleges. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam M. Schachter, Esq.
          Brian W. Toth, Esq.
          Andrew J. Fuller, Esq.
          GELBER SCHACHTER & GREENBERG, P.A.
          1221 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2010
          Miami, Florida 33131
          Telephone: (305) 728-0950
          E-mail: afuller@gsgpa.com
                  aschachter@gsgpa.com
                  btoth@gsgpa.com

               - and -

          Toby Merrill, Esq.
          Eileen Connor, Esq.
          Emmanuelle Verdieu, Esq.
          Margaret O'Grady, Esq.
          LEGAL SERVICES CENTER OF HARVARD LAW SCHOOL
          122 Boylston Street
          Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
          Telephone: (617) 390-2576
          E-mail: tomerrill@law.harvard.edu
                  econnor@law.harvard.edu
                  everdieu@law.harvard.edu
                  mogrady@law.harvard.edu

               - and -

          Zachary S. Bower, Esq.
          Caroline F. Bartlett, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO P.C.
          Security Building
          117 NE 1st Avenue
          Miami, FL 33132-2125
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          E-mail: zbower@carellabyrne.com
                  cbartlett@carellabyrne.com


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Appeal in Marentes Class Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the appeal from a
trial court decision in the class action suit entitled, Marentes v.
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., is ongoing.  

On April 30, 2012, a purported class action was filed entitled
Marentes v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., alleging that certain
loan modification activities of the Company constitute an unfair
business practice, false advertising and marketing, and that the
fees charged are improper.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages, restitution, injunctive
relief, attorney's fees and prejudgment interest. On August 22,
2012, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding Impac
Funding Corporation as a defendant and on October 2, 2012, the
plaintiffs dismissed Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., without
prejudice.

On January 11, 2019, the trial court determined that the plaintiffs
were unable to prove their case and ordered that judgment be
entered in favor of the defendant.  

On April 19, 2019, the plaintiffs filed their Notice of Appeal and
the plaintiffs filed their opening brief on October 31, 2019.  

The Company filed its response on February 19, 2020.

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. operates as an independentresidential
mortgage lender in the United States. It operates through three
segments: Mortgage Lending, Real Estate Services, and Long-Term
Mortgage Portfolio. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. was founded in
1995 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Appeal in Timm Class Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the appeal from a
court ruling in the purported class action suit entitled, Timm, v.
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc, et al., is still pending.

On December 7, 2011, a purported class action was filed in the
Circuit Court of Baltimore City entitled Timm, v. Impac Mortgage
Holdings, Inc, et al. alleging on behalf of holders of the
Company's 9.375% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock
(Preferred B) and 9.125% Series C Cumulative Redeemable Preferred
Stock (Preferred C) who did not tender their stock in connection
with the Company's 2009 completion of its Offer to Purchase and
Consent Solicitation that the Company failed to achieve the
required consent of the Preferred B and C holders, the consents to
amend the Preferred stock were not effective because they were
given on unissued stock (after redemption), the Company tied the
tender offer with a consent requirement that constituted an
improper "vote buying" scheme, and that the tender offer was a
breach of a fiduciary duty.

The action seeks the payment of two quarterly dividends for the
Preferred B and C holders, the unwinding of the consents and
reinstatement of the cumulative dividend on the Preferred B and C
stock, and the election of two directors by the Preferred B and C
holders. The action also seeks punitive damages and legal expenses.


On July 16, 2018, the Court entered a Judgement Order whereby it
(1) declared and entered judgment in favor of all defendants on all
claims related to the Preferred C holders and all claims against
all individual defendants thereby affirming the validity of the
2009 amendments to the Series B Articles Supplementary; (2)
declared its interpretation of the voting provision language in the
Preferred B Articles Supplementary to mean that consent of
two-thirds of the Preferred B stockholders was required to approve
the 2009 amendments to the Preferred B Articles Supplementary,
which consent was not obtained, thus rendering the amendments
invalid and leaving the 2004 Preferred B Articles Supplementary in
effect; (3) ordered the Company to hold a special election within
sixty days for the Preferred B stockholders to elect two directors
to the Board of Directors pursuant to the 2004 Preferred B Articles
Supplementary (which Directors will remain on the Company's Board
of Directors until such time as all accumulated dividends on the
Preferred B have been paid or set aside for payment); and, (4)
declared that the Company is required to pay three quarters of
dividends on the Preferred B stock under the 2004 Articles
Supplementary (approximately, $1.2 million, but did not order the
Company to make any payment at this time).

The Court declined to certify any class pending the outcome of
appeals and certified its Judgment Order for immediate appeal.  

On October 2, 2019, the appellate court held oral argument for all
appeals in the matter. On February 5, 2020, the Special Court of
Appeals requested that the parties provide a supplemental
memorandum explaining the appealability of the original circuit
court opinion which the Company responded to on February 21, 2020.


Impac said, "To date, the Court has yet to opine on the
appealability issue or the oral arguments and related briefs."

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. operates as an independentresidential
mortgage lender in the United States. It operates through three
segments: Mortgage Lending, Real Estate Services, and Long-Term
Mortgage Portfolio. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. was founded in
1995 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Trial in Consolidated Suit Set for Sept. 8
----------------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the class action
suits entitled, McNair v. Impac Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall
Mortgage and Batres v. Impac Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall Mortgage,
have been consolidated.  The Court has set a scheduled trial date
of September 8, 2020.  

On September 18, 2018, a purported class action was filed in the
Superior Court of California, Orange County, entitled McNair v.
Impac Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall Mortgage.   

The plaintiff contends the defendant did not pay the plaintiff and
purported class members overtime compensation, provide required
meal and rest breaks, or provide accurate wage statements.   

The action seeks damages, restitution, penalties, interest,
attorney's fees, and all other appropriate injunctive, declaratory,
and equitable relief.  

On March 8, 2019, a First Amended Complaint was filed, which added
a claim alleging PAGA violations.  

On March 12, 2019, the parties filed a stipulation with the court
stating (1) the plaintiff's individual claims should be arbitrated
pursuant to the parties' arbitration agreement, (2) the class
claims should be struck from the First Amended Complaint, and (3)
the plaintiff will proceed solely with regard to her PAGA claims.  


Impac said, "This case was consolidated with Batres v. Impac
Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall Mortgage with a scheduled trial date of
September 8, 2020.

On December 27, 2018, a purported class action was filed in the
Superior Court of California, Orange County, entitled Batres v.
Impac Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall Mortgage.   

The plaintiff contends the defendant did not pay the plaintiff and
purported class members overtime compensation, provide required
meal and rest breaks, or provide accurate wage statements.   

The action seeks damages, restitution, penalties, interest,
attorney's fees, and all other appropriate injunctive, declaratory,
and equitable relief.  

On March 14, 2019, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
alleging only a violation of the California Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act seeking penalties, attorneys' fees, and such
other appropriate relief.  

This case was consolidated with the McNair v. Impac Mortgage Corp.
dba CashCall Mortgage with a scheduled trial date of September 8,
2020.

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. operates as an independent
residential mortgage lender in the United States. It operates
through three segments: Mortgage Lending, Real Estate Services, and
Long-Term Mortgage Portfolio. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


INTERNATIONAL MONEY: In Talks Over Settlement of Sawyer Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
International Money Express, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the Company
and Stuart Sawyer have entered into a term sheet providing the
general terms for the settlement of the putative class action
suit.

On May 30, 2019, Stuart Sawyer filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida asserting a claim under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Section 227, et seq., based on
allegations that since May 30, 2015, the Company had sent text
messages to class members’ wireless telephones without their
consent.

At mediation held on October 7, 2019, the Company and the plaintiff
entered into a term sheet providing the general terms for the
settlement of the action, which is subject to memorialization in a
definitive agreement and subsequent Court approval.

The terms of the settlement provide for resolution of Mr. Sawyer's
TCPA claims and the claims of a class of similarly situated
individuals, as defined in the complaint, who received text
messages from the Company during the period May 30, 2015 through
October 7, 2019, and for the creation of a $3.25 million settlement
fund that will be used to pay all class member claims, class
counsel's fees and the costs of administering the settlement.

The settlement agreement will establish procedures for the
notification of claimants and the processing of claims. The
settlement fund will be managed by a duly-appointed settlement
administrator which will be authorized to communicate with class
members, process claims and make payments from the fund in
accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement and the final
judgment in the case.

No amount of the settlement fund will revert to Intermex; instead,
any unclaimed funds will be sent to a consumer advocacy
organization approved by the Court. Once executed, the settlement
agreement will be contingent upon the Court's final approval which
is expected to be obtained in due course.

International Money said, "The settlement amount of $3.25 million
and related legal expenses of $0.4 million are included in accrued
and other liabilities in the consolidated balance sheet as of
December 31, 2019 and other selling, general and administrative
expenses in the consolidated statements of operations and
comprehensive income (loss), respectively, for the year ended
December 31, 2019."

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

International Money Express, Inc., through its subsidiary, operates
as a money remittance services company in the United States, Latin
America, Mexico, Central and South America, and the Caribbean. The
company offers remittance services, including a suite of ancillary
financial processing solutions and payment services. It provides
services through sending and paying agents and company-operated
stores, as well as through online and Internet-enabled mobile
devices. The company was formerly known as FinTech Acquisition
Corp. II. International Money Express, Inc. is headquartered in
Miami, Florida.


JANI-KING FRANCHISING: Misclassifies Cleaners, Palmer Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
BRENDA PALMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JANI-KING FRANCHISING, INC., TLS CLEANING
SERVICE, LLC, and TOREON SEARS, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-00481-ACA (N.D. Ala., April 10, 2020) is a collective
action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Amended Migrant
Workers Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a Cleaner within the three
years.

According to the complaint, Defendants promised to pay Plaintiff
and other similarly situated Cleaners a monthly salary of $280.00
which does not compensate them at the lawful minimum wage for all
hours they worked. Because they were misclassified by Defendants as
exempt from the FLSA, Defendants failed to pay them all the wages
they earned from working 21 to 28 hours per week.

Toreon Sears is the owner, principal, director, and/or officer of
TLS Cleaning Service.

TLS Cleaning Service is a franchise of Jani-King.

Jani-King Franchising, Inc. provides tailored janitorial services
and commercial cleaning for offices, hospitals, restaurants and
most other venues. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jon C. Goldfarb, Esq.
          WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS
          FISHER & GOLDFARB, LLC
          301 19th Street North
          Birmingham, AL
          Tel: (205)314-0188
          Fax: (205)254-1500
          Email: jcg@wigginschilds.com

                - and –

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


JET AUTOMOTIVE: Rivera Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kennis Rivera and Ada Mejia, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated employees v. JET AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES, LLC, and
ANTHONY KOROLEV, Case No. 1:20-cv-01037-JKB (D. Md., April 21,
2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, statutory damages,
interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and all other relief
as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the
Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment and
Collection Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs regularly worked more
than forty hours per week during their employment with the
Defendants. However, the Plaintiffs were not paid for all hours
worked over 40 and were not paid at the proper rate for hours
worked over forty in a work week. The Defendants willfully and
intentionally did not pay the Plaintiffs one and a half times their
regular hourly rate for hours worked over 40 in a work week.

The Plaintiffs were former employees of the Defendants working as
automobile detailers.

Jet Auto is a corporation formed and existing under the laws of the
State of Maryland, operating auto dealers in the Washington
Metropolitan area.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          T. Christine Pham, Esq.
          Michael J. March, Esq.
          ROSENBERG MARTIN GREENBERG, LLP
          25 South Charles Street, 21st Floor
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Phone: (410) 727-6600
          Facsimile: (410) 727-1115
          Email: cpham@rosenbergmartin.com
                 mmarch@rosenbergmartin.com


JONES FINANCIAL: Appeal in Anderson Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 12, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that
the appeal in the putative class action suit entitled, Anderson, et
al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al., is still pending.

On March 30, 2018, Edward Jones and its affiliated entities and
individuals were named as defendants in a putative class action
(Anderson, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.  

The lawsuit was brought under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended (the "Securities Act"), and the Exchange Act, as well as
Missouri and California law and alleges that the defendants
inappropriately transitioned client assets from commission-based
accounts to fee-based programs.  

The plaintiffs requested declaratory, equitable, and exemplary
relief, and compensatory damages.  

On July 9, 2019, the district court entered an order dismissing the
lawsuit in its entirety without prejudice. On July 29, 2019, the
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which eliminated
certain affiliated entities and individuals as defendants, withdrew
the claims under the Securities Act, added claims under the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the "Investment
Advisers Act"), and certain additional state law claims, and
reasserted the remaining claims with modified allegations.  

In response to the amended complaint, the defendants filed a motion
to dismiss.  

In the plaintiffs' opposition brief filed on September 9, 2019, the
plaintiffs withdrew their Investment Advisers Act claims.  

On November 12, 2019 the district court granted defendants' motion
to dismiss the second amended complaint and entered judgment in
favor of defendants.  

On December 11, 2019, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
district court's order dismissing the case.  

Edward Jones and its affiliated entities and individuals deny the
allegations and intend to continue to vigorously defend this
lawsuit on appeal.

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

The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary,
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered
broker-dealer. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded
in 1871 and is based in Des Peres, Missouri.


JONES FINANCIAL: Appeals Court Declines Petition for Rehearing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 12, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that
the objector's petition for rehearing on a court of appeals
decision affirming a lower court order approving the settlement in
the consolidated class action suit entitled, McDonald v. Edward D.
Jones & Co., L.P., et al., has been denied.

On August 19, 2016, JFC, Edward Jones and certain other defendants
were named in a putative class action lawsuit (McDonald v. Edward
D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri brought under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, by a
participant in the Edward D. Jones & Co. Profit Sharing and 401(k)
Plan (the "Retirement Plan").  

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to Retirement Plan participants and seeks declaratory and
equitable relief and monetary damages on behalf of the Retirement
Plan.  

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the McDonald lawsuit which
was granted in part dismissing the claim against JFC, and denied in
part as to all other defendants on January 26, 2017.

On November 11, 2016, a substantially similar lawsuit (Schultz, et
al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) was filed in the same
court.  

The plaintiffs consolidated the two lawsuits by adding the Schultz
plaintiffs to the McDonald case, and the Schultz action was
dismissed.  

The plaintiffs filed their first amended consolidated complaint on
April 28, 2017. On December 13, 2018, the court entered a
preliminary order approving a class action settlement agreement
reached among the parties.

Following a fairness hearing held on April 18, 2019, the court
entered judgment on April 22, 2019 in which it granted final
approval of the settlement, effected a full release of claims by
the settlement class in favor of the defendants, and dismissed the
consolidated lawsuit with prejudice.  

On June 14, 2019, the lone objector filed an appeal to the judgment
approving the settlement.

On January 31, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit denied the appeal and affirmed the district court's
approval of the class action settlement and denied the objector's
appeal.  

On February 6, 2020, the objector petitioned the Court of Appeals
for a rehearing, which was denied on March 3, 2020.

The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary,
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered
broker-dealer. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded
in 1871 and is based in Des Peres, Missouri.


JONES FINANCIAL: Approval of Watson Settlement Pending
------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 12, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that
the plaintiffs in Watson, et al. v. The Jones Financial Companies
L.L.L.P., et al., are awaiting the court's approval of a proposed
class action settlement.   

On April 25, 2019, Edward Jones and JFC were named as defendants in
a putative class action (Watson, et al. v. The Jones Financial
Companies L.L.L.P., et al.) filed by two former financial advisors
in the Superior Court of the State of California, Sacramento
County.  

Plaintiffs allege that defendants did not reimburse financial
advisors and financial advisor trainees in California for certain
categories of business expenses, which plaintiffs allege violates
the California Labor Code and California Unfair Competition Law.  

The lawsuit seeks damages and restitution as well as attorneys'
fees and costs and equitable and injunctive relief.  

On February 19, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking the
court's approval of a proposed class action settlement reached by
the parties.  

The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary,
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered
broker-dealer. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded
in 1871 and is based in Des Peres, Missouri.


JONES FINANCIAL: Bland Class Suit Over Race Bias Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 12, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that
the company continues to defend a discrimination class action suit
entitled, Bland v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.

On May 24, 2018, Edward Jones and JFC were named as defendants in a
putative class action lawsuit (Bland v. Edward D. Jones & Co.,
L.P., et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois by a former financial advisor.  

An amended complaint was filed on September 24, 2018, under 42
U.S.C. Section 1981, alleging that the defendants discriminated
against the former financial advisor and financial advisor trainees
on the basis of race.  

On November 26, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint adding an allegation of discrimination of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The lawsuit seeks equitable and injunctive relief, as well as
compensatory and punitive damages.  

Edward Jones and JFC deny the allegations and intend to vigorously
defend this lawsuit.

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

The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary,
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered
broker-dealer. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded
in 1871 and is based in Des Peres, Missouri.


JONES FINANCIAL: Renewed Motion to Dismiss Bland Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 12, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that
the defendants in the class action suit entitled, Bland, et al. v.
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P, et al., have filed a renewed motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.  

On March 13, 2018, JFC and Edward Jones were named as defendants in
a purported collective and class action lawsuit (Bland, et al. v.
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P, et al.) filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois by four former
financial advisors.  

The lawsuit was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act as well
as Missouri and Illinois law and alleges that the defendants
unlawfully attempted to recoup training costs from departing
financial advisors and failed to pay all overtime owed to financial
advisor trainees among other claims.  

The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory
and liquidated damages.  

JFC and Edward Jones deny the allegations and intend to vigorously
defend against the allegations in this lawsuit.

On March 19, 2019, the court entered an order granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss all claims, but permitting the
plaintiffs to amend and re-file certain of their claims.  

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 3, 2019.

Defendants have filed a renewed motion to dismiss that amended
complaint.

The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary,
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered
broker-dealer. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded
in 1871 and is based in Des Peres, Missouri.


LADENBURG THALMANN: Court Approves Settlement in ARCP-Related Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 13, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that a
trial court has issued an order approving the parties' settlement
in the consolidated class action suit against the company and
American Realty Capital Partners, Inc. ("ARCP").

In December 2014 and January 2015, two purported class action suits
were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against American Realty Capital Partners, Inc.
("ARCP"), certain affiliated entities and individuals, ARCP's
auditing firm, and the underwriters of ARCP's May 2014 $1,656,000
common stock offering ("May 2014 Offering") and three prior note
offerings.

A consolidated complaint was filed in September 2016. Ladenburg was
named as a defendant as one of 17 underwriters of the May 2014
Offering and as one of eight underwriters of ARCP's July 2013
offering of $300,000 in convertible notes.

