/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200515.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, May 15, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 98

                            Headlines

ACUITY BRANDS: Continues to Defend Georgia Securities Class Suit
ADESTO TECHNOLOGIES: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action Suit
ADP INC: Faces McCaffree Suit Alleging Breach of Fiduciary Duties
AEG PRESENTS SE: Barbieri Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
AKORN INC: Settlement in Data Securities Suit Wins Final Approval

ALLEGIANT TRAVEL: Bratcher Sues Over Shelved Flight, Seeks Refund
ALLERGAN INC: LaFleur Files Product Liability Suit in Wisconsin
ANAPTYSBIO INC: Glancy Prongay Notes of May 26 Plaintiff Deadline
ARCIMOTO INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on Monday
AVANTEUSA LTD: Williams Sues in Michigan Alleging FDCPA Violation

BABY BREZZA: Lieff Cabraser, Carella Byrne File Class Action
BAJCO INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Valesh Alleges
BAMFORD WATCHES: West Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
BESAME COSMETICS: Kalender Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
BETESH GROUP: Lieff Cabraser, Carella Byrne File Class Action

BISON COOLERS: Kalender Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
BITFINEX: General Counsel Bashes New Class Action
BLACKBERRY LTD: Discovery Ongoing in Ontario Class Suit
BLACKBERRY LTD: Employment Class Suit in Ontario Ongoing
BLACKBERRY LTD: Expert Discovery to be Completed June 29

BLACKBERRY LTD: Tentative Deal Reached in Calif. Workers Suit
BLOCK.ONE: Schall Law Firm Announces Filing of Class Action
BLUE RIDGE: Suit vs. Virginia Community Bankshares Ongoing
BLWD LLC: Kalender Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
BUSINESS FIRST: Faces Parshall Class Suit

CANAN INC: Faces Class Suits over IPO
CITIGROUP INC: Fails to Provide Proper COBRA Notice, Pinazo Says
CLEARVIEW AI: Faces John Suit in New York Over Violation of BIPA
CNA FINANCIAL: Alliance Radiology Slams Denied Insurance Coverage
CREDIT SUISSE: Bid to Dismiss Bank Bill Swap Related Suit Narrowed

CREDIT SUISSE: Discovery Underway in ADRs Related Class Suit
CREDIT SUISSE: Dropped as Defendant in Amended MX Bond Complaint
CREDIT SUISSE: ETN Related Class Action Suits Ongoing
CREDIT SUISSE: Settlement in Unsecured Bonds Suit Has Initial Okay
CREDIT SUISSE: Still Defends Lawsuit over Interest Rate Swaps

DENTALPLANS.COM: Bradley Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
DICK'S SPORTING: Juric Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Class Cert. Bid in Encampments Suit Renewed
DOMO INC: Bid to Stay Volonte Securities Class Action Pending
DOMO INC: Continues to Defend Patton Securities Class Action

DREAM TEAM PIZZA: Worman Seeks Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
DREXDEL UNIVERSITY: Students Seek Tuition Refunds in Class Suit
DYNAGAS LNG: Bid to Dismiss SDNY Class Suit Pending
E TRADE FINANCIAL: Brown Sues Over Morgan Stanley Merger Deal
E-HOUSE (CHINA): Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action

EBAY INC: Faces Mercado Consumer Suit for Allowing Price Gouging
ECOPETROL SA: Continues to Defend AWA Indigenous Community Suit
ECOPETROL SA: Suit Over BT Energy Incident Ongoing
EDUARDO MELONI: Settlement Reached in Newman Suit
EHEALTH INC: Bragar Eagel Announces Class Action Filing

EHEALTH INC: Frank R. Cruz Announces Securities Class Action
EHEALTH INC: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Class Action
EISENMANN SE: Certification of Non-Management Workers Class Sought
EQUITY BUSINESS: Faces Hackworth Antitrust Class Suit in Florida
FACEBOOK INC: Must Face Renewed Privacy Suit Over User Tracking