The complaint alleged, among other things, that the offering
materials were misleading based on financial reporting of expenses,
improperly-calculated AFFO (adjusted funds from operations), and
false and misleading Sarbanes-Oxley certifications, including
statements as to ARCP's internal controls, and that the
underwriters are liable for violations of federal securities laws.


The plaintiffs sought an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, as well as other relief.

In June 2016, the court denied the underwriters' motions to dismiss
the complaint. In August 2017, the court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

In September 2019, the parties entered into a stipulation of
settlement of all claims, which provides for no contribution from
the underwriters, including Ladenburg.

In January 2020, the court issued an order approving the parties'
settlement.

Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. operates as a
diversified financial services company in the United States.
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. was founded in 1876 and
is headquartered in Miami, Florida.


LADENBURG THALMANN: Faces Class Suits Related to Proxy Statement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 13, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that
the company has been named as a defendant in several purported
class action suits related to its preliminary proxy statement.

In December 2019, five purported class action shareholder actions
were filed against the Company and its former directors: three in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, one in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, and one in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware.

The complaints allege, among other former things, that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by disseminating a
preliminary proxy statement that omitted or misrepresented material
information concerning: management projections, valuation analyses,
the sales process, and the potential conflicts of interest faced by
the members of the Board and the executive officers of the
Company.

Each complaint seeks, among other things, an order preliminarily
and permanently enjoining the merge until the allegedly omitted
information is disclosed, rescission of the merger or an award of
damages.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims.

Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. operates as a
diversified financial services company in the United States.
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. was founded in 1876 and
is headquartered in Miami, Florida.


LADENBURG THALMANN: Suits Against Miller Remanded to State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 13, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that a
trial court has issued an order rrmanding two class action suits
against the company and Miller Energy Resources, Inc., to state
court.

In November 2015, two purported class action complaints were filed
in the Circuit Court for Morgan County, Tennessee (Ninth Judicial
District) against Miller Energy Resources, Inc. ("Miller"),
officers, directors, auditors and nine firms that underwrote six
securities offerings in 2013 and 2014, which offerings raised
approximately $151,000.

Ladenburg was one of the underwriters of two of the offerings.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the offering
materials were misleading based on the purportedly overstated
valuation of certain assets, and that the underwriters are liable
for violations of federal securities laws.

Also, a purported class action was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee in May 2016
alleging similar claims. T

he plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages,
as well as other relief.

In December 2015 the defendants removed the complaints to the
federal court in Tennessee; in November 2016, the cases were
consolidated. In August 2017, the court granted in part and denied
in part the underwriters' motion to dismiss the complaint.

In December 2019, the court issued an order remanding to state
court the two suits that were initially filed in state court.

Ladenburg intends to vigorously defend against these claims.

Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. operates as a
diversified financial services company in the United States.
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. was founded in 1876 and
is headquartered in Miami, Florida.


LAKSHMI LLC: Fails to Pay Accurate Wages, Alexander Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, KRISTEN ALEXANDER, and all other employees or former
employees of the Defendant, similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v.
LAKSHMI, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-00494-HNJ (N.D. Ala.,
April 13, 2020) arises from Defendant's alleged willful violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a cashier from April 2019 to
December 7, 2019.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff was receiving overtime for
hours worked more than 40 for a week during her early employment
with Defendant. However, Defendant decided to decrease Plaintiff's
hourly rate when Plaintiff complained that Defendant no longer
paying her overtime. Because Plaintiff was very upset, he locked up
and left the store which consequently made Defendant to retaliate,
falsely accused Plaintiff of stealing, and did not pay Plaintiff
her last paycheck.

Allegedly, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff a minimum wage for the
last week she worked. Also, Plaintiff's time records shows that
Defendant only paid her straight time in cash for hours worked over
forty.

Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid wages, overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and other relief due
under the provisions of the FLSA.

Lakshmi, LLC provides cement bag production line construction
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Teri Ryder Mastando, Esq.
          Eric J. Artrip, Esq.
          MASTANDO & ARTRIP, LLC
          301 Washington St., Suite 302
          Hunstville, AL 35801
          Tel: (256)532-2222
          Fax: (256)513-7489
          Emails: teri@mastandoartrip.com
                  artrip@mastandoartrip.com


LEXICON PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Manopla Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion to
dismiss filed in the class action suit entitled, Daniel Manopla v.
Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lonnel Coats, Jeffrey L. Wade and
Pablo Lapuerta, M.D., is still pending.  

On January 28, 2019, a purported securities class action complaint
captioned Daniel Manopla v. Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lonnel
Coats, Jeffrey L. Wade and Pablo Lapuerta, M.D. was filed against
the Company and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.

A first amended complaint was filed on July 30, 2019 and Lexicon
filed a motion to dismiss such first amended complaint on September
30, 2019.

The plaintiff filed an opposition to Lexicon's motion to dismiss on
November 14, 2019 and Lexicon filed a reply in support of its
motion to dismiss on December 13, 2019.

The lawsuit purports to be a class action brought on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's securities during the period from March
11, 2016 through July 29, 2019.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements and/or omissions concerning data from its Phase 3
clinical trials of sotagliflozin in type 1 diabetes patients and
the prospects of FDA approval of sotagliflozin for the treatment of
type 1 diabetes.

The complaint purports to assert claims for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

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

Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on the development and commercialization of pharmaceutical
products. Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is
headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas.


LHC GROUP: Stone Seeks Unpaid OT Wages for Home Health Aides
------------------------------------------------------------
MARJORIE STONE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. LHC GROUP, INC., and CAMBRIDGE HOME HEALTH CARE, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00742 (N.D. Ohio, April 6, 2020) is a
collective and class action complaint brought against Defendants
for their alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standard
Acts, the Ohio Wage Act, and the Ohio Prompt Payment Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an hourly and non-exempt
Home Health Aide beginning in or around August 2012 until November
4, 2019 at Defendant's Cambridge Home Health facility located in
Marion, Ohio.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40
hours per week but was not paid one and one-half her regular rate
for all hours worked over 40 during her employment with Defendants.
Allegedly, Defendants failed to pay overtime compensation to
Plaintiff and the Class Members.

LHC Group, Inc. and Cambridge Home Health Care, Inc. provide home
healthcare services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Tel: 614-949-1181
          Fax: 614-386-9964
          Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
                 agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com


LINEAGE CELL: Continues to Defend Ross Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Lineage Cell Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
ocntinues to defend a class action suit related to Asterias
Biotherapeutics, Inc.'s merger, entitled, Ross v. Lineage Cell
Therapeutics, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2019-0822.

On March 8, 2019, the company acquired Asterias Biotherapeutics,
Inc. via merger (the "Asterias Merger"). In the acquisition, each
outstanding share of Asterias common stock was converted into 0.71
Lineage common shares.

On October 14, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
challenging the Asterias Merger.

This action (captioned Ross v. Lineage Cell Therapeutics, Inc., et
al., C.A. No. 2019-0822) was filed in Delaware Chancery Court and
names Lineage, the Asterias board of directors, one member of
Lineage’s board of directors, and certain stockholders of both
Lineage and Asterias as defendants.

The action was brought by a purported stockholder of Asterias, on
behalf of a putative class of Asterias stockholders, and asserts
breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting claims under
Delaware law.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the process leading
up to the Asterias Merger was conflicted, that the Asterias Merger
consideration was inadequate, and that the proxy statement filed by
Asterias with the Commission omitted certain material information,
which allegedly rendered the information disclosed materially
misleading.

The complaint seeks, among other things, that a class be certified,
the recovery of monetary damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Lineage believes the allegations in the action lack merit and
intends to vigorously defend the claims asserted.

Lineage said, "It is impossible at this time to assess whether the
outcome of this proceeding will have a material adverse effect on
Lineage’s consolidated results of operations, cash flows or
financial position. Therefore, in accordance with ASC 450,
Contingencies, Lineage has not recorded any accrual for a
contingent liability associated with this legal proceeding based on
its belief that a liability, while possible, is not probable nor
estimable, and any range of potential contingent liability amounts
cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. Lineage records legal
expenses as incurred."

Lineage Cell Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology
company developing novel cell therapies for unmet medical needs.
The company's focus is to develop therapies for degenerative
retinal diseases, neurological conditions associated with
demyelination, and aiding the body in detecting and combating
cancer. The company is based in Carlsbad, California.


LINEAGE CELL: Says Lampe Class Suit Concluded
---------------------------------------------
Lineage Cell Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the class action
suit entitled, Lampe v. Asterias Biotherapeutics, Inc. et al., Case
No. RG19007391, has been concluded.

On March 8, 2019, the company acquired Asterias Biotherapeutics,
Inc. via merger (the "Asterias Merger"). In the acquisition, each
outstanding share of Asterias common stock was converted into 0.71
Lineage common shares.

On February 19, 2019, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed (captioned Lampe v. Asterias Biotherapeutics, Inc. et
al., Case No. RG19007391) in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Alameda challenging the Asterias Merger.

On March 1, 2019, Asterias made certain amendments and supplements
to its public disclosures regarding the Asterias Merger (the
"Supplemental Disclosures").

On May 3, 2019, an amended class action complaint was filed. The
Amended Complaint named Lineage, Patrick Merger Sub, Inc., the
Asterias board of directors, one member of Lineage's board of
directors, and certain stockholders of both Lineage and Asterias.

The action was brought by two purported stockholders of Asterias,
on behalf of a putative class of Asterias stockholders, and
asserted breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting claims
under Delaware law.

The Amended Complaint alleged, among other things, that the process
leading up to the Asterias Merger was conflicted and inadequate,
and that the proxy statement filed by Asterias with the Commission
omitted certain material information, which allegedly rendered the
information disclosed materially misleading.

The Amended Complaint sought, among other things, that a class be
certified, the recovery of monetary damages, and attorneys' fees
and costs.

On June 3, 2019, defendants filed demurrers to the Amended
Complaint. On August 13, 2019, the parties submitted a stipulation
to the court seeking dismissal of the action with prejudice as to
the named Plaintiffs and without prejudice as to the unnamed
putative class members, and disclosing to the court the parties'
agreement to resolve, for $200,000, Plaintiffs' claim for an award
of attorneys' fees and expenses in connection with the purported
benefit conferred on Asterias stockholders by the Supplemental
Disclosures.

The court granted the stipulation and dismissed the action August
14, 2019.

Lineage continues to believe that the claims and allegations in the
action lack merit, but believed that it was in Lineage's
shareholders' best interest for the action to be dismissed and to
resolve the fee claim in a timely manner without additional costly
litigation expenses.

Lineage Cell Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology
company developing novel cell therapies for unmet medical needs.
The company's focus is to develop therapies for degenerative
retinal diseases, neurological conditions associated with
demyelination, and aiding the body in detecting and combating
cancer. The company is based in Carlsbad, California.


LIPOCINE INC: Continues to Defend Abady Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Lipocine Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a purported shareholder class action suit entitled, olomon
Abady v. Lipocine Inc. et al., 2:19-cv-00906-PMW.  

On November 14, 2019, the Company and certain of its officers were
named as defendants in a purported shareholder class action
lawsuit, Solomon Abady v. Lipocine Inc. et al., 2:19-cv-00906-PMW,
filed in the United District Court for the District of Utah.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that the company's
filing of the New Drug Application (NDA) for TLANDO to the FDA
contained deficiencies and as a result the defendants' statements
about our business and operations were false and misleading and/or
lacked a reasonable basis in violation of federal securities laws.


The lawsuit seeks certification as a class action (for a purported
class of purchasers of the Company's securities from March 27, 2019
through November 8, 2019), compensatory damages in an unspecified
amount, and unspecified equitable or injunctive relief.

Lipocine said, "We have insurance that covers claims of this
nature."

Lipocine inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on
applying oral drug delivery technology for the development of
pharmaceutical products in the area of men's and women's health.


LUCKIN COFFEE: IPO Documents Misleading, Wai Chun Shek Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
WAI CHUN SHEK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. LUCKIN COFFEE INC., JENNY ZHIYA
QIAN, CHARLES ZHENGYAO LU, REINOUT HENDRIK SCHAKEL, JINYI GUO, JIAN
LIU, HUI LI, ERHAI LIU, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, MORGAN
STANLEY & CO. LLC, CHINA INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL CORP. HONG KONG
SECURITIES LTD., HAITONG INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES COMPANY LIMITED,
KEYBANC CAPITAL MARKETS INC., and NEEDHAM & COMPANY, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02977 (S.D.N.Y., April 10, 2020) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated purchasers of the publicly traded securities of
Luckin Coffee Inc. between May 17, 2019 and January 31, 2020,
alleges that the Defendants issued materially false and misleading
registration statements in connection with Luckin Coffee's initial
public offerings in May 2019 and in January 2020. The Defendants'
material misrepresentations and/or omissions resulted to the
artificial price inflation of the company's securities, which
caused losses and damages to the Plaintiff and Class members as
they should have purchased the securities at lower prices.

Luckin Coffee Inc. is a Chinese coffee company and coffeehouse
chain based in Xiamen, China.

Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC is a financial services company
located in New York, New York.

Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC is a New York City-based financial
services company.

China International Capital Corp. Hong Kong Securities Ltd. is a
Beijing, China-based financial services company.

Haitong International Securities Co. Ltd. is a stock brokerage firm
and investment bank based in Hong Kong.

Keybanc Capital Markets Inc. is a Cleveland, Ohio-based company
that provides investment advisory services.

Needham & Company, LLC is a New York-based independent investment
bank and asset management firm specializing in advisory services
and financings. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Long Z. Liu, Esq.
          Abraham S. Odabachian, Esq.
          LIU LAW INC.
          123 East Valley Boulevard, Suite 207
          San Gabriel, CA 91776
          Telephone: (626) 927-9009
          Facsimile: (815) 331-0657
          E-mail: office@theliulawfirm.com

MARK A. FIXLER: Runs a Bogus Lending Scheme, EB Pinnacle Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
EB Pinnacle Properties, LLC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MARK A. FIXLER; SHERRY FIXLER; JAG
ENTERPRISES LLC; BRIAN HOROWITZ; JACKSON-STEINEM HOLDINGS LLC; Case
No. CV 20 931993 (Ohio Com. Pleas, Cuyahoga Cty., April 21, 2020),
accuses the Defendants of running a fraudulent scheme with a
network of hard money lenders.

The Plaintiff seeks to proceed with the case as the representative
of former borrowers of Defendant Mark Fixler, who fell victim to a
fraudulent scheme run by M. Fixler, a "hard money loan broker," and
a network of "hard money lenders," including Defendants Sherry
Fixler, JAG Enterprises LLC and Brian Horowitz.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' scheme was devised to
allow them to take advantage of borrowers, particularly in
breaching M. Fixler's duty of loyalty and fiduciary duty, cutting
off borrowers' equity of redemption, quitclaiming borrowers'
properties to Defendant Jackson-Steinem Holdings LLC and selling
the foreclosed properties for the outstanding lien amounts, a
fraction of the fair market value.

In 2018, Pinnacle, through loan broker M. Fixler, borrowed $60,000
from S. Fixler and JAG, giving three investment properties as
security: 21801 Fuller Avenue, in Euclid, Ohio; 3247 W. 114th
Street, in Cleveland, Ohio; and 3346 W. 129th Street, in Cleveland,
Ohio. Ellis, as sole member of Pinnacle, executed a Power of
Attorney for each property appointing M. Fixler as agent, who in
turn was acting as agent for the lender. The POA was recorded
simultaneously with the mortgage (the "JAG Loan").

In 2019, Plaintiff Pinnacle, through loan broker M. Fixler,
borrowed $60,000 from Defendant Horowitz, giving three investment
properties as security: 4420 Sackett Avenue, in Cleveland, Ohio;
3385 W. 44th Street, in Cleveland, Ohio; and 3356 W. 44th Street,
in Cleveland, Ohio. Ellis, as sole member of Pinnacle, executed a
POA for each property appointing M. Fixler as agent, who in turn
was acting as agent for the lender. The POA was recorded
simultaneously with the mortgage (the "Horowitz Loan").

According to the complaint, Defendants S. Fixler and JAG did not
give Pinnacle or Ellis notice of default of the JAG Loan or
Horowitz Loan. Instead, S. Fixler and JAG obtained three separate
cognovit judgments in the Lake County Court of Common Pleas from
May 29, 2019, through January 27, 2020, against Pinnacle. On March
4, 2020, Defendant Jackson-Steinem sold the six Pinnacle properties
to Family Time for the loan balances of approximately $98,000. The
fair market value for these properties was approximately $716,000.
Pinnacle contends it had approximately $618,000 in equity in the
six properties yet received nothing from the proceeds of this
sale.

Plaintiff EB Pinnacle Properties LLC is an Ohio corporation, which
obtained a hard money loan from S. Fixler, JAG, and Horowitz via
hard money broker M. Fixler.

Mark Fixler is an Ohio resident, who acted as a hard money loan
broker, who facilitated loans between hard money lenders and
borrowers for a fee.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Claire I. Wade-Kilts, Esq.
          Sean H. Sobel, Esq.
          SOBEL, WADE & MAPLEY, LLC
          2460 Fairmount Boulevard, Ste. 314
          Cleveland, OH 44106
          Phone: (216) 223-7213
          Fax: (216) 223-7213
          Email: wade@swmlawfirm.com
                 sobel@swmlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Christian E. Carson, Esq.
          CARSON LAW FIRM LLC
          2618 North Moreland Blvd.
          Cleveland, OH 44120
          Phone: (216)352-4243
          Fax: (216)539-8137
          Email: christian@lawcarson.com


MDL 2445: Daubert Briefing Ongoing in Suboxone Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Daubert briefing
has commenced in the class action suit entitled, In re Suboxone
(Buprenorphine Hydrochloride and Naloxone) Antitrust Litigation,
MDL No. 2445.  

On September 22, 2016, forty-one states and the District of
Columbia, or the States, brought suit against Indivior and the
company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, alleging violations of federal and state antitrust
statutes and state unfair trade and consumer protection laws
relating to Indivior's launch of Suboxone Sublingual Film in 2010
and seeking an injunction, civil penalties, and disgorgement.

After filing, the case was consolidated for pre-trial purposes with
the In re Suboxone (Buprenorphine Hydrochloride and Naloxone)
Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2445, or the Suboxone MDL, a
multidistrict litigation relating to putative class actions on
behalf of various private plaintiffs against Indivior relating to
its launch of Suboxone Sublingual Film.

While the company was not named as a defendant in the original
Suboxone MDL cases, the action brought by the States alleges that
the company participated in an antitrust conspiracy with Indivior
in connection with Indivior's launch of Suboxone Sublingual Film
and engaged in related conduct in violation of federal and state
antitrust law.

The company moved to dismiss the States' conspiracy claims, but by
order dated October 30, 2017, the Court denied the company's motion
to dismiss. The company filed an answer denying the States' claims
on November 20, 2017.

The fact discovery period closed July 27, 2018, but the parties
agreed to conduct certain fact depositions in August 2018. The
expert discovery phase closed May 30, 2019, but additional reports
and depositions were conducted through August 1, 2019.  Daubert
briefing is ongoing.  

The remainder of the case schedule, including summary judgment
briefing, is stayed pending resolution of Indivior's appeal of the
district court's class certification ruling in a co-pending
multi-district litigation to which the company is not a party.  

Aquestive said, "We are not able to determine or predict the
ultimate outcome of this proceeding or provide a reasonable
estimate, or range of estimates, of the possible outcome or loss,
if any, in this matter."

Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
focuses on identifying, developing, and commercializing various
products to address unmet medical needs. The Company markets
Sympazan, an oral soluble film formulation of clobazam for the
treatment of lennox-gastaut syndrome; Suboxone, a sublingual film
formulation of buprenorphine and naloxone for the treatment of
opioid dependence; and Zuplenz, an oral soluble film formulation of
ondansetron for the treatment of nausea and vomiting associated
with chemotherapy and post-operative recovery in the United States
and internationally. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in
2004 and is headquartered in Warren, New Jersey.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Court Approves $80-Mil. Owens Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that a trial
court has approved a settlement in which Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company agreed to pay $80 million to resolve the claims
of all class members, in Owens v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company (N.D. Ga., filed April 17, 2014).

Plaintiff filed this class action lawsuit on behalf of persons for
whom Metropolitan Life Insurance Company established a Total
Control Account ("TCA") to pay death benefits under an ERISA plan.
The action alleged that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's use
of the TCA as the settlement option for life insurance benefits
under some group life insurance policies violated Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company's fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

On September 27, 2016, the court denied Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company's summary judgment motion in full and granted plaintiff’s
partial summary judgment motion. On September 29, 2017, the court
certified a nationwide class.

On November 19, 2019, the court approved a settlement in which
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company agreed to pay $80 million to
resolve the claims of all class members.

Metropolitan Life said, "The settlement does not include or
constitute an admission, concession, or finding of any fault,
liability, or wrongdoing by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.
The Company accrued the full amount of the settlement payment in
prior periods and the payment was made."

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, together with its
subsidiaries, provides insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and
asset management services in the United States. The company was
incorporated in 1868 and is based in New York, New York.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a subsidiary of MetLife,
Inc.


MOBILE MINI: Plumley Securities Suit Balks at Sale to WillScot
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Plumley, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. MOBILE MINI, INC., ERIK OLSSON, FREDERICK G. MCNAMEE,
JEFFREY S. GOBLE, JAMES J. MARTELL, KIMBERLY J. MCWATERS, LAWRENCE
TRACHTENBERG, MICHAEL L. WATTS, SARA R. DIAL, STEPHEN A. MCCONNELL,
MICHAEL W. UPCHURCH, KELLY WILLIAMS, WILLSCOT CORPORATION, and
PICASSO MERGER SUB, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00528-UNA (D. Del.,
April 21, 2020), stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to
which Mobile Mini will be acquired by WillScot Corporation and
Picasso Merger Sub, Inc.

On March 1, 2020, Mobile Mini's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
WillScot. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Mobile
Mini's stockholders will receive 2.4050 shares of Parent common
stock for each share of Mobile Mini common stock they own. Upon the
closing of the Proposed Transaction, shareholders of Parent will
own approximately 54% of the combined company and shareholders of
Mobile Mini will own approximately 46% of the combined company.

On April 17, 2020, the Defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff contends
that the the Registration Statement omits material information with
respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration
Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(in connection with the Registration Statement.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Registration Statement omits
material information regarding the Company's, WillScot's, and the
combined company's financial projections, as wells as the analyses
performed by the Company's financial advisors in connection with
the Proposed Transaction, Barclays Capital Inc. and Goldman Sachs &
Co. LLC.

The omissions and false and misleading statements in the
Registration Statement are material in that a reasonable
stockholder will consider them important in deciding how to vote on
the Proposed Transaction, says the complaint. The Registration
Statement is an essential link in causing the Plaintiff and the
Company's stockholders to approve the Proposed Transaction. Because
of the false and misleading statements in the Registration
Statement, the Plaintiff and the Class are threatened with
irreparable harm.

The Plaintiff is the owner of Mobile Mini common stock.

Mobile Mini is a provider of portable storage solutions through its
total rental fleet of approximately 200,200 storage solutions
containers and office units, and a provider of tank and pump
solutions in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


MTA: Valdes Seeks OT Pay for Subway Train Operators
---------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN VALDES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY and
NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01771
(E.D.N.Y., April 10, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants
for their failure to compensate Plaintiff and Class members for all
hours worked at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate
of pay during weeks in which they worked in excess of 40 hours a
week in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendants as a subway train
operator from on or about March 25, 2013 until the present.

Metropolitan Transportation Authority is a public benefit
corporation and a domestic government entity duly organized and
existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

New York City Transit Authority is a public transportation operator
and a domestic government entity duly organized and existing under
and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neil H. Greenberg, Esq.
          NEIL H. GREENBERG & ASSOCIATES PC
          4242 Merrick Road
          Massapequa, NY 11758
          Telephone: (516) 228-5100
          E-mail: nhglaw@nhglaw.com

MUDRICK CAPITAL: Faces Putative Class Suit in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------
Mudrick Capital Acquisition Corporation said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 12, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that
the company and Hycroft Mining Corporation have been named as
defendants in a purported class action suit in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware.

On February 7, 2020, a purported class action complaint was filed
by a purported holder of warrants, of Hycroft Mining Corporation
("Seller"), in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
against the Company and Seller.

The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that the transactions
contemplated under the Purchase Agreement constitute a "Fundamental
Change" under the terms of the Seller warrant agreement and thereby
requiring that the Seller warrants be assumed by the Company as
part of the business combination, in addition to asserting claims
for (i) breach or anticipatory breach of contract against Seller,
(ii) breach or anticipatory breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing against Seller, and (iii) tortious
interference with contractual relations against the Company.

The complaint seeks unspecified money damages and also seeks an
injunction enjoining Seller and the Company from consummating the
business combination.

On February 26, 2020, the Company and Seller entered into an
Amendment to the Purchase Agreement whereby the Seller's
liabilities and obligations under the Seller warrant agreement
shall be included as Parent Assumed Liability under the Purchase
Agreement.

Mudrick Capital Acquisition Corporation is a blank check company
formed as a Delaware corporation for the purpose of effecting a
merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase,
reorganization or similar business combination with one or more
businesses, which the company refers to throughout this Report as
our initial business combination. The company is based in New York,
New York.


NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS: Court Mulls Dismissal of Investors Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Enriquez v. Nabriva Therapeutics plc et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-04183 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Victor Marrero on April 28,
2020, accepted a pre-motion letter filed by defendants Nabriva
Therapeutics plc, Ted Schroeder, Gary Sender, and Jennifer Schranz
seeking to dismiss the complaint.  The Court ordered the Plaintiff
Jonathan Schaeffer to show cause why this case should not be
dismissed with prejudice within 20 days from the entry of this
Order.

Nabriva Therapeutics plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that on May 8, 2019, a
putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and its
Chief Executive Officer in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned Larry Enriquez v. Nabriva
Therapeutics PLC, and Ted Schroeder, No. 19-cv-04183.

The complaint purported to be brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the Company's securities between November 1, 2018 and
April 30, 2019. The complaint generally alleged that the Company
and its Chief Executive Officer violated Sections 10(b) and/or
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading
statements and omitting to disclose material facts concerning the
Company's submission of a New Drug Application (NDA) to the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) for marketing approval of CONTEPO for
the treatment of cUTI in the United States and the likelihood of
such approval.

The complaint sought unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, and
other costs.

On May 22, 2019, a second putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
captioned Anthony Manna v. Nabriva Therapeutics PLC, and Ted
Schroeder, No. 19-cv-04713.

The complaint purported to be brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the Company's securities between November 1, 2018 and
April 30, 2019. The allegations made in the Manna complaint were
similar to those made in the Enriquez complaint, and the Manna
complaint sought similar relief.

On May 24, 2019, these two lawsuits were consolidated by the court.
The court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved plaintiff's
selection of lead counsel on July 22, 2019.

On September 23, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding
the Company's Chief Financial Officer and Chief Medical Officer as
defendants; the amended complaint purports to be brought on behalf
of shareholders who purchased the Company's securities between
January 4, 2019 through April 30, 2019, and otherwise includes
allegations similar to those made in the original complaints and
seeks similar relief.

The Company's pre-motion letter to dismiss the amended complaint
was due to plaintiff on October 21, 2019, and plaintiff responded
to the Company via a letter on November 4, 2019.

On November 18, 2019, the Company filed a pre-motion letter to
dismiss with the Court, seeking leave to move to dismiss and
setting forth why a motion to dismiss is warranted.

The Company denies any and all allegations of wrongdoing and
intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. The Company is
unable, however, to predict the outcome of this matter at this
time.

Nabriva said, "Moreover, any conclusion of this matter in a manner
adverse to the Company and for which it incurs substantial costs or
damages not covered by the Company's directors' and officers'
liability insurance would have a material adverse effect on its
financial condition and business. In addition, the litigation could
adversely impact the Company's reputation and divert management's
attention and resources from other priorities, including the
execution of its business plan and strategies that are important to
the Company's ability to grow its business, any of which could have
a material adverse effect on the Company's business."

Nabriva Therapeutics plc, a biopharmaceutical company, engages in
the research and development of anti-infective agents to treat
infections in humans. The company was formerly known as Nabriva
Therapeutics Forschungs GmbH and changed its name to Nabriva
Therapeutics plc in 2007. Nabriva Therapeutics plc was incorporated
in 2005 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


NATURAL ENERGY: Sizemore Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erick Sizemore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NATURAL ENERGY FIELD SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-00586-AJS (W.D. Pa., April 21, 2020), is brought to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act.

The Plaintiff asserts that he and the other workers like him
regularly worked for the Defendant in excess of 40 hours each week.
These workers never received overtime for hours worked in excess of
40 hours in a single workweek, and they were paid a day-rate, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff Sizemore worked for the Defendant from March 2017 until
April 2018 as a pipeline coating and corrosion inspector.

NEFS "provides qualified and responsive inspection services
utilizing proven personnel."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: 713-352-1100
          Facsimile: 713-352-3300
          Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                 adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

          Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
          GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
          3634 California Ave.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Phone: (412) 766-1455
          Fax: (412)766-0300
          Email: josh@goodrichandgeist.com


NEW YORK: Aboubakar et al. Allege Jail Overcrowded, Dirty
---------------------------------------------------------
OLALEKAN ABOUBAKAR, CHRISTIAN BATISTA, BRIDGET CAPOBIANCO, ANATOLIY
ELKIN, JAMEL LOFTIN, BRANDON WINN, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated, and DAVID AVRAHAM, LEONARD BRUCE, TROY
DANIELS, DANIELA GONZALEZ, RODDRICK INGRAM, ANDREW LEE, SIDNEY
LOUIS, Plaintiffs v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, CAPTAIN WILLIAM TOBIN,
LIEUTENANT THOMAS BOUYER, SERGEANT KELLEY SEALY, CAPTAIN JOHN
MARCHICA, ASSISTANT CHIEF GARY STREBEL, ASSISTANT CHIEF DONNA
JONES, JOHN/JANE DOES 1-5, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-01716-ARR-RLM (E.D.N.Y., April 7, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violation of the Due Process Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Plaintiffs and Class members allege that the Defendants
subjected them to inhumane conditions of confinement while they
were pre-arraignment detainees in Brooklyn Central Booking, a New
York City Police Department holding facility located at the
Criminal Courthouse, 120 Schermerhorn Street in Brooklyn, on
separate dates from 2017 to 2019. The inhumane conditions that they
experienced include overcrowding, unsanitary toilets, garbage and
inadequate sanitation, infestation, lack of toiletries and other
hygienic items, inadequate nutrition and water, extreme
temperatures and poor ventilation, sleep deprivation and crime and
intimidation.

The City of New York is a municipal corporation organized under the
laws of the State of New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard Cardinale, Esq.
          335 Adams Street, Suite # 2703
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (718) 624-9391
          E-mail: richcardinale@gmail.com

               - and -
          
          Stephen Bergstein, Esq.
          BERGSTEIN & ULLRICH
          5 Paradies Lane
          New Paltz, NY 12561
          Telephone: (845) 469-1277
         
               - and -
          
          Scott A. Korenbaum, Esq.
          11 Park Place, Suite # 914
          New York, NY 10007          
          Telephone: (212) 587-0018
         
               - and -
          
          Jason L. Solotaroff, Esq.
          GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP
          90 Broad Street, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 847-8315

NEW YORK: Discriminates Female Firefighters, Feeley Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Feeley alleges that she and other nursing employees within
the Fire Department City of New York experienced employment
discrimination and adverse treatment including implementing
discretionary, subjective protocols and treatment that disfavors
nursing mothers, regularly subjecting nursing mothers to
retaliatory actions, and regularly failing to make reasonable
accommodations.  She seeks to represent all female employees who
have or will be employed with Defendant The City of New York and
assigned to the Fire Department City of New York from August 15,
2007, to the date of judgment who have the need or chooses to
express milk during work hours.

VANESSA FEELEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK; MICHAEL
RUBENS BLOOMBERG, as Former Mayor; BILL de BLASIO, as Mayor; MARTHA
H. HIRST, as Former Commissioner - Department of Citywide
Administrative Services; EDNA WELLS HANDY, as Former Commissioner -
Department of Citywide Administrative Services; STACEY CUMBERBATCH,
as Former Commissioner - Department of Citywide Administrative
Services; LISETTE CAMILO, as Commissioner - Department of Citywide
Administrative Services; NICHOLAS SCOPPETTA, as Former Commissioner
- Fire Department City of New York; SALVATORE CASSANO, as Former
Commissioner - Fire Department City of New York; DANIEL A. NIGRO,
as Commissioner, Fire Department City of New York; MARK ARONBERG,
as Assistant Commissioner, Fleet Services Division, Fire Department
City of New York; ANDY DIAMOND, as Executive Director, Fleet
Services Division, Fire Department City of New York; LOUIS
MORBELLI, as Director, Fleet Services Division, Fire Department
City of New York; HUGH MCALLISTER, as Deputy Director, Fleet
Services Division, Fire Department City of New York and PATRICK
MURPHY, as Supervisor, Fleet Services Division, Fire Department
City of New York each sued individually and in their official
capacities as employees of Defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01770 (E.D.N.Y., April 10, 2020) is a
class action against the Defendants pursuant to Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1871, the New
York State Executive Law Section 296, and the New York City
Administrative Code Sections 8-107.

The City Of New York is a municipal government. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric Sanders, Esq.
          THE SANDERS FIRM PC
          30 Wall Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 652-2782
          Facsimile: (212) 652-2783

NEXTIER OILFIELD: Continues to Defend C&J Merger-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nextier Oilfield Solutions Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend class action suits related to its merger with
C&J Energy Services, Inc.

On June 16, 2019, the Company entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") among the Company, C&J Energy
Services, Inc. (C&J) and King Merger Sub Corp. ("Merger Sub").

In connection with the Merger Agreement and the transactions
contemplated thereby the following complaints have been filed: (i)
one putative class action complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado by a purported C&J
stockholder on behalf of himself and all other C&J stockholders
(excluding defendants and related or affiliated persons) against
C&J and members of the C&J board of directors, (ii) two putative
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware by a purported C&J stockholder
on behalf of himself and all other C&J stockholders (excluding
defendants and related or affiliated persons) against C&J, members
of the C&J board of directors, the Company and Merger Sub, (iii)
one putative class action complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas by a purported
stockholder of the Company on behalf of himself and all other
stockholders of the Company (excluding defendants and related or
affiliated persons) against the Company and members of its board of
directors, and (iv) one putative class action was filed in the
Delaware Chancery Court by a purported stockholder of the Company
on behalf of himself and all other stockholders of the Company
(excluding defendants and related or affiliated persons) against
members of the Company's board of directors.

The five stockholder actions are captioned as follows: Palumbos v.
C&J Energy Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02386 (D.
Colo.), Wuollet v. C&J Energy Services, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-01411 (D. Del.), Plumley v. C&J Energy Services, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01446 (D. Del.), Bushansky v. Keane Group,
Inc. et al., Case No. 4:19-cb-02924 (S.D. Tex) and Woods v. Keane
Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2019-0590 (Del. Chan.) (collectively,
the "Stockholder Actions").

In general, the Stockholder Actions allege that the defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, or aided and
abetted in such alleged violations, because the Registration
Statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC on July 16, 2019 in
connection with the proposed C&J Merger allegedly omitted or
misstated material information.

The Stockholder Actions seek, among other things, injunctive relief
preventing the consummation of the C&J Merger, unspecified damages
and attorneys' fees. C&J, the Company and the other named
defendants believe that no supplemental disclosures were required
under applicable laws; however, to avoid the risk of the
Stockholder Actions delaying the C&J Merger and to minimize the
expense of defending the Stockholder Actions, and without admitting
any liability or wrongdoing, C&J and the Company filed a Form 8-K
on October 11, 2019 making certain supplemental disclosures in
connection with the C&J Merger.

Following those supplemental disclosures, plaintiffs in the Woods
and Bushansky actions voluntarily dismissed their claims as moot on
October 16, 2019 and October 29, 2019, respectively.

The defendants have not yet answered or otherwise responded to the
complaints in the remaining Stockholder Actions, but the Company
continues to believe that the allegations therein lack merit and no
supplemental disclosures were required under applicable law, and
intends to defend itself vigorously.

Nextier Oilfield Solutions Inc. provides oilfield services. The
Company offers drilling and other related solutions such as
developing, delivering, management, and engineering activities.
Nextier Oilfield Solutions serves customers in the United States.
The company is based in Houston, Texas.


OCULAR THERAPEUTIX: Appeal in DEXTENZA Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Ocular Therapeutix, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the appeal in the
class action suit related to DEXTENZA is pending.