FARMERS GROUP: Kingray Sues Over Refusal to Pay Insurance Claims
FLORIDA: Felons' Voting Rights Case Now a Class Action Suit
FRANKLIN LIMESTONE: Kalender Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FRESH DIRECT: Soler Sues Over Discriminatory Screening Policies
FRONTIER AIRLINES: Refuses to Refund Air Tickets, Obertman Claims

GATE GOURMET: Faces Rahman Suit Alleging Violation of Labor Code
GDS HOLDINGS: Ramzan Consolidated Class Suit Dismissed
GENERAL MOTORS: Class Cert. Bid in Sloan Suit Granted in Part
GENESCO INC: Settlement in Indiana & Massachusetts Suits Approved
GEOPARK LIMITED: Brazil Unit Continues to Defend Class Suit

GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS: Murdock Sues Over High Levels of NDMA
GREENLAND TECH: Discussion Over Attorneys' Fees Ongoing
GRIZZLY COOLERS: Faces Kalender ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY: Stellato Seeks Refund of Tuition and Fees
INOVIO PHARMA: Faces McDermid Class Action in Pennsylvania

JAGUAR HEALTH: Discovery Ongoing in Plant Class Action
JUMIA TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Class Suits in New York
KAISER ALUMINUM: Johnson Sues Over Illegal Attendance Policy
KAREN HERMAN: Matthews Suit Seeks to Certify Class
KC TREE: Prince Suit Seeks to Certify Employees Class

KEEPCUP LTD: Kalender Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
KIRKLAND'S INC: Miles Class Action Underway in California
KIRKLAND'S INC: Plaintiff Wants Gennock Suit Moved to State Court
KURA SUSHI: Continues to Defend Gomes Class Action
KUSHCO HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss May Class Action Pending

LOS ANGELES, CA: Certification of Classes & Subclasses Sought
LOUISIANA: Gumns et al. Seek to Certify Suit Over COVID Policies
LUVO INC: Kalender Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
MANAHAWKIN NURSING: Faces Tith Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
MARTIN A. KATZ CO: Alcazar Claims Website not Blind Friendly

MATSUL INC: Chiriapa Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
MIIR INC: Kalender Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
NEXTIER OILFIELD: Fails to Pay Lawful Overtime Wages, Davis Says
OFFICE DEPOT: Ron Seeks to Certify Account Managers Class
PAYSIGN INC: Faces Shi and Chase Putative Class Action

PENNSYLVANIA  HIGHER: Sued Over Excessive Garnishment Rate
PERFORMANCE SHIPPING: Bid to Dismiss Robinson Suit Underway
PRICESMART INC: Bid to Dismiss PERA Class Action Underway
PRODUCTION FIRE: Sandoval Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
PROGRESSIVE COUNTY: Lopezes Seek to Certify Policyholders Class

QUALITY BRANDED: Kitchen Staff Claim Overtime Pay, Withheld Tips
RED TIE LLC: Barnett Hits Illegal Tip Pool, Seeks Minimum Pay
RTI SURGICAL: Rosen Reminds of May 22 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
SAEXPLORATION HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Bodin Class Action
SEA LIMITED: Bid to Dismiss Plutte Class Action Pending

SPECTRUM BRANDS: Citronella Candle Maker Escapes Class Action
SPIRIT AIRLINES: Refuses to Refund Air Tickets, Manchur Suit Says
STATE FARM MUTUAL: Johnson Suit Removed to District of Montana
STEVE NASH FITNESS: Terminated Employees File Class Action
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY: Yin Suit Seeks Refund of Tuition and Fees

TELIGENT INC: Econazole Antitrust Litigation Ongoing
TELIGENT INC: Okla. Police Pension Fund & Retirement Suit Ongoing
TENCENT MUSIC: Continues to Defend Depositary Shares Class Suits
TERNIUM SA: Bid to Dismiss EDNY Class Action Pending
TILLY'S INC: Bid for Class Certification in Ward Suit Pending