On July 7, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the company and certain of its current and former executive
officers in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, captioned Thomas Gallagher v. Ocular Therapeutix, Inc,
et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-05011.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the company's common stock between May 5, 2017 and July
6, 2017. The complaint generally alleges that the company and
certain of its current and former officers violated Sections 10(b)
and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making
allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the Form
483 issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) related to
DEXTENZA and the company's manufacturing operations for DEXTENZA.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, and other
costs.  

On July 14, 2017, an amended complaint was filed; the amended
complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the company's common stock between May 5, 2017 and July
11, 2017, and otherwise includes allegations similar to those made
in the original complaint.

On July 12, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the company and certain of its current and former executive
officers in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, captioned Dylan Caraker v. Ocular Therapeutix, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:17-cv-05095.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the company's common stock between May 5, 2017 and July
6, 2017. The complaint includes allegations similar to those made
in the Gallagher complaint and seeks similar relief.

On August 3, 2017, a third putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the company and certain of its current and former executive
officers in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, captioned Shawna Kim v. Ocular Therapeutix, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:17-cv-05704.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the company's common stock between March 10, 2016 and
July 11, 2017.

The complaint includes allegations similar to those made in the
Gallagher complaint and seeks similar relief.

On October 27, 2017, a magistrate judge for the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the
defendants' motion to transfer the above-referenced Gallagher,
Caraker, and Kim litigations to the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts.  

These matters were assigned the following docket numbers in the
District of Massachusetts: 1:17-cv-12288 (Gallagher), 1:17-cv-12146
(Caraker), and 1:17-cv-12286 (Kim).

On March 9, 2018, the court consolidated the three actions and
appointed co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel for the
consolidated action. On May 7, 2018, co-lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint. The amended complaint
makes allegations similar to those in the original complaints,
against the same defendants, and seeks similar relief on behalf of
shareholders who purchased the company's common stock between March
10, 2016 and July 11, 2017.  

The amended complaint generally alleges that defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

On July 6, 2018, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to
the motion to dismiss on September 4, 2018, and defendants filed a
reply on October 4, 2018.  

The court held oral argument on the motion to dismiss on February
6, 2019. By order dated April 30, 2019, the court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss.

On May 31, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit regarding the
District Court's opinion and order of dismissal of the Complaint.
The plaintiffs/appellants filed their opening brief on the appeal
on October 23, 2019.

Defendants/appellees filed their response on November 22, 2019.  

Plaintiffs/appellants filed their reply brief on December 13, 2019.
    

The First Circuit held an oral argument on the appeal on February
4, 2020, and took the matter under advisement.

Ocular said, "We deny any allegations of wrongdoing and intend to
vigorously defend against these lawsuits."

Ocular Therapeutix, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on
the formulation, development, and commercialization of therapies
for diseases and conditions of the eye using its bioresorbable
hydrogel platform technology. Ocular Therapeutix, Inc. was founded
in 2006 and is headquartered in Bedford, Massachusetts.


OPUS BANK: Parshall Securities Suit Challenges Sale to Pacific
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Parshall, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. OPUS BANK, PAUL G. GREIG, PAUL W. TAYLOR, MARSHA
CAMERON, MELANIE S. CIBIK, MARK DEASON, MAL DURKEE, DAVID KING,
MARY E. THIGPEN, RICHARD C. THOMAS, PACIFIC PREMIER BANCORP, INC.,
and PACIFIC PREMIER BANK, Case No. 1:20-cv-00536-UNA (D. Del.,
April 21, 2020), stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to
which Opus Bank will be acquired by Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation, and Pacific Premier Bank.

On January 31, 2020, Opus' Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Pacific Premier and
Pacific Premier Bank. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, shareholders of Opus will receive 0.90 shares of Pacific
Premier common stock for each share of Opus they own.

On April 6, 2020, the Defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
in connection with the Proposed Transaction, which scheduled a
stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction for May 5, 2020.

The Registration Statement omits material information with respect
to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration
Statement false and misleading, the Plaintiff contends.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Registration
Statement.

According to the complaint, the Registration Statement omits
material information regarding Opus's and Pacific Premier's
financial projections; omits material information regarding the
financial analyses performed by Piper; and fails to disclose the
exchange ratio proposed by Party A in February or March 2019.

The omissions and false and misleading statements in the
Registration Statement are material in that a reasonable
stockholder will consider them important in deciding how to vote on
the Proposed Transaction, the Plaintiff asserts. The Registration
Statement is an essential link in causing the Plaintiff and the
Company's stockholders to approve the Proposed Transaction. Because
of the false and misleading statements in the Registration
Statement, the Plaintiff and the Class are threatened with
irreparable harm, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is the owner of Opus common stock.

Opus provides commercial and retail banking products and solutions
to its clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Utah
----------------------------------------------------------------
Overstock.com, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated class action suit in Utah.

On September 27, 2019, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed against the company and its former chief executive
officer and former chief financial officer in the United States
District Court in the Central District of Utah, alleging violations
under Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, Section 20(a), Section 20(A) of
the Exchange Act.

On October 8, 2019, October 17, 2019, October 31, 2019, and
November 20, 2019, four similar lawsuits were filed in the same
court also naming the Company and the above referenced former
executives as defendants, bringing similar claims under the
Exchange Act, and seeking similar relief.

These cases were consolidated into a single lawsuit on December 19,
2019.

No estimates of the possible losses or range of losses can be made
at this time.

Overstock.com said, "We intend to vigorously defend this
consolidated action."

Overstock.com, Inc. operates as an online retailer in the United
States and internationally. The Company was formerly known as
D2-Discounts Direct and changed its name to Overstock.com, Inc. in
October 1999.  Overstock.com, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is
headquartered in Midvale, Utah.


OZ LEASING: Halawani Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------
SHOLMY HALAWANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OZ LEASING LLC, Defendant, Case No.
CACE-20-006222 (Fla. 11th Cir., April 10, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent text messages to the
Plaintiff's cellular phone number using an automatic telephone
dialing system in an attempt to promote and market its goods and
services without obtaining the Plaintiff's written express consent.
The Defendant's misconduct caused injuries to the Plaintiff and
Class members, including invasion of their privacy, aggravation,
annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion.

Oz Leasing LLC is an automobile leasing company with a principal of
business in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 907-1136
          Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                  tom@jibraellaw.com

PDL BIOPHARMA: City of Providence Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------
PDL BioPharma, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the Company has agreed to
toll the running of statute of limitations for a limited period of
time and to respond to certain discovery requests, subject to
reasonable objections, in the suit initiated by the City of
Providence.

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

The plaintiffs claim that the settlement agreement violated the
federal Sherman Act and various state antitrust laws.

The Company was a named defendant by certain End Payor Plaintiffs
(EPPs) due to its purchase from Assertio in 2013 of a royalty asset
based on sales of Glumetza.

On January 21, 2020, the EPPs voluntarily dismissed their claims
against the Company, without prejudice.

The Company has agreed to toll the running of statute of
limitations for a limited period of time and to respond to certain
discovery requests, subject to reasonable objections.

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


PEI WEI ASIAN: Underpays General Managers, Clarke Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
SHARON CLARKE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PEI WEI ASIAN DINER, LLC, dba PEI WEI ASIAN
KITCHEN, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00800-N (N.D. Tex., April 6,
2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendant
for its alleged unlawful employment practice in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a General Manager in
Celebration, Florida from approximately December 6, 2017 to
September 6, 2018.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and all other similarly
situated General Managers regularly worked for Defendant and for
Defendant's benefit in excess of 40 hours per workweek without
receiving overtime compensation.

Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.

Pei Wei Asian Diner, LLC operates approximately 200 restaurants
nationwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and –

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 North Orange Ave., Suite 1600
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Tel: (407)420-1414
          Fax: (407)245-3401
          Email: rmorgan@forthepeople.com

                - and –

          Ashley M. Landers, Esq.
          Andrew H. Stuart, Esq.
          STUART & JOHNSTON, LLC
          3343 Peachtree Road NE, Suite 530
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Tel: (404)662-2620
          Fax: (404)935-6194
          Email: ashley@stuartandjohnston.com
                 astuart@stuartandjohnston.com


PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Burgos Seeks Refund of Tuition Fee
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LOURDES BURGOS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, Case No.
1:20-cv-03143 (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2020), seeks a refund of tuition
and fees for in-person educational services, facilities, access
and/or opportunities that the Defendant has not provided.

is brought on behalf of all people, who paid tuition and fees for
the Spring 2020 academic semester at Penn State, and who, because
of the Defendant's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, lost the
benefit of the education for which they paid, and/or the services
or which their fees were paid, without having their tuition and
fees refunded to them.

According to the complaint, as a result of the closure of its
facilities, the Defendant has not delivered the educational
services, facilities, access and/or opportunities that she and the
putative class contracted and paid for. The online learning options
being offered to Penn State students are subpar in practically
every aspect, from the lack of facilities, materials, and access to
faculty. Students have been deprived of the opportunity for
collaborative learning and in-person dialogue, feedback, and
critique. The remote learning options are in no way the equivalent
of the in-person education that Plaintiff and the putative class
members contracted and paid for.

On March 18, 2020, Penn State announced that the "remote-delivery
period" for all classes would continue through at least the end of
the Spring Semester 2020. All on-campus student sponsored events
and activities were also canceled. Penn State has not held any
in-person classes since March 6, 2020. Classes that have continued
have only been offered in an online format, with no in-person
instruction.

On March 11, 2020, Penn State, through a news release, announced
that because of the global COVID-19 pandemic, all in-person classes
would be suspended through April 3, 2020. The announcement informed
students that beginning March 16, 2020, classes would instead be
held remotely through online formats.

The lawsuit seeks a refund of tuition and fees for in-person
educational services, facilities, access and/or opportunities that
Defendant has not provided. Even if the Defendant claims it did not
have a choice in canceling in-person classes, it nevertheless has
improperly retained funds for services it is not providing.

Penn State is a public university, with an enrollment of over
98,000 students. The University offers 160 degree options for
undergraduate students as well as more than 190 graduate programs.
Penn State also operates an online program called Penn State World
Campus which offers more than 150 online undergraduate case and
graduate degree programs. Over 14,000 students are currently
enrolled in Penn State's World Campus.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
          Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com
                  swestcot@bursor.com


PERSONAL TOUCH: Booker Sues Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------
Lugenia Booker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Personal Touch Holding Corp. and Crossroads
Technologies, Inc. Defendants., Case No. 20-cv-00583 (M.D. Penn.,
April 6, 2020), seeks restitution and disgorgement of revenues
wrongfully retained equitable and injunctive relief, statutory
damages, treble damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and
all other relief resulting from negligence, invasion of privacy,
breach of implied and express contract, breach of fiduciary duty,
breach of physician-patient confidentiality and for violation of
the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection
Law

Personal Touch is a nationwide network of home health care
providers, operating through a network of subsidiaries and
affiliate business entities that are each licensed in the state in
which services are provided. Personal Touch patients provide
private information as part of the registration process of which
Crossroads maintained the cloud where the data was stored.

Sometime in December 2019, ransomware was deployed on Crossroads'
hosted electronic medical records system  containing protected
health information of 156,409 patients. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
      David C. Magagna, Jr., Esq.
      LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP
      510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
      Philadelphia, PA 19106
      Tel: (215) 592-1500
      Fax: (215) 592-4663
      Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
             dmagagna@lfsblaw.com

             - and -

      Gary E. Mason, Esq.
      David K. Lietz, Esq.
      MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
      5101 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Ste. 305
      Washington, DC 20016
      Phone: (202) 640-1160
      Email: gmason@masonllp.com
             dlietz@masonllp.com

             - and -

      Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
      MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
      227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
      Chicago, IL 60630
      Tel: (312) 283-3814
      Email: gklinger@masonllp.com


POLARITYTE INC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Litigation Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
PolarityTE, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that no order has been issued
with regards to the company's motion to dismiss the class action
suit entitled, In re PolarityTE, Inc. Securities Litigation.

On June 26, 2018, a class action complaint alleging violations of
the Federal securities laws was filed in the United States District
Court, District of Utah, by Jose Moreno against the Company and two
directors of the Company, Case No. 2:18-cv-00510-JNP (the "Moreno
Complaint").

On July 6, 2018, a similar complaint was filed in the same court
against the same defendants by Yedid Lawi, Case No.
2:18-cv-00541-PMW (the "Lawi Complaint").

Both the Moreno Complaint and Lawi Complaint allege that the
defendants made or were responsible for, disseminating information
to the public through reports filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission and other channels that contained material
misstatements or omissions in violation of Sections 10 and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 adopted thereunder.

Specifically, both complaints allege that the defendants
misrepresented the status of one of the Company's patent
applications while touting the unique nature of the Company’s
technology and its effectiveness.

Plaintiffs are seeking damages suffered by them and the class
consisting of the persons who acquired the publicly traded
securities of the Company between March 31, 2017, and June 22,
2018. Plaintiffs have filed motions to consolidate and for
appointment as lead plaintiff.

On November 28, 2018, the Court consolidated the Moreno and Lawi
cases under the caption In re PolarityTE, Inc. Securities
Litigation, and requested the appointment of the plaintiff in Lawi
as the lead plaintiff.

On January 16, 2019, the Court granted the motion of Yedid Lawi for
appointment as lead plaintiff, and on February 1, 2019, the Court
granted the lead plaintiff's motion for approval of lead counsel
and liaison counsel. The Court also ordered that the lead plaintiff
file and serve a consolidated complaint no later than 60 days after
February 1, 2019.

The Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on Aril 2, 2019,
and asserted essentially the same violations of Federal securities
laws recited in the original complaints.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on
June 3, 2019. Plaintiffs' opposition to the Company's motion to
dismiss was filed on August 2, 2019, and the Company filed a reply
to the opposition on September 13, 2019. A hearing on the Company's
motion to dismiss was held on November 19, 2019; no order has been
issued to date.

At this early stage of the proceedings the Company is unable to
make any prediction regarding the outcome of the litigation.

PolarityTE, Inc., a biotechnology and regenerative biomaterials
company, focuses on discovering, designing, and developing a range
of regenerative tissue products and biomaterials for the fields of
medicine, biomedical engineering, and material sciences in the
United States. The company operates in two segments, Regenerative
Medicine and Contract Services. PolarityTE, Inc. is headquartered
in Salt Lake City, Utah.


PREMIER CHEVROLET: Silva Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Silva, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. PREMIER CHEVROLET OF BUENA PARK, LLC, a California
corporation, PREMIER AUTOMOTIVE MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., a Louisiana
Corporation, dba Premier Automotive, and DOES 1-10, Case No.
2:20-cv-03671-DDP-MAA (C.D. Cal., April 21, 2020), seeks to recover
unpaid wages and penalties for violations of the Labor Code and the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants' policies are in violation of the California Labor
Code, as well as California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
Order No. 9-2001, which include: failing to pay its employees
premium wages for missed meal periods; failing to pay its employees
premium wages for missed rest periods; failing to pay its employees
minimum wage as required by California law for every hour worked;
failing to maintain accurate employment records for its employees
in California; and failing to pay its employees amounts owed at the
end of employment, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a former Automotive Technician for the Defendants
in Buena Park, California.

The Defendant operates nine automotive dealerships in
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony J. Nunes, Esq.
          NUNES WORKER RIGHTS LAW, APC
          15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Phone: 530-848-1515
          Fax: 424-252-4301
          Email: tony@nunesworkerrightslaw.com


PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MD: Seth Wants Prisoners COVID-19-Safe
--------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Seth, David Smith, Mario Burch, John Doe No. 1-5,
Individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiffs-Petitioners v. MARY LOU MCDONOUGH, In her
official capacity as Director of the Prince George's County
Department of Corrections, Defendant-Respondent, Case No.
8:20-cv-01028-PX (D. Md., April 21, 2020), seeks class-wide relief
requiring the Prince George's County Jail to take the necessary
steps to safeguard prisoners' health and safety from the COVID-19
pandemic.

A subset of the Plaintiffs also request a writ of habeas corpus for
prisoners, whose age or underlying medical conditions make them
particularly vulnerable to severe illness and death from COVID-19.

The Plaintiffs note that there is an uncontrolled outbreak of
COVID-19 at the Prince George's County Jail. They allege that the
Jail's actions fueled this outbreak, and it has also failed to take
appropriate action in response. The prisoners housed
there--predominantly pretrial detainees--are under a constant and
substantial threat of contracting the disease, and those already
infected receive grossly substandard medical treatment (if they
receive treatment at all), the Plaintiffs aver.

Because jails, prisons, and other detention and correctional
facilities are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19, the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has recommended
basic measures these facilities should take to control the spread
of the virus and treat infected prisoners--for example, providing
prisoners with free access to soap and evaluating prisoners for
symptoms. The Plaintiffs allege that the Jail has ignored these and
other public health recommendations. As a result, the nearly 600
people now imprisoned at the Jail are denied even the minimal
precautions necessary to mitigate against the risks of COVID-19.

According to the complaint, prisoners, who test positive for
COVID-19 are confined in filthy isolation cells, where the walls
are covered in feces, mucus, and blood. They are barely monitored
and receive no real treatment. By maintaining these conditions,
Defendant McDonough has needlessly exposed the people imprisoned in
the Jail to a highly infectious and potentially fatal disease. The
Plaintiffs argue this violates prisoners' Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights. The Jail also refuses to release COVID positive
prisoners--even when they have no legal basis to detain them--until
the Jail deems them non-contagious. This violates prisoners'
Fourteenth Amendment rights, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are detained pretrial at the Prince George's County
Jail.

Mary Lou McDonough is the Director of the Prince George's County
Department of Corrections. She is sued in her official
capacity.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Elizabeth Rossi, Esq.
          Katherine Chamblee-Ryan, Esq.
          Olevia Boykin, Esq.
          Ryan C. Downer, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
          1601 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 800
          Washington, DC 20009
          Phone: 610-931-7715
          Email: katie@civilrightscorps.org


RA MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Derr Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------
RA Medical Systems, Inc.  said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a putative securities class action suit entitled, Derr v.
Ra Medical Systems, Inc., et. al., (Civil Action no. 19CV1079 LAB
NLS).

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

The complaint alleged that the defendants made material
misstatements or omissions in our registration statement in
violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

On September 5, 2019, the court appointed Lead Plaintiffs. On
January 13, 2020, the Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

In addition to the Securities Act violations alleged in the
original complaint, the amended complaint alleges that the
defendants made material misstatements or omissions between
September 27, 2018 and November 27, 2019, inclusive, in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.


The defendants have until March 13, 2020 to file their responsive
pleadings or motions.

RA Medical said, "Management intends to vigorously defend against
this lawsuit. At this time, we cannot predict how a court or jury
will rule on the merits of the claims and/or the scope of the
potential loss in the event of an adverse outcome. Should we
ultimately be found liable, the liability could have a material
adverse effect on our financial condition and our results of
operations for the period or periods in which it is incurred."

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


RADIUS GLOBAL: Court Stays Class Certification Proceedings
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ANNE OʹBOYLE v. RADIUS
GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00572-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the
Hon. Judge William E. Duffin entered an order on April 8, 2020,
granting Plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings on the
motion for class certification.

The parties are relieved from the automatic briefing schedule set
forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c). Moreover, for
administrative purposes, Judge Duffin directed the Clerk of Court
to terminate the plaintiff's motion for class certification.
However, the motion will be regarded as pending to serve its
protective purpose under Damasco.

In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011),
the court suggested that class‐action plaintiffs "move to certify
the class at the same time that they file their complaint." "The
pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to
buy off the named plaintiffs." However, because parties are
generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for class
certification at the beginning of a case, the Damasco court
suggested that the parties "ask the district court to delay its
ruling to provide time for additional discovery or investigation."

On February 18, 2020, the plaintiff filed a class action complaint.
At the same time, the plaintiff filed what the court commonly
refers to as a "protective" motion for class certification. In this
motion the plaintiff moved to certify the class but also moved the
court to stay further proceedings on that motion.

Radius Global provides debt recovery services and customer contact
solutions.[CC]


REGULUS THERAPEUTICS: Asks Court for Initial Settlement Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Regulus Therapeutics Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary approval of the settlement in the consolidated
class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California remains pending.

On January 31, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed by
Baran Polat in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California, or District Court, against the company,
Paul C. Grint (the company's former Chief Executive Officer), and
Joseph P. Hagan (then the company's Chief Operating Officer and
currently the company's President and Chief Executive Officer).

The complaint includes claims asserted, on behalf of certain
purchasers of our securities, under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

In general, the complaint alleges that, between January 21, 2016,
and June 27, 2016, the defendants violated the federal securities
laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding
the company's business and the prospects for RG-101, thereby
artificially inflating the price of the company's securities.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.


On February 10, 2017, a second putative class action complaint was
filed by Li Jin in the District Court against the Company, Mr.
Hagan, Dr. Grint, and Timothy Wright, the Company's former Chief
Research and Development Officer.

The Complaint alleges claims similar to those asserted by Mr.
Polat. The actions have been related.

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

On April 3, 2017, two motions for consolidation of the two actions,
appointment of lead plaintiff and approval of counsel were filed in
the actions. On October 26, 2017, the District Court entered an
order consolidating the cases, appointing lead plaintiffs, and
appointing lead counsel for lead plaintiffs.

On December 22, 2017, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint against the Company, Dr. Grint, Mr. Hagan, and Michael
Huang (the company's former Vice President of Clinical
Development).

The consolidated complaint alleges that between February 17, 2016
and June 12, 2017, the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by making
materially false and misleading statements regarding RG-101.

The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and
an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

On February 6, 2018, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint. On March 23, 2018, plaintiff filed their
opposition to the motion and on April 24, 2018, defendants filed
their response.

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

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

On December 11, 2019, the parties entered into a stipulation and
agreement of settlement, which was amended on February 6, 2020. On
February 7, 2020, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement.

The settlement is contingent upon court approval.

Regulus said, "There can be no assurance that the case will be
settled for the amount agreed to in principle, or at all. We are
not able to predict or reasonably estimate the ultimate outcome or
possible losses relating to these claims."

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


RELIANCE WORLDWIDE: Elder Sues Over Defective SharkBite Hoses
-------------------------------------------------------------
JENE B. ELDER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. RELIANCE WORLDWIDE CORPORATION and
HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01596-ODE
(N.D. Ga., April 14, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, strict liability, unjust enrichment, and breach of
common law implied warranties.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are allegedly engaged in
deceptive selling of SharkBite Push-To-Connect Connector Hoses. The
Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-situated
consumers, purchased SharkBite Hose at a premium price due to
Defendants' representations of product reliability resulting from
an extensive testing protocol and compliance with approved industry
standards. However, contrary to the representations, the Plaintiff
claims that the Defendants have been aware for years that the
interior rubber lining used in the SharkBite Hoses is defective,
which could damage home appliances, plumbing fixtures and, worse
yet, contaminates drinking water.

Reliance Worldwide Corporation is a global provider of water
control systems and plumbing solutions for domestic, commercial and
industrial applications with principal place of business in
Atlanta, Georgia.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. is an Atlanta, Georgia-based home
improvement retailer in the United States, supplying tools,
construction products, and services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrea Hirsch, Esq.
          THE HIRSCH LAW FIRM
          230 Peachtree Street, Suite 2260
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 487-6552
          Facsimile: (678) 541-9356
          E-mail: andrea@thehirschlawfirm.com

               - and -
          
          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON PC
          10728 Lindbrook Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com

ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Ferris Sues over Securities Trading Losses
-------------------------------------------------------------
ZAK FERRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROBINHOOD SECURITIES LLC, ROBINHOOD
FINANCIAL LLC, and ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., Defendants, Case
No.5:20-cv-02594 (N.D. Cal., April 14, 2020) alleges Defendants of
fraud and deceit, violations of California Consumer Legal Remedies
Act and California's Unfair Competition Law, negligence, and breach
of fiduciary duty.

Plaintiff is a user of the Robinhood trading platform.

According to the complaint, Robinhood's platform suffered
systemwide all-day outages on several occasions in March 2020,
including during the most active trading days in market history.
Consequently, Plaintiff and other users of the platform were unable
to access their accounts and funds, and make trades.

Plaintiff asserts that Defendants failed to:

     -- provide the services as promised;

     -- create and adequate emergency plan;

     -- prevent the outages;

     -- notify Plaintiff and the Class of the possibility of the
outages; and

     -- act on the information and warnings from prior outages.

Allegedly, Defendants' unfair, fraudulent, and unlawful business
practices directly and proximately caused damage to Plaintiff and
the Class members.

Robinhood Markets, Inc. is a financial services company
headquartered in Menlo Park, California, and operates a trading app
and platform "Robinhood" with 10 million users and/or investors who
trade stocks, options, exchange-traded funds and cryptocurrency.

Robinhood Financial LLC and Robinhood Securities, LLC are
wholly-owned subsidiaries of Robinhood Markets, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel L. Germain, Esq.
          ROSMAN & GERMAIN LLP
          16311 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436-2152
          Tel: (818)788-0877
          Fax: (818)788-0885
          Email: Germain@Lalawyer.com

                - and –

          James M. Ficaro, Esq.
          THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          22 Cassatt Avenue
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Tel: (610)225-2677
          Fax: (610)408-8062
          Email: jmf@weiserlawfirm.com


ROBINSON DRILLING: Austin Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
BOBBY AUSTIN v. ROBINSON DRILLING OF TEXAS, LTD. AND ROBERT LUCAS
CROWNOVER, Case No. 5:20-cv-00083-H (N.D. Tex., April 20, 2020),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages for the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated workers under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff contends that while employed with the Defendants, he
and other workers similarly situated to him worked an approximate
minimum of 90-120 hours per week, 14 days on and 14 days off as a
Top Drive Technician. However, he alleges, they were only paid a
flat annual salary but never received overtime for all of the hours
that they worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek.

From March 2017 to January 2020, the Plaintiff worked for
Defendants as a Top Drive Technician and was designated as an
employee. The Plaintiff worked at various site locations throughout
the West Texas area. The Plaintiff's primary duty was to repair and
perform maintenance on hydraulic drills.

Robinson Drilling is an oil and energy company doing business
throughout the State of Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin W. Allen, Esq.
          Casey T. Wallace, Esq.
          440 Louisiana St., Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 227-1744
          Facsimile: (713) 227-0104
          E-mail: ballen@wallaceallen.com
                  cwallace@wallaceallen.com


ROSELAND RESIDENTIAL: Conley Appeals D. Mass. Ruling to 1st Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Ioana Conley, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling issued in the lawsuit styled Conley, et al. v. Roseland
Residential Trust, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-10629-WGY, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to recover damages and to enjoin the unfair, deceptive and
unlawful practices of the Defendant that violate Massachusetts laws
and regulations.

The Plaintiffs allege that Roseland purposefully and knowingly
violates the provisions of M.G.L. c. 186, section 22, 105 CMR
410.354(c) and 105 CMR 410.354(d) by charging for and collecting
impermissible amounts of monies for submetered gas, heat, water and
sewer service. The Conleys also claim Roseland has committed
numerous violations of M. G.L. c. 186, section l 5B stemming from
Roseland's failure to pay interest on its tenant's security
deposits as required by Massachusetts law.

The appellate case is captioned as Conley, et al. v. Roseland
Residential Trust, et al., Case No. 20-1399, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants IOANA CONLEY and ALEXANDER CONLEY, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented
by:

           Michael C. Forrest, Esq.
           Matthew T. LaMothe, Esq.
           David Relethford, Esq.
           FORREST LAMOTHE MAZOW MCCULLOUGH YASI & YASI PC
           2 Salem Green, Ste. 2
           Salem, MA 01970
           Telephone: (415) 579-9481
           Email: mforrest@forrestlamothe.com
                  mlamothe@forrestlamothe.com
                  drelethford@forrestlamothe.com

                     – and –
      
           Robert E. Mazow, Esq.
           MAZOW MCCULLOUGH PC
           10 Derby Sq., 4th Flr.
           Salem, MA 01970
           Telephone: (978) 744-8000
           Email: rem@helpinginjured.com

Defendants-Appellees ROSELAND RESIDENTIAL TRUST and REALPAGE
UTILITY MANAGEMENT INC., f/k/a NWP Services Corporation, are
represented by:

           Mathilda McGee-Tubb, Esq.
           Thomas Hoelder Wintner, Esq.
           MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY & POPEO PC
           1 Financial Ctr.
           Boston, MA 02111-0000
           Telephone: (617) 542-6000
           Email: msmcgee-tubb@mintz.com
                  twintner@mintz.com

                     – and –

           Jaikaran Singh, Esq.
           FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
           11988 El Camino Real, Ste. 400
           San Diego, CA 92130-2594
           Telephone: (858) 847-6700
           Email: jsingh@foley.com

                     - and –

           Andrew C. Yost, Esq.
           FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
           111 Huntington Ave., Ste. 2500
           Boston, MA 02199-7610
           Telephone: (617) 502-3351
           Email: ayost@foley.com


ROUNDY'S SUPERMARKETS: Underpays Managers, Depyper et al Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DAVID DEPYPER and KATE MILASHUS, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
ROUNDY'S SUPERMARKETS INC. and ROUNDY'S ILLINOIS, LLC, d/b/a
MARIANO'S, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02317 (N.D. Ill., April 14,
2020) arises from Defendants' alleged intentional, willful, and
repeated violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Act.

Plaintiffs and other persons similarly situated were employed by
Defendants as Meat Managers (MMs) and Bakery Managers (BMs).
Plaintiff DePyper was employed and permitted to work from
approximately January 2014 through January 2019 at multiple
Mariano's locations, whereas Plaintiff Milashus was from
approximately May 2018 through March 2019 at Elmhurst and
Westchester locations.

According to the complaint, Plaintiffs regularly worked in excess
of 40 hours per workweek, but were not paid overtime compensation
for the hours they worked in excess of 40. Allegedly, Defendants
misclassified all MMs and BMs and other similarly situated current
and former employees holding comparable positions but different
titles as exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA and
Illinois law.

Roundy's Supermarkets, Inc. is a grocer and wholly-owned subsidiary
of the publicly-traded Kroger Co., and operates over 150 retail
grocery stores, including over 40 Mariano's locations throughout
the Chicago land area. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          C. Andrew Head, Esq.
          Bethany Hilbert, Esq.
          HEAD LAW FIRM, LLC
          4422 N. Ravenswood Ave.
          Chicago, IL 60640
          Tel: (404) 924-4151
          Fax: (404) 796-7338
          Email: ahead@headlawfirm.com

                - and –

          Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
          Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
          Christopher M. Timmel, Esq.
          KLAFTER, OLSEN & LESSER, LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Tel: (914) 934-9200
          Fax: (914) 934-9220
          Emails: fran@klafterolsen.com
                  seth@klafterolsen.com
                  Christopher.timmel@klafterolsen.com


RUI MANAGEMENT: Underpays Debt Collectors, Watterson Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC WATTERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RUI MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. and EVAN
REITER, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01783 (E.D.N.Y., April 13,
2020) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to
compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly-situated debt
collectors the required minimum wages and overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a debt collector from
on or about February 2018 until on or about October 2018.

RUI Management Services, Inc. is a debt collection business
incorporated in the State of New York, located at 1305 Walt Whitman
Rd., Melville, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
          225 Broadway, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 323-6980
          E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com

               - and -
          
          Yale Pollack, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF YALE POLLACK PC
          66 Split Rock Rd
          Syosset, NY 11791
          Telephone: (516) 634-6340
          E-mail: ypollack@yalepollacklaw.com

SABLE PERMIAN: Underpays and Misclassifies Engineers, Clark Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
JON CLARK, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. SABLE PERMIAN RESOURCES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:20-cv-01286 (S.D. Tex., April 10, 2020) is a collective action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Completions Engineer and
Petroleum Engineer from approximately October 2018 until January
2019.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and the Putative Class
Members regularly worked more than 40 hours a week. But, instead of
paying them overtime, Defendant paid them a flat amount for each
day worked regardless of the total hours worked in a day or week.
Allegedly, Defendant classified Plaintiff and other similarly
situated workers as independent contractors and failed to pay them
overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek
throughout their employment.

Sable Permian Resources, LLC operates on the development of current
assets, and the acquisition, development, and optimization of other
oil and natural gas properties in the Permian Basin. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A, Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: 713-352-1100
          Fax: 713-352-3300
          Emails: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  tjones@mybackwages.com

                - and –

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: 713-877-8788
          Fax: 713-877-8065
          Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Bid for Class Certification Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Mississippian Trust I said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion for
class certification in the lawsuit initiated by Duane & Virginia
Lanier Trust remains pending.

On June 9, 2015, the Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust, on behalf of
itself and all other similarly situated unitholders of the Trust,
filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Trust, SandRidge
and certain current and former executive officers of SandRidge,
among other defendants (the "Securities Litigation").

The complaint asserts a variety of federal securities claims on
behalf of a putative class of (a) purchasers of common units of the
Trust in or traceable to its initial public offering on or about
April 7, 2011, and (b) purchasers of common units of SandRidge
Mississippian Trust II in or traceable to its initial public
offering on or about April 17, 2012.  

The claims are based on allegations that SandRidge and certain of
its current and former officers and directors, among other
defendants, including the Trust are responsible for making false
and misleading statements, and omitting material information,
concerning a variety of subjects, including oil and gas reserves.

The plaintiffs seek class certification, an order rescinding the
Trust's initial public offering and an unspecified amount of
damages, plus interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

As a result of its reorganization in bankruptcy in 2016, claims
against SandRidge were discharged without recovery and SandRidge
remains a nominal defendant to the extent necessary to allow
recovery from applicable insurance policies or proceeds.

On August 30, 2017, the Court entered an order dismissing the
plaintiffs' claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933. As a result of the Court's order, the only
claims remaining in the litigation are the plaintiffs' claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (the "Exchange Act Claims").


In addition, as a result of the Court's order, the only remaining
defendants in the litigation are the Trust, James D. Bennett,
Matthew K. Grubb, Tom L. Ward, and SandRidge as a nominal
defendant.

On September 11, 2017, the Court entered a subsequent order
regarding the remaining defendants' motions to dismiss the Exchange
Act Claims, finding that the plaintiffs may pursue their Exchange
Act Claims against the respective remaining defendants.

In November 2017, the plaintiffs' counsel informed counsel to the
Trust that, notwithstanding the dismissal of all claims against
SandRidge Mississippian Trust II, the remaining claims in the
litigation against the Trust are being asserted not only by
purchasers of common units of the Trust, but also by purchasers of
common units of SandRidge Mississippian Trust II.

On January 19, 2018, the Trust filed a Motion for Partial Judgment
on the Pleadings as to any claims against it brought by purchasers
of common units of SandRidge Mississippian Trust II, arguing that
non-purchasers of common units in the Trust lack statutory standing
to pursue claims against the Trust. On January 18, 2019, the Court
granted the Trust's motion dismissing claims brought by purchasers
of common units of SandRidge Mississippian Trust II.

On July 2, 2018, defendants filed a motion for partial judgment on
the pleadings, arguing that all claims asserted on behalf of the
members of the putative class are barred by the statute of
limitations.

On March 26, 2019, the Court denied the motion without prejudice
should discovery reveal a basis for again challenging the
timeliness of plaintiffs' claims.

Discovery closed on June 19, 2019. Following a hearing on class
certification on September 6, 2019, the motion for class
certification remains pending.

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

SandRidge Mississippian Trust I is a statutory trust formed under
the Delaware Statutory Trust Act pursuant to a trust agreement, as
amended and restated, by and among SandRidge Energy, Inc., as
Trustor, The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as
Trustee, and The Corporation Trust Company, as Delaware Trustee.


SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Ponsa-Rabell Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Holdings USA, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the defendants'
motion to dismiss the class action suit entitled, Jorge
Ponsa-Rabell, et. al. v. SSLLC, Civ. No. 3:17-cv-02243, is still
pending.

Santander Securities LLC (SSLLC), Santander BanCorp, Banco
Santander Puerto Rico (BSPR), the Company and Banco Santander, S.A.
(Santander) are defendants in a putative class action alleging
federal securities and common law claims relating to the
solicitation and purchase of more than $180.0 million of Puerto
Rico bonds and $101.0 million of CEFs during the period from
December 2012 to October 2013.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Puerto Rico and is captioned Jorge Ponsa-Rabell, et al.
v. SSLLC, Civ. No. 3:17-cv-02243.

The amended complaint alleges that defendants acted in concert to
defraud purchasers in connection with the underwriting and sale of
Puerto Rico municipal bonds, CEFs and open-end funds.

In May 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

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

Santander Holdings USA, Inc. operates as the holding company for
Santander Bank, National Association that provides various banking
products and services primarily in the Mid-Atlantic and
Northeastern United States. The company was founded in 1984 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Santander Holdings USA,
Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Santander, S.A.


SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Dismissed from Mexican Bonds Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Holdings USA, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company has
been dropped as a defendant in the amended complaint filed in the
class action suit entitled, In re Mexican Government Bonds
Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:18-cv-02830-JPO.  

A consolidated putative antitrust class action is pending in the
United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
captioned In re Mexican Government Bonds Antitrust Litigation, No.
1:18-cv-02830-JPO (the "MGB Lawsuit").

The MGB Lawsuit is against the Company, Santander Investment
Securities Inc. (SIS), Santander, Banco Santander (Mexico), S.A.
Institucion de Banca Multiple, Grupo Financiero Santander and
Santander Investment Bolsa, Sociedad de Valores, S.A. on behalf of
a class of persons who entered into MGB transactions between
January 1, 2006 and April 19, 2017, where such persons were either
domiciled in the United States or, if domiciled outside the United
States, transacted in the United States.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Santander
defendants and the other defendants violated U.S. antitrust laws by
conspiring to rig auctions and/or fix prices of MGBs.

On September 30, 2019, the court granted the defendants motions to
dismiss the consolidated complaint.

On December 9, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended putative class
action complaint.

The amended complaint does not name the Company or SIS as
defendants; the only Santander defendant named in the amended
complaint is Banco Santander (Mexico).

Santander Holdings USA, Inc. operates as the holding company for
Santander Bank, National Association that provides various banking
products and services primarily in the Mid-Atlantic and
Northeastern United States. The company was founded in 1984 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Santander Holdings USA,
Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Santander, S.A.


SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Merit Discovery in Deka Suit Still Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Holdings USA, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that merits discovery
in the Deka Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA
Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K lawsuit, remains stayed
until the court rules  on the issue of class certification.

Santander Consumer USA Inc. (SC) is a defendant in a purported
securities class action lawsuit (the "Deka Lawsuit") in the United
States District Court, Northern District of Texas, captioned Deka
Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et
al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K.

The Deka Lawsuit, which was filed in August 2014, was brought
against SC, certain of its current and former directors and
executive officers and certain institutions that served as
underwriters in SC's Initial Public Offering (IPO), including SIS,
on behalf of a class consisting of those who purchased or otherwise
acquired SC securities between January 23, 2014 and June 12, 2014.


The complaint alleges, among other things, that the IPO
registration statement and prospectus and certain subsequent public
disclosures violated federal securities laws by containing
misleading statements concerning SC's ability to pay dividends and
the adequacy of SC's compliance systems and oversight.

In December 2015, SC and the individual defendants moved to dismiss
the lawsuit, which was denied.

In December 2016, the plaintiffs moved to certify the proposed
classes.

In July 2017, the court entered an order staying the Deka Lawsuit
pending the resolution of the appeal of a class certification order
in In re Cobalt Int'l Energy, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. H-14-3428, 2017
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91938 (S.D. Tex. June 15, 2017).

In October 2018, the court vacated the order staying the Deka
Lawsuit and ordered that merits discovery in the Deka Lawsuit be
stayed until the court ruled on the issue of class certification.

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

Santander Holdings USA, Inc. operates as the holding company for
Santander Bank, National Association that provides various banking
products and services primarily in the Mid-Atlantic and
Northeastern United States. The company was founded in 1984 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Santander Holdings USA,
Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Santander, S.A.


SELLAS LIFE: Bid to Dismiss Suits over Abstral(R) Promos Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
SELLAS Life Sciences Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion to
dismiss the amended complaint filed in the class action suit
related to Abstral(R), is pending.  

On February 13, 2017, multiple putative shareholder securities
class action complaints were filed in federal court alleging, among
other things, that Galena and certain of its former officers and
directors failed to disclose that Galena's promotional practices
for Abstral(R) (fentanyl sublingual tablets) were allegedly
improper and that Galena may be subject to civil and criminal
liability, and that these alleged failures rendered Galena's
statements about its business misleading.

The individual actions were consolidated, lead plaintiffs were
named by the federal court and a consolidated complaint was filed.
Galena filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on
December 15, 2017.

On August 21, 2018, the company's motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint was granted without prejudice to file an
amended complaint.

On September 20, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
On October 22, 2018, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

On November 13, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey granted the company's motion to dismiss with leave to
file an amended complaint.

On December 20, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Consolidates Class Action Complaint. On January 29, 2020, the
company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

SELLAS Life Sciences Group, Inc., a clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development of novel
cancer immunotherapies for various cancer indications. SELLAS Life
Sciences Group, Inc. is headquartered in New York, New York.


SEXUAL MD: Novus Sues over Erectile Dysfunction Treatment
---------------------------------------------------------
NOVUS ANTI-AGING CENTER, INC., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEXUAL MD SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-03152 (C.D. Cal., April 3, 2020) is a
class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged
unlawful agreement to restrain trade in violation of the Sherman
Act of the U.S. Code Section 1, unfair competition in violation of
California Business and Professional Code Section 17200, and unjust
enrichment.

Novus Anti-Aging Center, Inc. is a medical clinic that treats
patients with erectile dysfunction using therapies including
extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT).

According to the complaint, Defendant SMDS engaged in an
anticompetitive scheme with third parties Tissue Regeneration
Technologies, LLC (TRT) and General Patent, LLC that harms both
doctors and patients by limiting treatment options for erectile
dysfunction. A license agreement among the three ESWT providers was
signed on or about September 17, 2018 which purpose is to
unlawfully restrict competition in the ESWT-ED Market.

The complaint asserts that the price of ESWT treatment programs has
increased and its quality has decreased for Novus and the Classes
because of the anticompetitive scheme by SMDS and TRT.

Plaintiff and members of the Classes have all suffered and will
continue to suffer, harm and damages as a result of Defendant's
unlawful and wrongful conduct.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to stop the unlawful conducts of
Defendants, actual damages, compensatory damages, equitable relief
in the form of restitution and/or disgorgement of all unlawful or
illegal profits received by Defendant, cost and expenses including
reasonable attorneys' fees, and pre- and post- judgment interest.

Sexual MD Solutions, LLC provides ESWT Programs for the treatment
of erectile dysfunction to the medical providers who treat erectile
dysfunction patients. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua M. Masur, Esq.
          Rasheed M. McWilliams, Esq.
          Jarod M. Bona, Esq.
          Jon F. Cieslak, Esq.
          ZUBER LAWLER & DEL DUCA LLP
          350 S. Grand Ave., 32nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Tel: (213) 596-5620
          Fax: (213) 596-5621
          Emails: jmasur@zuberlawler.com
                  rmcwilliams@zuberlawler.com
                  jbona@zuberlawler.com
                  jcieslak@zuberlawler.com

                - and –

          Jayashree Mitra, Esq.
          ZUBER LAWLER & DEL DUCA LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 4430
          New York, NY 10119
          Tel: (212) 899-9830
          Email: jmitra@zuberlawler.com


SHERATON OPERATING: Alvarez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as DAISY ALVAREZ, an individual
v. SHERATON OPERATING CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; MARRIOTT
INTERNATIONAL, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
20STCV10394 (Filed March 13, 2020), was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on April 20, 2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-03608-TJH-JC to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff's complaint asserts claims against the Defendants
under the Private Attorney Generals Act of 2004, California Labor
Code for failure to compensate for all hours worked; failure to pay
overtime wages; and failure to offer legally compliant meal and
rest periods.

Sheraton Operating was founded in 2006. The Company's line of
business includes operating public hotels and motels.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Greg S. Labate, Esq.
          Tyler Z. Bernstein, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993
          Telephone: 714 513 5100
          Facsimile: 714 513 5130
          E-mail: glabate@sheppardmullin.com
                  tbernstein@sheppardmullin.com


SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholder Class Suits in Calif. Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Slack Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended January 31, 2020, that the the company
continues to defend shareholder class action suits in California.

Beginning in September 2019, seven purported class action lawsuits
were filed against the company, its directors, certain of its
officers, and certain investment funds associated with certain of
its directors, each alleging violations of securities laws in
connection with its registration statement on Form S-1 filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Six of these lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of
California for the County of San Mateo and one of these lawsuits
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, or the Federal Action.

In the Federal Action, captioned Dennee v. Slack Technologies,
Inc., Case No. 3:19-CV-05857-SI, a lead plaintiff has been
appointed and the operative complaint was filed in January 2020.

The Company and the other defendants have filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint, which is scheduled to be heard in March 2020.

The six state court actions were consolidated in November 2019, and
the consolidated action is captioned In re Slack Technologies, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. 19CIV05370, or the State
Court Action.

The operative complaint was filed in the State Court Action in
December 2019, and the Company and the other defendants' demurrers
to the complaint are scheduled to be heard in April 2020.

Slack said, "We believe these lawsuits are without merit and we
intend to vigorously defend them."

Slack Technologies, Inc. is the leading channels-based messaging
platform, used by millions to align their teams, unify their
systems, and drive their businesses forward. Slack offers a secure,
enterprise-grade environment that can scale with the largest
organizations in the world.


SMILEDIRECTCLUB LLC: Rice Sues Over Unsolicited Calls & Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jackie Rice, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SMILEDIRECTCLUB, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01038-CCB (D.
Md., April 21, 2020), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of
placing calls using an "automatic telephone dialing system" to the
cellular telephones of consumers nationwide without their prior
express consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

The Plaintiff also seeks to enjoin the Defendant from continuing to
place autodialed telephone calls to consumers, who did not provide
their prior express consent to receive them; and to obtain redress
for all persons injured by its conduct.

In an attempt to market and sell their services, the Defendant
places telephone calls and sends text messages on its own behalf.
To market their products and services, the Defendant makes calls
and sends text messages to consumer cell phone numbers using its
autodialer that it does not have the proper consent for and thus
violates the TCPA.

The case addresses the Defendant's repeated pattern of practice of
calling and sending unsolicited text messages to consumers on their
cell phones using an autodialer who have no direct relationship
with the Defendant. The Defendant conducted (and continues to
conduct) a wide-scale marketing and solicitation campaign that
features the repeated making of unwanted autodialed phone calls,
and sending unwanted autodialed text messages, to consumers'
cellular telephones without consent, all in violation of the TCPA,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff Rice resides in Baltimore, Maryland.

SMILEDIRECTCLUB is a teledentistry company that produces and sells
3D-printed clear aligners online.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aimee Bader, Esq.
          ADVOCATE REAL ESTATE, LLC
          2029 Fleet Street
          Baltimore, MD 21231
          Phone: (410) 499-6793

               - and -

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Phone: (323) 306-4234


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Fails to Refund Canceled Flights, Bombin Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIAN BOMBIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Defendant,
Case No. 5:20-cv-01883 (E.D. Penn., April 13, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendant pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated individuals who purchased tickets from the
Defendant from March 1, 2020, alleges that the Defendant failed to
provide them prompt refunds for canceled flights due to COVID-19
pandemic. The Defendant only offered them credits for use on future
flight, which violates the Defendant's own Contract of Carriage and
also the enforcement notice issued by the U.S. Department of
Transportation's Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings to
air carriers requiring them to refund tickets if they cancel
flights due to the novel coronavirus.

Southwest Airlines Co. is a Dallas, Texas-based domestic air
carrier. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH LLP
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (610) 891-9880
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com

               - and -
          
          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
          Joshua R. Levine, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          1 West Las Olas Blvd. Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
          E-mail: streisfeld@kolawyers.com
                 ostrow@kolawyers.com

               - and -
          
          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com

               - and -
          
          Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
          Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW LLP
          800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 389-0600
          Facsimile: (612) 389-0610
          E-mail: mweiner@pswlaw.com
                  jbourne@pswlaw.com

               - and -
          
          Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW LLP
          15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 788-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 788-8104

STUBHUB INC: Fails to Refund Cancelled Event Tickets, Alcaraz Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JASON ALCARAZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. STUBHUB, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-02595 (N.D. Cal., April 14, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and
for breach of express warranties, negligent misrepresentation,
fraud, unjust enrichment, money had and received, and breach of
contract.

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated individuals who purchased event tickets from the
Defendant, alleges that the Defendant failed to provide them full
refunds for cancelled events due to COVID-19 pandemic. The
Defendant only offered them 120% credit to their accounts,
violating its own FanProtect Guarantee, which promises to provide a
refund to customers if the event was cancelled.

StubHub, Inc. is a San Francisco, California-based company that
operates a ticket marketplace. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Yeremey Krivoshey, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER PA
          1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  ykrivoshey@bursor.com

               - and -
          
          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER PA
          2665 S. Bayshore Dr., Suite 220
          Miami, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 330-5512
          Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
          E-mail: scott@bursor.com

TA OPERATING: Underpays Servers & Bartenders, Alvarado Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
JERAMIE ALVARADO, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs v. TA OPERATING,
LLC d/b/a TRAVEL CENTER OF AMERICA, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00797 (N.D. Ohio, April 13,
2020) is a class and collective action complaint brought against
Defendant for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and West Virginia Wage Law.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a server and bartender at
Defendant's Quaker Steak and Lube restaurant located at 45
Satterfield Dr., Triadelphia, West Virginia 26059 from 2013 until
approximately August 31, 2018.

According to the complaint, Defendant hired Plaintiff to perform
various tipped and non-tipped duties, including, but not limited
to, serving drinks and food to customers, cleaning, busing tables,
washing dishes, and other side work.

The complaint asserts that Defendant:

     -- failed to provide notice of tip credit to Plaintiff and the
Collective Members;

     -- required them labor unrelated to primary duties of tipped
occupation;

     -- required them excessive labor related to tipped
occupation;

     -- failed to pay overtime at one and one-half times their
regular rates of pay for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in a
given workweek; and

     -- failed to keep record evidencing that Plaintiff and the
Class Members earned at least $6.12 per hour in gratuities.

TA Operating, LLC owns and operates a chain of Quaker Steak & Lube
restaurants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L. Simon, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON
          5000 Rockside Road
          Liberty Plaza – Suite 520
          Independence, OH 44131
          Tel: (216)525-8890
          Email: james@bswages.com

                - and –

          Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
          Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
          BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
          P.O. Box 97066
          Phoenix, AZ 85060
          Tel AZ: (480)382-5176
          Tel OH: (216)395-4226
          Email: cliff@bswages.com


TABLESEIDE RESTAURANT: Underpays Servers, Allen Claims
------------------------------------------------------
SHANNON ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated who consent to their inclusion in a collective action,
Plaintiff v. TABLESEIDE RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, a Florida
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 8:20-cv-00843 (M.D. Fla., April
13, 2020) is a collective and class action complaint brought
against Defendant for its alleged willful and intentional
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff and members of the proposed FLSA Collective and Rule 23
Class are individuals who were employed by Defendants as Servers,
who do waiters and waitresses duties at Defendant's various
restaurants, were paid on an hourly basis, with overtime pay for
all hours worked over 40 per workweek, and receive tips from
customers.

However, from March 17, 2019 to March 31, 2020, Defendant suffered
and permitted Plaintiff and members of the proposed FLSA Collective
and Rule 23 Class to work without any compensation and
misappropriated all tips they earned.

Tableseide Restaurant Group, LLC is a restaurant group that owns
and operates numerous restaurants across the State of Florida.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas J. Castellano, Esq.
          Y. Drake Buckman, II, Esq.
          BUCKMAN & BUCKMAN, P.A.
          2023 Constitution Boulevard
          Sarasota, FL 34231
          Tel: (941) 923-7700
          Fax: (941) 923-7736
          Emails: nick@buckmanandbuckman.com
                  attorney@buckmanandbuckman.com


TARGET CORP: Appeal in ERISA Related Class Action Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Target Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended February 1, 2020, that the appeal from a court
ruling in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
related class action suit is still pending.

On July 12, 2016 and July 15, 2016, Target Corporation, the Plan
Investment Committee and Target's current chief operating officer
were named as defendants in two purported Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) class actions filed in the
Court.

The plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint (the First
ERISA Class Action) on December 14, 2016, alleging violations of
Sections 404 and 405 of ERISA relating to the Canada Disclosure and
naming Target, the Plan Investment Committee, and seven present or
former officers as defendants.

The plaintiffs sought to represent a class consisting of all
persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Target
Corporation 401(k) Plan or the Target Corporation Ventures 401(k)
Plan (collectively, the Plans) at any time between February 27,
2013 and May 19, 2014 and whose Plan accounts included investments
in Target stock.

The plaintiffs sought damages, an injunction and other unspecified
equitable relief, and attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs, based
on allegations that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties
by failing to take action to prevent Plan participants from
continuing to purchase Target stock during the class period at
prices that allegedly were artificially inflated.

After the Court dismissed the First ERISA Class Action on July 31,
2017, the plaintiffs filed a new ERISA Class Action (the Second
ERISA Class Action) with the Court on August 30, 2017, which had
substantially similar allegations, defendants, class
representation, and damages sought as the First ERISA Class Action,
except that the class period was extended to August 6, 2014.

On June 15, 2018, the Court granted the motion by Target and the
other defendants to dismiss the Second ERISA Class Action.

On July 16, 2018, the plaintiffs appealed the Court's dismissal to
the Appeals Court.

The Appeals Court has not yet heard oral arguments or issued a
decision.

Target Corporation operates general merchandise discount stores.
The Company focuses on merchandising operations which includes
general merchandise and food discount stores and a fully integrated
online business. Target also offers credit to qualified applicants
through its branded proprietary credit cards. The company is based
in Minneapolis, Minnesota.


TARGET CORP: Awaits 8th Cir. Decision on Class Action Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Target Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended February 1, 2020, that an appeal before the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit remains pending.

On May 17, 2016 and May 24, 2016, Target Corporation and certain
present and former officers were named as defendants in two
purported federal securities law class actions filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota.

The lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint (First Complaint) on November 14, 2016, alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 relating to the Canada
Disclosure and naming Target, its former chief executive officer,
its present chief operating officer, and the former president of
Target Canada as defendants.

On March 19, 2018, the Court denied the plaintiff's motion to alter
or amend the final judgment issued on July 31, 2017, dismissing the
Federal Securities Law Class Actions.

On April 18, 2018, the plaintiff appealed the Court's final
judgment.

The appeal has been argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit (the Appeals Court), and the company is awaiting a
decision.

Target Corporation operates general merchandise discount stores.
The Company focuses on merchandising operations which includes
general merchandise and food discount stores and a fully integrated
online business. Target also offers credit to qualified applicants
through its branded proprietary credit cards. The company is based
in Minneapolis, Minnesota.