TILLY'S INC: Settlement Talks in Gonzales Suit Ongoing
TILRAY INC: Kasilingam Sues in S.D.N.Y. Over Drop in Share Price
TOP SHIPS: Court of Appeals Affirms Brady Class Suit Dismissal
TOP SHIPS: Kalani Investments et al. Seek Indemnification
TWIN HILL: Continues to Face Suit Over American Airlines Uniforms

UNDERWRITERS LLOYD'S LONDON: Sun Cuisine Sues Over Policy Breach
UNITED AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Seeking Ticket Refunds
UNITED STATES: Relief Payees Slam CARES Act Selective Dole Out
UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT: Paris Sues Over Failure to Refund Fees
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Students Seek Refunds Over Closures

VALE SA: Bid to Dismiss EDNY Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
VALE SA: Continues to Defend Banco Safra S.A. Suit
VALE SA: Settlement Conference in ADRs Suit Set for June 10
WALLGREENS BOOTS: Discovery Ongoing in Ill. Securities Class Suit
WALLGREENS BOOTS: Rite Aid Merger Suit Obtains Class Status

WESTCOAST COMMUNICATION: Rentschler Seeks Wages Owed Under FLSA
WHITSETT VISION: McKelvy Sues Over Failure to Offer COBRA Notice
WILLIAMS INDUSTRIAL: Budde Shareholder Class Action Concluded
WIRELESS ADVOCATES: Sinclair Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ZIMMER BIOMET: Karl Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Sales Reps Class

ZOOM TELEPHONICS: Continues to Defend Schulze Putative Class Suit
ZOOM VIDEO: Kirpekar Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Personal Info
ZOOMPASS HOLDINGS: 3d Cir. Dismissed 3rd Appeal in NJ Class Suit
ZTO EXPRESS: Birmingham Retirement & Relief System Suit Stayed
ZTO EXPRESS: Guo and McGrath Suits Remain Stayed

[^] WEBINAR: Best Practices in Qualifying the Class

                        Asbestos Litigation



                            *********

ACUITY BRANDS: Continues to Defend Georgia Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Acuity Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended February 29, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, In re Acuity
Brands, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No.
1:18-cv-02140-MHC (N.D. Ga.).

On January 3, 2018, a shareholder filed a class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
against the company and certain of its officers on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired its stock between June
29, 2016 and April 3, 2017.

On February 20, 2018, a different shareholder filed a second class
action complaint in the same venue against the same parties on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
company's stock between October 15, 2015 and April 3, 2017.

The cases were transferred on April 30, 2018, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and
subsequently were consolidated as In re Acuity Brands, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-02140-MHC (N.D.
Ga.).

On October 5, 2018, the court-appointed lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint, which supersedes the
initial complaints. The Consolidated Complaint is brought on behalf
of all persons who purchased our common stock between October 7,
2015 and April 3, 2017 and alleges that the company and certain of
its current officers and one former executive violated the federal
securities laws by making false or misleading statements and/or
omitting to disclose material adverse facts that (i) concealed
known trends negatively impacting sales of the company's products
and (ii) overstated the company's ability to achieve profitable
sales growth.

The plaintiffs seek class certification, unspecified monetary
damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.

The company disputes the allegations in the complaints and intend
to vigorously defend against the claims.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.
On August 12, 2019, the court entered an order granting the
company's motion to dismiss in part and dismissing all claims based
on 42 of the 47 statements challenged in the Consolidated Complaint
but also denying the motion in part and allowing claims based on
five challenged statements to proceed to discovery.

Acuity said, "Estimating an amount or range of possible losses
resulting from litigation proceedings is inherently difficult,
particularly where the matters involve indeterminate claims for
monetary damages and are in the stages of the proceedings where key
factual and legal issues have not been resolved. For these reasons,
we are currently unable to predict the ultimate timing or outcome
of or reasonably estimate the possible losses or a range of
possible losses resulting from the matters described above. We are
insured, in excess of a self-retention, for Directors and Officers
liability."

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

Acuity Brands, Inc. provides lighting and building management
solutions and services for commercial, institutional, industrial,
infrastructure, and residential applications in North America and
internationally. Acuity Brands, Inc. was founded in 2001 and is
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


ADESTO TECHNOLOGIES: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., announces that it has filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware on behalf of holders of Adesto Technologies Corporation
(NASDAQ GS: IOTS) common stock in connection with the proposed
acquisition of Adesto by Dialog Semiconductor plc and Azara
Acquisition Corp. ("Merger Sub"), announced on February 20, 2020
(the "Complaint").  The Complaint, which alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Adesto and its Board of
Directors (the "Board"), is captioned Rosenblatt v. Adesto
Technologies Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-00401 (D. Del.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's
counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long,
P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, DE 19801, by
telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com, or at
https://www.rigrodskylong.com/cases-adesto-technologies-corporation,join.

On February 20, 2020, Adesto entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Dialog and Merger Sub.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of
Adesto will receive $12.55 in cash for each share of Adesto common
stock they own (the "Proposed Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, defendants
issued materially incomplete disclosures in a proxy statement (the
"Proxy Statement") filed with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission.  The Complaint alleges that the Proxy
Statement omits material information with respect to, among other
things, the analyses performed by Adesto's financial advisor. The
Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on
behalf of holders of Adesto common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than June 8, 2020.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Delaware and New York, has
recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of investors
and achieved substantial corporate governance reforms in securities
fraud and corporate class actions nationwide.

Contact:

         Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
         Seth D. Rigrodsky
         Gina M. Serra
         Toll Free: (888) 969-4242
                    (302) 295-5310
         Fax: (302) 654-7530
         E-mail: info@rl-legal.com
                 https://rl-legal.coms
[GN]

ADP INC: Faces McCaffree Suit Alleging Breach of Fiduciary Duties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
McCaffree Financial Corp., individually, on behalf of all similarly
situated plan sponsors or other fiduciaries, and on behalf of the
ADP TOTALSOURCE RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN v. ADP, INC.; ADP
TOTALSOURCE GROUP, INC.; the ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE ADP
TOTALSOURCE RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN; 401K ADVISORS, INC. n/k/a NFP
RETIREMENT, and DOES No. 1-10, Whose Names Are Currently Unknown,
Case No. 2:20-cv-05492 (D.N.J., May 4, 2020), is brought to remedy
the Defendants' fiduciary breaches and violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

The Plan is a "multiple employer" 401(k) plan, as set forth in
Section 413 of the Internal Revenue Code, sponsored by TotalSource.
McCaffree and other similarly-situated employers co-sponsor the
Plan so that their eligible employees can participate in the Plan.
As of December 31, 2018, the Plan had 114,254 participants with
account balances and assets totaling over $4.44 billion, placing it
in the top 0.1% of all 401(k) plans by plan size.

Defined contribution plans with substantial assets, like the Plan,
have significant bargaining power and the ability to demand
low-cost administrative and investment management services within
the marketplace for administration of 401(k) plans and the
investment of 401(k) assets. The marketplace for 401(k) retirement
plan services is well-established and can be competitive when
fiduciaries of defined contribution retirement plans act in an
informed and prudent fashion.

The ADP Defendants maintain the Plan, and are responsible for
selecting, monitoring, and retaining the service provider(s) that
provide investment, recordkeeping, and other administrative
services. The ADP Defendants are fiduciaries under ERISA, and, as
such, are obligated to act for the exclusive benefit of
participants, ensure that the investment options offered through
the Plan are prudent and diverse, and ensure that Plan expenses are
fair and reasonable, the Plaintiff avers.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have breached their
fiduciary duties to the Plan. The ADP Defendants have: (1) allowed
unreasonable recordkeeping/administrative expenses to be charged to
the Plan; (2) failed to adequately monitor the Plan's recordkeeper
and its affiliates, who the ADP Defendants have permitted to design
an investment menu unreasonably favorable to them despite the
recordkeeper's clear conflicts of interest; and (3) along with NFP
Retirement, selected, retained, and/or otherwise ratified high-cost
and poorly-performing investments, when more prudent alternative
investments were available at the time that they were chosen for
inclusion within the Plan and throughout the relevant period.