TASTY BAKING: Withholds Pay Owed to Distributors, Bertino Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY F. BERTINO JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. TASTY BAKING COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-03752 (D.N.J., April 7, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the New Jersey Wage Payment
Law by withholding and/or diverting the pay owed to the Plaintiff
and all others similarly-situated distributors for the
transportation and distribution services they perform for the
Defendant such as gas expenses, tolls, vehicle maintenance
repairs.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a distributor since
approximately 1989.

Tasty Baking Company is a manufacturer of snack food products with
principal place of business at 4600 South 26th Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Simon B. Paris, Esq.
          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
          SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, & BENDESKY PC
          120 Gibraltar Road, Suite 218
          Horsham, PA 19044
          Telephone: (215) 575-3985
          Facsimile: (215) 754-4443
          E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
                  phoward@smbb.com
                  ckocher@smbb.com

TREVENA INC: Bid to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Trevena, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company is seeking
dismissal of a consolidated amended class action complaint on the
basis that there were no false statements and no scienter as a
matter of law.

In October and November 2018, the Company and certain current and
former officers and directors were sued in three purported class
actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, or the EDPA, alleging violations of the federal
securities laws.

In January 2019, the three lawsuits were consolidated into one
action, and on May 29, 2019, the District Court appointed a group
of five individual investors as lead plaintiffs.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed on August 2, 2019,
alleging, among other things, that the Company and two former
officers made false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and prospects, including certain
statements made relating to the Company's End-of-Phase 2 meeting
with the FDA, and certain statements concerning top-line results
from the Company's Phase 3 studies.

The plaintiffs seek, among other remedies, unspecified damages,
attorneys' fees and other costs, and unspecified equitable or
injunctive relief. The Company believes that the claims are without
merit, and the Company intends to vigorously defend itself against
the allegations.

On October 2, 2019, the Company moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint on the basis that there were no false statements
and no scienter as a matter of law.

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

Trevena, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the
development and commercialization of treatment options that target
and treat diseases affecting the central nervous system. The
company was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Chesterbrook,
Pennsylvania.


TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Faces Credit Facility Related Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Tupperware Brands Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2019, that the company is
facing a putative stockholder class action suits related to its
credit facility.

In February 2020, putative stockholder class actions were filed
against the Company and certain current and former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California and in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida.  

The complaints allege that statements in public filings between
January 30, 2019 and February 24, 2020 (the "potential class
period") regarding the Company's disclosure of controls and
procedures, as well as the need for an amendment of its credit
facility, violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Act of
1934.  

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of stockholders who
purchased the Company's shares during the potential class period
and demand unspecified monetary damages.

The Company believes the complaints and allegations to be without
merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the actions.


Tupperware said, "The Company is unable at this time to determine
whether the outcome of these actions would have a material impact
on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows."

Tupperware Brands Corporation manufactures and distributes a line
of products, primarily through independent sales consultants. The
Orlando-based Company's portfolio of brands includes Tupperware,
BeautiControl, Avroy Shlain, Nuvo, Nutrimetics, Fuller Cosmetics,
and NaturCare brands.


TURTLE BEACH: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for May 18
--------------------------------------------------------------
Turtle Beach Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that a final approval
hearing has been scheduled for May 18, 2020, in the class action
settlement related to VTB Holdings, Inc. (VTBH) merger.

On August 5, 2013, VTB Holdings, Inc. (VTBH) and the Company (f/k/a
Parametric Sound Corporation) announced that they had entered into
the Merger Agreement pursuant to which VTBH would acquire an
approximately 80% ownership interest and existing shareholders
would maintain an approximately 20% ownership interest in the
combined company (the "Merger").

Following the announcement, several shareholders filed class action
lawsuits in California and Nevada seeking to enjoin the Merger. The
plaintiffs in each case alleged that members of the Company's Board
of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders by
agreeing to a merger that allegedly undervalued the Company.

VTBH and the Company were named as defendants in these lawsuits
under the theory that they had aided and abetted the Company's
Board of Directors in allegedly violating their fiduciary duties.

The plaintiffs in both cases sought a preliminary injunction
seeking to enjoin closing of the Merger, which, by agreement, was
heard by the Nevada court with the California plaintiffs invited to
participate.

On December 26, 2013, the court in the Nevada case denied the
plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

Following the closing of the Merger, the Nevada plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint, which made essentially the same
allegations and sought monetary damages as well as an order
rescinding the Merger.

The California plaintiffs dismissed their action without prejudice,
and sought to intervene in the Nevada action, which was granted.
Subsequent to the intervention, the plaintiffs filed a third
amended complaint, which made essentially the same allegations as
prior complaints and sought monetary damages.

On June 20, 2014, VTBH and the Company moved to dismiss the action,
but that motion was denied on August 28, 2014.

On September 14, 2017, a unanimous en banc panel of the Nevada
Supreme Court granted defendants’ petition for writ of mandamus
and ordered the trial court to dismiss the complaint but provided a
limited basis upon which plaintiffs could seek to amend their
complaint.

Plaintiffs amended their complaint on December 1, 2017 to assert
the same claims in a derivative capacity on behalf of the Company,
as a well as in a direct capacity, against VTBH, Stripes Group,
LLC, SG VTB Holdings, LLC, and the former members of the Company's
Board of Directors. All defendants moved to dismiss this amended
complaint on January 2, 2018, and those motions were denied on
March 13, 2018. Defendants petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court to
reverse this ruling on April 18, 2018.

On June 15, 2018, the Nevada Supreme Court denied defendants' writ
petition without prejudice. The district court subsequently entered
a pretrial schedule and set trial for November 2019.

On January 18, 2019, the district court certified a class of
shareholders of the Company as of January 15, 2014. On October 11,
2019, the parties notified the District Court that they had reached
a settlement that would resolve the pending action if ultimately
approved by the Court.

On January 13, 2020, the District Court preliminarily approved the
settlement agreement between the plaintiffs and all Defendants.

A final approval hearing has been scheduled for May 18, 2020. All
pending court dates and deadlines, including the trial date, have
been stayed while the parties proceed with the settlement process.


Turtle Beach Corporation operates as an audio technology company.
It provides various gaming headset solutions for various platforms,
including video game and entertainment consoles, handheld consoles,
personal computers, and mobile and tablet devices under the Turtle
Beach brand. The company was founded in 1975 and is headquartered
in San Diego, California.


U.S. BANK: Kunzer Sues Over Fraud, Concealment of Herschler Trust
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, KENNETH R. KUNZER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly-situated v. Lisa A. Hiniker; U.S. Bank; Charles M.
Bichler, Esq.; John C. Gunderson, Esq.; Meier, Kennedy and Quinn,
Chartered; Robins Kaplan LLP; Denise Suzanne Rahne, Esq.; Ena M.
Kovacevic, Esq.; Lawgix Lawyers, LLC; and Michael D. Johnson, Esq.,
Defendants, Case No. 0:20-cv-00882-JRT-KMM (D. Minn., April 6,
2020), arises from the Defendants' violations of the Racketeering
and Corrupt Practices Act.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly-situated beneficiaries, alleges that the Defendants
violate the terms of Albert P. Herschler's Codicil by refusing to
notify the survivors/heirs of Helen A. Herschler that they are
beneficiaries of Albert P. Herschler's trusts, referred to as Trust
A and Trust B. The Plaintiff claims that U.S. Bank concealed the
true beneficiaries of Trust B and made fraudulent representations
to the court about the distribution of the assets of Trust A with
the help of the law firm of Meier, Kennedy and Quinn and its
attorneys, together with the remaining Defendants, to execute an
artifice and/or scheme to defraud the heirs of the Herschler Estate
in order to obtain monies for their own use and conversion.

U.S. Bank is a banking institution with principal place of business
located at 101 5th Street East, St. Paul, Minnesota. It is also
formerly known as First Trust National Association.

Meier, Kennedy and Quinn, Chartered is a law firm with principal
place of business located at 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 2200, St.
Paul, Minnesota.

Robins Kaplan LLP is a litigation-focused law firm headquartered at
800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Lawgix Lawyers, LLC is an interstate debt collection company based
at 1000 Cliff Mine Road, Suite 330, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN]

U.S.A.: Deanda Balks at Distribution of Contraceptive to Minors
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER R. DEANDA, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALEX M. AZAR II, in his official capacity as
Secretary of Health and Human Services; DIANE FOLEY, in her
official capacity as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population
Affairs; and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-00092-Z (N.D. Tex., April 10, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged violations
of the Texas Family Code Section 151.001(6), the Constitutional
Right of Parents to direct the upbringing of their children, and
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Plaintiff is a father of three daughters under the age of 18 and
raising each of his daughters in accordance with Christian teaching
on matters of sexuality requiring his daughters to practice
abstinence and refrain from sexual intercourse until marriage.

According to the complaint, Defendants administered a federal
program that offers prescription of contraceptive and other
family-planning services to Plaintiff's daughters and the children
of every other parent in Texas, without their knowledge or any
parental consent. Because of that, Defendants are allegedly
inflicting injury on every parent in the U.S., including
Plaintiff.

Plaintiff and other similarly situated parents assert these
claims:

     -- Defendants deprived them of their statutory rights as
parents;

     -- Their authority as parents has been subverted;

     -- They were deprived of the assurance that their children
will unable to access prescription contraception; and

     -- Their ability to raise their children in accordance with
the teachings of the Christian faith has weakened.

Alex M. Azar II is the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human
Services.

Diane Foley is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population
Affairs in the Department of Health and Human Services.

United States of America is the federal government of the U.S.A.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq.
          MITCHELL LAW PLLC
          111 Congress Ave., Suite 400
          Austin, TX 78701
          Tel: (512)686-3940
          Fax: (512)686-3941
          Email: jonathan@mitchell.law

                - and –

          Alex Yarbrough, Esq.

          RINEY & MAYFIELD LLP
          320 South Polk St., Suite 600
          Amarillo, TX 79101
          Tel: (806)468-3202
          Fax: (806)376-4509
          Email: ayarbrough@rineymayfield.com

                - and –

          H. Dustin Fillmore III, Esq.
          Charles W. Fillmore, Esq.
          THE FILLMORE LAW FIRM, LLP
          1200 Summit Ave., Suite 860
          Forth Worth, TX 76102
          Tel: (817)332-2351
          Fax: (817)870-1859
          Emails: dusty@fillmorefirm.com
                  chad@fillmorefirm.com


UNITED AIRLINES: Denies Ticket Refunds, Rudolph Claims
------------------------------------------------------
JACOB RUDOLPH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED AIRLINES HOLDINGS, INC. and UNITED
AIRLINES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02142 (N.D. Ill.,
April 6, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against
Defendants for their alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act and the Illinois Consumer
Protection Acts, unjust enrichment, conversion, and fraudulent
misrepresentation.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff purchased three tickets from
Defendants through Defendants' website on January 23, 2020 for
domestic travel to occur on April 4, 2020. However, due to the
pandemic COVID-19 outbreak, Defendants ultimately cancelled all
flights. Plaintiff submitted a written refund request on March 16,
2020, but Defendants separately and completely denied Plaintiff's
refund request declaring that his ticket purchases do not qualify
for a refund and was given a rebooking option instead.

Moreover, the U.S. Department of Transportation has issued an
Enforcement Notice on April 3, 2020 which requires Defendant to
provide a "prompt refund" to passengers. However, Defendants have
settled on its current policy of "credits, not refunds", and
continued to engage in unfair and deceptive acts and practices by
refusing to refund their passengers.

The complaint asserts that Plaintiff and members of the Class were
financially damaged by Defendants' unlawful conduct.

United Airlines Holdings, Inc. operates as a holding company that
provides air transportation services.

United Airlines, Inc. operates a large domestic and international
route network spanning cities large and small across the U.S. and
all six continents. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Ave., Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Tel: (206)623-7292
          Email: steve@hbsslaw.com

                - and –

          Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq.
          Whitney K. Siehl, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr., Suite 2410
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Tel: (708)628-4949
          Emails: dank@hbsslaw.com
                  whitneys@hbsslaw.com


UNITED AIRLINES: Illegally Refuses Passengers Refund, Compo Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN COMPO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., and UNITED AIRLINES
HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02166 (N.D. Ill.,
April 6, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against
Defendants for their alleged common law fraud, unjust enrichment,
and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Practices Act and the Vermont Consumer Fraud Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff purchased a roundtrip ticket
from Defendant for a trip beginning on April 6, 2020. Due to
COVID-19 outbreak, Defendant informed him on April 3, 2020 that his
flight was canceled. Plaintiff tried to request a refund on April
5, 2020, but was denied to receive a refund for the ticket price
and instead, he was told that a voucher for a future flight will be
provided pursuant to its fourth cancelation and refund policy
adopted on March 14, 2020.

Allegedly, Defendants had actual knowledge of the Enforcement
Notice issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation on April 3,
2020 which requires Defendant to provide a "prompt refund" to
passengers. However, Defendants continued to engage in unfair and
deceptive acts and practices by stating consumers were only able to
obtain a voucher and not a refund.

The complaint asserts that Plaintiff and the Class were injured as
a result of Defendants' unlawful conduct, and suffered
ascertainable monetary loss.

Plaintiff seeks actual damages, treble damages, attorney's fees and
costs.

United Airlines, Inc. operates a large domestic and international
route network spanning cities large and small across the U.S. and
all six continents.

United Airlines Holdings, Inc. operates as a holding company that
provides air transportation services. [BN]

The plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
          Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER
          & SPRENGEL LLP
          150 S. Wacker, Suite 3000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Tel: 312-782-4880
          Fax: 318-782-4485
          Emails: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com
                  nhagman@caffertyclobes.com

                - and –

          Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER
          & SPRENGEL LLP
          205 N. Monroe St.
          Media, PA 19063
          Tel: 215-864-2800
          Email: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com

                - and –

          Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
          Joseph B. Kenny, Esq.
          SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
          1109 Lancaster Avenue
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Tel: 610-200-0580
          Emails: jgs@sstriallawyers.com
                  jbk@sstriallawyers.com


UNITED NATURAL: 8th Cir. Affirms Grant of Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------
United Natural Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended February 1, 2020, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has affirmed the District Court's
decision in granting Supervalu's motion for summary judgment and
Daubert motion.

In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin against
Supervalu alleging that a 2003 transaction between Supervalu and
C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. ("C&S") was a conspiracy to restrain
trade and allocate markets. In the 2003 transaction, Supervalu
purchased certain assets of the Fleming Corporation as part of
Fleming Corporation's bankruptcy proceedings and sold certain of
Supervalu's assets to C&S that were located in New England.

Three other retailers filed similar complaints in other
jurisdictions and the cases were consolidated in the United States
District Court in Minnesota.

The complaints alleged that the conspiracy was concealed and
continued through the use of non-compete and non-solicitation
agreements and the closing down of the distribution facilities that
Supervalu and C&S purchased from each other.

Plaintiffs were divided into Midwest plaintiffs and a New England
plaintiff and are seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief and
attorney's fees.

The Company settled with the Midwest plaintiffs in November 2017.
The New England plaintiff was not a party to the settlement and is
pursuing its individual claims and potential class action claims
against Supervalu, which at this time are determined as remote.

On February 15, 2018, Supervalu filed a summary judgment and
Daubert motion and the New England plaintiff filed a motion for
class certification and on July 27, 2018, the District Court
granted Supervalu's motions.

The New England plaintiff appealed to the 8th Circuit on August 15,
2018. Briefing on the appeal is complete and the hearing occurred
on October 15, 2019.

On December 20, 2019, the 8th Circuit affirmed the District Court's
decision.

United Natural Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
distributes natural, organic, and specialty foods and non-food
products in the United States and Canada. The company operates
through three divisions: Wholesale, Retail, and Manufacturing and
Branded Products. United Natural Foods, Inc. was founded in 1976
and is headquartered in Providence, Rhode Island.


UNITED NATURAL: Resolution Reached in North County Store Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
United Natural Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended February 1, 2020, that the Company has
reached an agreed resolution of the class action suit entitled,
North Country Store v. United Natural Foods, Inc.

In November 2018, a putative nationwide class action was filed in
Rhode Island state court, which the Company removed to U.S.
District Court for the District of Rhode Island.

In North Country Store v. United Natural Foods, Inc., plaintiff
asserts that the Company made false representations about the
nature of fuel surcharges charged to customers and asserts claims
for alleged violations of Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices Act,
breach of contract, unjust enrichment and breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing arising out of the Company's fuel
surcharge practices. On March 5, 2019, the Company answered the
complaint denying the allegations.

At a court-ordered mediation on October 15, 2019, the Company
reached an agreed resolution, which was immaterial in amount, to
avoid costs and uncertainty of litigation.

The potential settlement must go through the Court approval and
notice process, which will take several months.

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

United Natural Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
distributes natural, organic, and specialty foods and non-food
products in the United States and Canada. The company operates
through three divisions: Wholesale, Retail, and Manufacturing and
Branded Products. United Natural Foods, Inc. was founded in 1976
and is headquartered in Providence, Rhode Island.


UNITI GROUP: Investor Group Named as Lead Plaintiffs
----------------------------------------------------
Judge Brian S. Miller entered an order dated April 15 granting
Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification; approving Zhengxu He and the
Uniti Investor Group as lead plaintiffs, and their selection of
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Labaton Sucharow LLP as lead
counsel; and adopting a joint stipulation and motion on service of
process and scheduling under the PSLRA12.

Uniti Group Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that on October 25, 2019,
Ibrahim E. Safadi filed a putative class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas against the
Company and certain of our officers alleging violations of federal
securities laws (the "Safadi Action").  

The putative class action seeks to represent investors who acquired
the Company's securities between April 20, 2015 and February 15,
2019. The lawsuit asserts violations under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging
that the Company made materially false and misleading statements by
allegedly failing to disclose that the Spin-Off and entry into the
Master Lease violated certain debt covenants of Windstream.  

The lawsuit seeks class certification, unspecified monetary
damages, costs and attorneys' fees and other relief.

The company intends to defend this matter vigorously, and, because
it is still in its preliminary stages, the company has not yet
determined what effect this lawsuit will have, if any, on its
financial position or results of operations.

On December 6, 2019, Phil Queder filed a putative class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
against the Company and certain of our officers alleging violations
of federal securities laws (the "Queder Action").  

The putative class action seeks to represent investors who acquired
the Company's securities between April 20, 2015 and February 15,
2019.

The lawsuit asserts violations under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging
that the Company made materially false and misleading statements by
allegedly failing to disclose that the Spin-Off and entry into the
Master Lease violated certain debt covenants of Windstream.  

The lawsuit seeks class certification, unspecified monetary
damages, costs and attorneys' fees and other relief.