The Plaintiff, McCaffree, is a Kansas corporation headquartered in
Overland Park, Kansas, and co-sponsors the Plan for its employees.

ADP provides human resources management software and other services
to employers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          201 Filbert Street, Suite 201
          San Francisco, CA 94133
          Phone: (856) 858-1770
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          Email: jshah@sfmslaw.com

               –and–

          James E. Miller, Esq.
          Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          65 Main Street
          Chester, CT 06412
          Phone: (860) 526-1100
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          Email: jmiller@sfmslaw.com
                 lrubinow@sfmslaw.com

               –and–

          John F. Edgar, Esq.
          EDGAR LAW FIRM, LLC
          2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 440
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Phone: (816) 531-0033
          Facsimile: (816) 531-3322
          Email: jfe@edgarlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          1401 Dove Street, Suite 540
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Phone: (323) 510-4060
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          Email: ktang@sfmslaw.com

               –and–

          Bruce D. Parke, Esq.
          Alec J. Berin, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (610) 891-9880
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          Email: bparke@sfmslaw.com
                 aberin@sfmslaw.com


AEG PRESENTS SE: Barbieri Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
---------------------------------------------------------
Adriana Barbieri, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AEG Presents SE, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-03923 (C.D. Cal., April 29, 2020), seeks injunctive
relief, statutory damages and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

AEG promoted a concert event where it attempted to contact Barbieri
via SMS on her cellular telephone in an attempt to promote the said
event using an automatic telephone dialing system. Barbieri did not
give her express consent to be contact in this manner, says the
complaint. [BN]

Barbieri is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Thomas J. Patti, Esq
      Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
      110 SE 6th Street
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 907-1136
      Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
      Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
             tom@jibraellaw.com

             - and -

      Marshall Rosenbach, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MARSHALL E. ROSENBACH
      468 N. Camden Drive, Suite 200
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (310) 860-4764
      Fax: (561) 694-1359
      Email: marshall@marshallrosenbach.com

AKORN INC: Settlement in Data Securities Suit Wins Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Akorn, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission filed on April 1, 2020, that the settlement
in the class action suit entitled, In re Akorn, Inc. Data Integrity
Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 18-cv-1713 (N.D. Ill.), gets final
approval.

Akorn, Inc. and certain current and former Company officers and
directors were named defendants in a putative class action
litigation captioned In re Akorn, Inc. Data Integrity Securities
Litigation, C.A. No. 18-cv-1713 (N.D. Ill.), filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

On August 9, 2019, the Company and the other defendants in the
Securities Class Action entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement to resolve the Securities Class Action and the claims of
the putative class.

On August 26, 2019, the Court, among other things, preliminarily
approved the settlement, subject to final approval at a settlement
hearing.

At the Settlement Hearing on March 13, 2020, the Court granted the
lead plaintiff's unopposed motion for final approval of the class
action settlement and plan of allocation, certified a plaintiffs'
class for settlement purposes, found the settlement consideration
fair, reasonable and adequate, and approved lead plaintiff's
application for an award of attorneys' fees and litigation
expenses. Later on March 13, 2020, the Court entered a final order
and judgment.

The terms of the Settlement Agreement provide for the release of
the class claims in exchange for a combination of (i) $27.5 million
in insurance proceeds from the Company's D&O insurance policies,
(ii) the issuance by the Company of approximately 6.5 million
shares of the Company's common stock, no par value per share, and
any additional shares of Company common stock that are released as
a result of the expiration of out of the money options through
December 31, 2024 (collectively, the "Settlement Shares") and (iii)
the issuance by the Company of contingent value rights, which have
been designated the "Series A Contingent Value Rights" (the
"CVRs"), with a five year term, subject to an extension of up to
two years under certain circumstances. In accordance with the terms
of the Settlement Agreement, a total of 6,713,905 Settlement Shares
and a total of 6,713,905 CVRs were issued into separate escrow
accounts on April 1, 2020.

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


ALLEGIANT TRAVEL: Bratcher Sues Over Shelved Flight, Seeks Refund
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Bratcher, an individual person on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Allegiant Travel Company,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00767, (D. Nev., April 28, 2020) seeks a
full cash refund, an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs
and such other and further relief resulting from unjust enrichment,
fraud and breach of contract.

Allegiant Travel Company is the owner and operator of Allegiant
Air, a low-cost airline. Its business was disrupted as a result of
government-mandated restrictions on travel in response to the
COVID19 pandemic.

Bratcher was scheduled to fly with Allegiant between Fort
Lauderdale, Florida and Norfolk, Virginia. However, the flight was
cancelled by Allegiant due to the coronavirus so she requested a
refund. She alleged that Allegiant was only issuing credits for the
flight cancellations, not cash refunds. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Don Springmeyer, Esq.
      Jordan Butler, Esq.
      WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN AND RABKIN, LLP
      3556 E Russell Rd., Second Floor
      Las Vegas, NV 89120
      Telephone: (702) 341-5200
      Fax: (702) 341-5300
      Email: dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com
             jbutler@wrslawyers.com

             - and -

      Yeremey Krivoshey, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
      Walnut Creek, CA 94596
      Telephone: (925) 300-4455
      Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
      Email: ykrivoshey@bursor.com

             - and -

      Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq.
      Max S. Roberts, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      888 Seventh Avenue, Third Floor
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (646) 837-7150
      Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
      E-Mail: aobergfell@bursor.com
              mroberts@bursor.com


ALLERGAN INC: LaFleur Files Product Liability Suit in Wisconsin
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allergan Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Nancy LaFleur, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated v. Allergan Inc., formerly known as:
Inamed Corporation; Allergan USA Inc.; Case No. 1:20-cv-00681-WCG
(E.D. Wis., May 1, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Tort Product Liability.

Allergan, Inc., was an American global pharmaceutical company
focused on eye care, neurosciences, medical dermatology, medical
aesthetics, breast enhancement, obesity intervention and
urologics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J Schwaba, Esq.
          SCHWABA LAW FIRM
          212 S Tryon St., Ste. 1725
          Charlotte, NC 28281
          Phone: (704) 370-0220
          Fax: (704) 370-0210
          Email: ASCHWABA@VERDICTNC.COM


ANAPTYSBIO INC: Glancy Prongay Notes of May 26 Plaintiff Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming May 26, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of AnaptysBio, Inc. (NASDAQ: ANAB)
investors who purchased securities between October 10, 2017 and
November 7, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you suffered a loss on your AnaptysBio investments or would like
to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information here or contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at
310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, via email
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

On March 26, 2018, AnaptysBio revealed data from an interim
analysis of a Phase 2a trial for etokimab in adult patients with
peanut allergies. Though the Company reported improvement among
patients who received a single dose of etokimab compared to
patients dosed with a placebo, later that day, an analyst from RBC
Capital Markets issued a report that questioned the accuracy of
that data.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $6.31 per share, or
over 5%, to close at $107.52 per share on March 27, 2018, thereby
injuring investors.

Then on June 21, 2019, an analyst from Credit Suisse issued a
report questioning the accuracy of the Company's Phase 2a atopic
dermatitis data, concluding that due to lack of critical details
provided by the Company as well as the study's small sample size,
"we must consider the possibility that the presence of rescue
medications could have influenced the trial's response rates" and
"we are now less certain about etokimab's efficacy profile." Thus,
Credit Suisse downgraded AnaptysBio stock to neutral from
outperform and slashed its price target to $79 from $137.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $7.78 per share, or
over 11%, to close at $59.24 per share on June 21, 2019.