The company intends to defend this matter vigorously, and, because
it is still in its preliminary stages, the company has not yet
determined what effect this lawsuit will have, if any, on our
financial position or results of operations.

On December 23, 2019, Michael Avery filed a putative class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
against the Company and certain of our officers alleging violations
of federal securities laws.  

The putative class action seeks to represent investors who acquired
the Company's securities between April 20, 2015 and June 24, 2019.


The lawsuit asserts violations under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging
that the Company made materially false and misleading statements by
allegedly failing to disclose that the Spin-Off and entry into the
Master Lease violated certain debt covenants of Windstream, which
would have certain consequences for the Company's liquidity.  

The lawsuit seeks class certification, unspecified monetary
damages, costs and attorneys' fees and other relief.

On March 9, 2020, the plaintiff in the Avery Action filed a notice
of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice.

On December 30, 2019, various putative shareholders of the Company
filed motions to consolidate the Safadi, Queder, and Avery Actions
and to appoint a lead plaintiff and lead counsel in the
consolidated action.

Uniti Group Inc. operates as a real estate investment trust. The
Company provides wireless infrastructure solutions for
communications industry. Uniti Group serves customers in the United
States and Latin America. The company is based in Little Rock,
Arkansas.


VENATOR MATERIALS: IPO Related Class Suits Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------
Venator Materials PLC said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend class action suits related to its Initial Public Offering
(IPO).

On February 8, 2019 the company, certain of its executive officers,
Huntsman and certain banks who acted as underwriters in connection
with the company's Initial Public Offering (IPO) and secondary
offering were named as defendants in a proposed class action civil
suit filed in the District Court for the State of Texas, Dallas
County (the "Dallas District Court"), by an alleged purchaser of
the company's ordinary shares in connection with its IPO on August
3, 2017 and the company's secondary offering on November 30, 2017.


The plaintiff, Macomb County Employees' Retirement System, alleges
that inaccurate and misleading statements were made regarding the
impact to the company's operations, and prospects for restoration
thereof, resulting from the fire that occurred at its Pori, Finland
manufacturing facility, among other allegations.

Additional complaints making substantially the same allegations
were filed in the Dallas District Court by the Firemen's Retirement
System of St. Louis on March 4, 2019 and by Oscar Gonzalez on March
13, 2019, with the third case naming two of the company's directors
as additional defendants. A fourth case was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York by the City of
Miami General Employees' & Sanitation Employees' Retirement Trust
on July 31, 2019, making substantially the same allegations, adding
claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act, and
naming all of our directors as additional defendants. A fifth case,
filed by Bonnie Yoon Bishop in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, was voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice on October 7, 2019. A sixth case was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas by the Cambria
County Employees Retirement System on September 13, 2019, making
substantially the same allegations as those made by the plaintiff
in the case pending in the Southern District of New York.

The plaintiffs in these cases seek to determine that the
proceedings should be certified as class actions and to obtain
alleged compensatory damages, costs, rescission and equitable
relief.

The cases filed in the Dallas District Court have been consolidated
into a single action, In re Venator Materials PLC Securities
Litigation. On October 29, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York entered an order transferring the
case brought by the city of Miami General Employees' & Sanitation
Employees' Retirement Trust to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, where it was consolidated into a single
action with the case brought by the Cambria County Employees'
Retirement Trust and is now known as In re: Venator Materials PLC
Securities Litigation. On January 17, 2020, plaintiffs in the
consolidated action filed a consolidated class action complaint.

On May 8, 2019, the company filed a "special appearance" in the
Dallas District Court action contesting the court's jurisdiction
over the Company and a motion to transfer venue to Montgomery
County, Texas and on June 7, 2019 the company and certain
defendants filed motions to dismiss.

On July 9, 2019, a hearing was held on certain of these motions,
which were subsequently denied. On October 3, 2019, a hearing was
held on the company's motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens
Participation Act, which was subsequently denied. On October 22,
2019, the company and other defendants filed a Petition for Writ of
Mandamus in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas
seeking relief from the Dallas District Court's denial of
defendants' Rule 91a motions to dismiss. On November 22, 2019, the
company also filed a notice of appeal regarding the denial of the
company's motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation
Act.

On January 21, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of
Texas reversed the Dallas District Court's order that denied the
special appearances of Venator and certain other defendants, and
rendered judgment dismissing the claims against Venator and those
other defendants for lack of jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeals also remanded the case for the Dallas District
Court to enter an order transferring the claims against Huntsman to
the Montgomery County District Court.

Venator said, W may be required to indemnify our executive officers
and directors, Huntsman, and the banks who acted as underwriters in
our IPO and secondary offerings, for losses incurred by them in
connection with these matters pursuant to our agreements with such
parties. Because of the early stage of this litigation, we are
unable to reasonably estimate any possible loss or range of loss
and we have not accrued for a loss contingency with regard to these
matters."

Venator Materials PLC manufactures and markets chemical products
worldwide. It operates through two segments, Titanium Dioxide and
Performance Additives. The company was founded in 2017 and is
headquartered in Stockton-On-Tees, the United Kingdom.


VEON LTD: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Westway Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Veon Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the court's ruling on
VEON's motion for judgment on the pleadings is pending.

On November 4, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States against VEON and certain of its then current and former
officers by Charles Kux-Kardos, on behalf of himself and other
investors in the Company alleging certain violations of the U.S.
federal securities laws in connection with the Company's public
disclosures relating to its operations in Uzbekistan.

On December 4, 2015, a second complaint was filed by Westway
Alliance Corp. that asserts essentially the same claims in
connection with essentially the same disclosures.

On April 27, 2016, the court consolidated the two actions and
appointed Westway as lead plaintiff. On May 6, 2016, a motion for
reconsideration was filed on the appointment of Westway as lead
plaintiff and on September 26, 2016, the court affirmed the
selection of Westway as the lead plaintiff. An amended complaint
was filed on December 9, 2016.

On September 19, 2017, the Court in the Southern District of New
York rendered a decision granting in part VEON's motion to dismiss
the Amended Complaint.

On February 9, 2018, VEON filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses
to the allegations that remain in the Amended Complaint after the
Court's September 19, 2017 Order.

Motions to dismiss were filed by all the individual defendants on
February 9, 2018.

On April 13, 2018, plaintiff dismissed its claims voluntarily
against one of the individual defendants. On August 30, 2018, the
Court granted the motions to dismiss by all of the individual
defendants remaining in the action, and the time for appeal has now
expired.

On May 17, 2019, VEON filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings,
arguing that Westway lacked standing as a result of the September
19, 2017 order because it had not purchased any securities on or
after the date of the earliest alleged misstatement.

On May 21, 2019, the Rosen Law Firm submitted a letter to the Court
on behalf of Boris Lvov seeking a pre-motion conference for leave
to file a motion to intervene and substitute Lvov as lead
plaintiff.

On May 24, 2019, Westway filed a letter opposing Mr. Lvov's
request, and VEON filed a letter taking no position. Westway filed
its opposition to VEON's motion on June 17, 2019, and VEON filed
its reply papers on June 28, 2019.

The Court's ruling on VEON's motion for judgment on the pleadings
is pending.

The Company intends to vigorously defend the action at all phases
of the proceedings.

Veon Ltd. is a global provider of connectivity and internet
services. Present in some of the world's most dynamic markets, VEON
provides more than 240 million customers (including the Italy Joint
Venture) with voice, fixed broadband, data and digital services.


VERMONT: Secretary Smith Appeals Decision in West Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Michael Smith, et al., filed an appeal from a Court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled West v. Gobeille, et al., Case No.
19-cv-81, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont
(Burlington).

Michael Smith is the Secretary of the Vermont Agency of Human
Services.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, District Court
Judge William K. Sessions III has entered an order granting a
motion to certify class.

The Court said, "The primary allegation is that Defendants have
refused to provide appropriate medical care to members of the
proposed class, and that a single injunction and declaratory
judgment will deliver relief to all class members. Those claims are
plainly within the ambit of [Fed.R.Civ.P.] 23(b)."

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of Vermont inmates and detainees,
who have been diagnosed with chronic Hepatitis C Virus. The
Complaint alleges that, contrary to the prevailing standard of
medical care, the Defendants have refused to provide available and
effective treatment because treatment is expensive. The complaint
seeks declaratory and injunctive relief so that class members can
begin receiving appropriate care.

The appellate case is captioned as West v. Gobeille, et al., Case
No. 20-1203, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents Richard West and Joseph Bruyette,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons, are represented by:

           James Valente, Esq.
           COSTELLO, VALENTE & GENTRY, P.C.
           92 Green Street
           Brattleboro, VT 05301
           Telephone: (802) 275-8860

Defendants-Petitioners Michael Smith, Secretary of the Vermont
Agency of Human Services, et al., are represented by:

           Jared Christopher Bianchi, Esq.
           VERMONT OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
           HC 2 North, 280 State Drive
           Waterbury, VT 05671
           Telephone: (802) 241-0194
           Email: Jared.Bianchi@vermont.gov

                   – and –

           Stephen Jackson Soule, Esq.
           PAUL FRANK + COLLINS P.C.
           1 Church Street, P.O. Box 1307
           Burlington, VT 05402
           Telephone: (802) 658-2311
           Email: SSoule@PFClaw.com


VIEWRAY INC: Suit by Plymouth County Retirement Assoc. Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
ViewRay, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, Plymouth County Retirement
Assoc. v. ViewRay, Inc., et al.

On September 13, 2019, a class action complaint for violation of
federal securities laws was filed in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio against the Company, its chief executive
officer, chief science officer and former chief financial officer.


On December 19, 2019, the court appointed Plymouth County
Retirement Association as the lead plaintiff and on February 28,
2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting
securities fraud claims against ViewRay, our chief executive
officer, chief operating officer, chief science officer, and the
company's former chief executive officer and former chief financial
officer.  

Now captioned Plymouth County Retirement Assoc. v. ViewRay, Inc.,
et al, the amended complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all
purchasers of the company's common stock between May 10, 2018 until
January 13, 2020, alleged that the company violated federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements that failed to disclose adverse facts concerning the
Company's business, operations, and financial results and seeks
damages, interest, and other relief.

ViewRay said, "We believe the allegations in the complaint are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend the litigation."

ViewRay, Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets radiation therapy
systems. The company offers MRIdian, a magnetic resonance
image-guided radiation therapy system to image and treat cancer
patients. Its MRIdian integrates MRI technology, radiation
delivery, and proprietary software to see the soft tissues, shape
the dose to accommodate for changes in anatomy, and strike the
target using real-time targeting throughout the treatment. ViewRay,
Inc. serves university research and teaching hospitals, community
hospitals, private practices, government institutions, and
freestanding cancer centers. The company markets its MRIdian
through a direct sales force in North America. ViewRay, Inc. was
founded in 2004 and is headquartered in Oakwood, Ohio.


VIVINT SOLAR: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Moved to June 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Darrell Rogers, et al. v. Vivint Solar, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01567 (D.D.C.), Judge Trevor N. McFadden on April
24, 2020, issued a minute order granting the parties' Joint Motion
for Extension of Time to File Joint Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement.  The parties are directed to file their
Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement by May
18, 2020.  The Final Fairness Hearing is rescheduled to June 2,
2020 at 10 a.m., by telephone before Judge McFadden.

The final settlement approval hearing was originally scheduled for
April 10, 2020.

Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that in July 2018, an
individual filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, purportedly on behalf
of himself and other persons who received certain telephone calls.


The lawsuit alleges that the Company violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and some of its implementing regulations.

The complaint seeks statutory penalties for each alleged violation.
The Company disputes the allegations in the complaint, has retained
counsel and intends to vigorously defend itself in the litigation.


In August 2019, the Company reached a settlement in principle to
resolve the class action on a nationwide basis for a payment of
approximately $1.0 million (including plaintiff's attorneys' fees),
which was accrued by the Company in general and administrative
expense in the third quarter of 2019.

On November 8, 2019, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement.

Additional information on the case is available at:

     http://www.vivintsolartcpasettlement.com/

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


YRC WORLDWIDE: Bid to Dismiss Lewis Class Action Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
YRC Worldwide Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion to dismiss the
class action suit entitled, Christina Lewis v. YRC Worldwide Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00001, is still pending.

In January 2019, a purported class action lawsuit captioned
Christina Lewis v. YRC Worldwide Inc., et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-00001, was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of New York against the Company and certain
of our current and former officers.

The complaint was filed on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities between
March 10, 2014 and December 14, 2018.

The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making false and misleading statements relating to its freight
billing practices as alleged in the Department of Defense complaint
described above.

The action includes claims for damages, including interest, and an
award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees.

The co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 14, 2019,
and the defendants moved to dismiss it on July 15, 2019.

The motion is fully briefed and awaiting decision.

YRC Worldwide said, "Management believes the Company has
meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend this action.
We are unable to estimate the possible loss, or range of possible
loss, associated with these claims."

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

YRC Worldwide Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides a range of
transportation services primarily in North America. The company
operates in two segments, YRC Freight and Regional Transportation.
The company was formerly known as Yellow Roadway Corporation and
changed its name to YRC Worldwide Inc. in January 2006. YRC
Worldwide Inc. was founded in 1924 and is headquartered in Overland
Park, Kansas.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l. Has $1.7MM Gain for Lawsuits 1Q 2020
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lennox International Inc. has recorded US$1.7 million gain, net of
probable insurance recoveries, for known and future
asbestos-related litigation, for the three months ended March 31,
2020, compared to the US$1.4 million expense for the same period in
2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020.

The Company states, "We are involved in a number of claims and
lawsuits incident to the operation of our businesses.  Insurance
coverages are maintained and estimated costs are recorded for such
claims and lawsuits, including costs to settle claims and lawsuits,
based on experience involving similar matters and specific facts
known.

"Some of these claims and lawsuits allege personal injury or health
problems resulting from exposure to asbestos that was integrated
into certain of our products.  We have never manufactured asbestos
and have not incorporated asbestos-containing components into our
products for several decades.  A substantial majority of these
asbestos-related claims have been covered by insurance or other
forms of indemnity or have been dismissed without payment.  The
remainder of our closed cases have been resolved for amounts that
are not material, individually or in the aggregate.  Our defense
costs for asbestos-related claims are generally covered by
insurance.  However, our insurance coverage for settlements and
judgments for asbestos-related claims varies depending on several
factors and are subject to policy limits.  We may have greater
financial exposure for future settlements and judgments.  The
following table summarizes the expenses, net of probable insurance
recoveries, for known and future asbestos-related litigation
recorded in (Gains) losses and other expenses, net in the
Consolidated Statements of Operations.

"It is management's opinion that none of these claims or lawsuits
or any threatened litigation will have a material adverse effect on
our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
Claims and lawsuits, however, involve uncertainties and it is
possible that their eventual outcome could adversely affect our
results of operations for a particular period."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/ovl5h7


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Had $1.21BB Net Reserves at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc. has net asbestos reserves of US$1.21
billion at March 31, 2020, compared to US$1.24 billion at March 31,
2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020.

Travelers Companies states, "The Company believes that the property
and casualty insurance industry has suffered from court decisions
and other trends that have expanded insurance coverage for asbestos
claims far beyond the original intent of insurers and
policyholders.  The Company has received and continues to receive a
significant number of asbestos claims.  Factors underlying these
claim filings include continued intensive advertising by lawyers
seeking asbestos claimants and the focus by plaintiffs on
defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos
litigation.  The focus on these defendants is primarily the result
of the number of traditional asbestos defendants who have sought
bankruptcy protection in previous years.  The bankruptcy of many
traditional defendants has also caused increased settlement demands
against those policyholders who are not in bankruptcy but remain in
the tort system.  Currently, in many jurisdictions, those who
allege very serious injury and who can present credible medical
evidence of their injuries are receiving priority trial settings in
the courts, while those who have not shown any credible disease
manifestation are having their hearing dates delayed or placed on
an inactive docket.  Prioritizing claims involving credible
evidence of injuries, along with the focus on defendants who were
not traditionally primary targets of asbestos litigation,
contributes to the claims and claim adjustment expense payment
patterns experienced by the Company.  The Company's
asbestos-related claims and claim adjustment expense experience
also has been impacted by the unavailability of other insurance
sources potentially available to policyholders, whether through
exhaustion of policy limits or through the insolvency of other
participating insurers.

"The Company continues to be involved in disputes, including
litigation, with a number of policyholders, some of whom are in
bankruptcy over coverage for asbestos-related claims.  Many
coverage disputes with policyholders are only resolved through
settlement agreements.  Because many policyholders make exaggerated
demands, it is difficult to predict the outcome of settlement
negotiations.  Settlements involving bankrupt policyholders may
include extensive releases which are favorable to the Company, but
which could result in settlements for larger amounts than
originally anticipated.  Although the Company has seen a reduction
in the overall risk associated with these disputes, it remains
difficult to predict the ultimate cost of these claims.  As in the
past, the Company will continue to pursue settlement
opportunities.

"In addition to claims against policyholders, proceedings have been
launched directly against insurers, including the Company, by
individuals challenging insurers' conduct with respect to the
handling of past asbestos claims and by individuals seeking damages
arising from alleged asbestos-related bodily injuries.  It is
possible that other direct actions against insurers, including the
Company, could be filed in the future.  It is difficult to predict
the outcome of these proceedings, including whether the plaintiffs
would be able to sustain these actions against insurers based on
novel legal theories of liability.  The Company believes it has
meritorious defenses to any such claims and has received favorable
rulings in certain jurisdictions.

"Because each policyholder presents different liability and
coverage issues, the Company generally reviews the exposure
presented by each policyholder at least annually.  Among the
factors the Company may consider in the course of this review are:
available insurance coverage, including the role of any umbrella or
excess insurance the Company has issued to the policyholder; limits
and deductibles; an analysis of the policyholder's potential
liability; the jurisdictions involved; past and anticipated future
claim activity and loss development on pending claims; past
settlement values of similar claims; allocated claim adjustment
expense; the potential role of other insurance; the role, if any,
of non-asbestos claims or potential non-asbestos claims in any
resolution process; and applicable coverage defenses or
determinations, if any, including the determination as to whether
or not an asbestos claim is a products/completed operation claim
subject to an aggregate limit and the available coverage, if any,
for that claim.

"Net asbestos paid loss and loss expenses in the first three months
of 2020 and 2019 were US$63 million and US$38 million,
respectively.  Net asbestos reserves were US$1.21 billion and
US$1.24 billion at March 31, 2020 and March 31, 2019,
respectively."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/rR6NDF



                            *********

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 ***