Finally, on November 8, 2019, the Company announced "very
disappoint[ing]" data from its ATLAS trial, a Phase 2b multi-dose
study which evaluated the efficacy of etokimab in patients with
moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. Specifically, AnaptysBio
disclosed that each of the etokimab dosing arms "failed to meet the
primary endpoint of the trial" and revealed that, as a result of
this data, it had postponed the initiation of its Phase 2b etokimab
clinical trial in asthma.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $25.98 per share, or
over 71%, to close at $10.18 per share on November 8, 2019, thereby
injuring investors further.

The complaint alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) important data from the Company's Phase 2a trial in atopic
dermatitis, including the timing and extent of patients' use of
topical corticosteroids as a rescue therapy during the study and
whether any of the patients that utilized rescue therapy were
classified as responders at a given time; (2) key information from
the Company's Phase 2a trial in peanut allergy, including patients'
average cumulative peanut dose tolerated at day 14 after the
administration of etokimab or placebo as well as whether the
Company's decision to exclude 20% of the patients enrolled in the
study from the interim analysis due to their mild symptoms was
retrospective; and (3) as a result, Defendants' positive statements
about the efficacy and prospects of AnaptysBio's lead drug asset in
the treatment of atopic dermatitis and peanut allergy were
materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired AnaptysBio securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than May 26, 2020
to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class
action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not
take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice
or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action.
If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please
contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.

Contact:

         Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
         Los Angeles
         Charles Linehan
         Tel: 310-201-9150
              888-773-9224
         E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com
         Web site: www.glancylaw.com
[GN]

ARCIMOTO INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on Monday
---------------------------------------------------------
Arcimoto, Inc.  said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended February 1, 2020, that the parties to the
consolidated class action suit entitled, John R Switzer vs W.R.
Hambrecht & Co. LLC et al. have filed a motion with the court
seeking approval of the settlement agreement, which motion is
scheduled for final approval on May 18, 2020.

On March 11, 2018, the Company was served with a lawsuit entitled
John R Switzer vs W.R. Hambrecht & Co. LLC et al., Case Number:
CGC-18-564904, filed in San Francisco County Superior Court in the
State of California.

In this action, the Company was named as a defendant along with
five individuals who were directors and/or executive officers at
the time of the completion of the Company's Regulation A offering
on September 21, 2017. The action was styled as a putative class
action, alleged on behalf of all those who purchased the Company's
common stock in its Regulation A offering.

The plaintiff alleged violations of Section 12(a)(2) and Section 15
of the Securities Act, and is seeking damages in an unspecified
amount to be proven at trial.

In addition, on March 28, 2018, the Company was served with another
lawsuit entitled Jay Mendelson v. Arcimoto, Inc. et al., Case
Number CGC-18-565324, filed in San Francisco County Superior Court
in the State of California.

In that action, which was styled as a putative class action, the
Company was also named as a defendant along with the same
individuals who were directors and/or executive officers at the
time of the completion of our Regulation A offering on September
21, 2017.

The allegations and claims made in the Mendelson action were
substantially similar to those of the Switzer action and the
plaintiff was also seeking damages in an unspecified amount to be
proven at trial.

The two actions were consolidated into a single lawsuit on May 28,
2018.

The Company believes that the consolidated lawsuit was without
merit and vigorously defended itself against these claims in court.


On July 30, 2018, counsel for the Company filed a demurrer to the
consolidated complaint, seeking its dismissal. By Order dated
September 19, 2018, the San Francisco Court sustained in part and
denied in part the demurrer.

On September 28, 2018, plaintiffs in that case filed a First
Amended Consolidated Complaint. The Company denied the substantive
claims and allegations made in that amended pleading and continued
to assert a vigorous defense.

On January 25, 2019, the parties reached a settlement agreement in
the consolidated cases, subject to court approval. The parties to
the lawsuit have filed a motion with the court seeking approval of
the settlement agreement, which motion is scheduled for final
approval on May 18, 2020. By its terms, the settlement agreement
resolves this litigation in its entirety.

Arcimoto, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and sells
three-wheeled electric vehicles. The company was formerly known as
WTP Inc and changed its name to Arcimoto, Inc. in December 2011.
Arcimoto, Inc. was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Eugene,
Oregon.


AVANTEUSA LTD: Williams Sues in Michigan Alleging FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Williams, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons, v. AVANTEUSA, Ltd., Case No. 1:20-cv-00386 (W.D.
Mich., May 4, 2020), accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Defendant purportedly mailed a debt collection letter to the
Plaintiff dated May 3, 2019 ("Subject Collection Letter"), and the
Subject Collection Letter constitutes as a "communication" as this
term is defined by the FDCPA. The Subject Collection Letter
attempted to collect a loan for an automobile (the "Subject Debt")
where the Subject Debt was originally incurred with the stated
"Original Creditor", Consumer Portfolio Services Inc.

The Subject Letter, purportedly mailed on Friday, May 4, 2019,
contained a time sensitive settlement proposal that suggested that
the Plaintiff could pay less than one-third of the subject debt if
he paid $3,000 by Thursday, May 16, 2019. The Plaintiff incurred
the Subject Debt in 2008 or 2009. According to the Plaintiff's
knowledge, his last payment towards the Subject Debt was more than
six years prior to May 3, 2019.

The Subject Collection Letter violated the FDCPA because it did not
reflect a disclosure indicating that the Subject Debt was past the
applicable statute of limitations for the State of Michigan (which
is six-years), the Plaintiff contends. He adds that failing to
inform him that the Subject Debt was time-barred under applicable
law constitutes a real and concrete injury that the FDCPA was
enacted to prevent.

The Plaintiff is a "consumer" and is alleged to owe a "debt."

The Defendant is a corporation with its headquarters located in
Houston, Texas, and is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 South Highland Ave., Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (630) 581-5456
          Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com


BABY BREZZA: Lieff Cabraser, Carella Byrne File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Lieff Cabraser and Carella Byrne announce the filing of a class
action lawsuit in the District of New Jersey against Baby Brezza
Enterprises and The Betesh Group on behalf of Ashley Nahai and
Michael Soter, California residents and the parents of an infant
girl whose survival was threatened by an allegedly defective liquid
baby formula mixing machine manufactured and sold by Baby Brezza
and The Betesh Group.

Baby Brezza markets the Formula Makers like the "Baby Brezza
Formula Pro" and "Baby Brezza Formula Pro Advanced" as employing
"patented mixing technology [that] automatically mixes formula and
water to perfect consistency." As alleged in the Complaint, the
problem is that the Formula Makers do not perform as advertised,
and when operated correctly, produce formula that is too watery.
Watery formula is dangerous because it lacks enough nutrients to
allow infants to thrive. And improperly concentrated formula
(either too watery or too dense) is dangerous because infants'
digestive systems are not sufficiently developed to process formula
that is too watery or too concentrated. As the Complaint further
alleges, Baby Brezza knew or should have known that the Formula
Makers contain a dangerous design defect, and the sale of defective
makers and Baby Brezza's failure to disclose their propensity to
make dangerous insufficiently nutritive watery formula constitute
unfair and deceptive business practices and breach of express and
implied warranties.

"Infants are the most vulnerable but most important population we
have," notes Lieff Cabraser partner Jason Lichtman, who represents
the plaintiffs in the case. "Claiming you provide them with
'perfect' nutrition when that food is actually watery and therefore
dangerous is unconscionable, and has to stop."

As the Complaint details, the plaintiffs first noticed something
amiss in the appearance of the liquid formula produced by the Baby
Brezza Formula Maker. They had been mixing bottles by hand before
purchasing the Formula Maker and therefore had a sense of what the
formula should look like, and the mixes produced by the machine
appeared more watery than the ones mixed by hand. However, because
Nahai and Soter were new parents and believed that Baby Brezza was
a reputable company that manufactured a quality product, they
assumed their perception was incorrect and that the liquid formula
produced by the Formula Maker was properly concentrated. Plaintiffs
checked the Baby Brezza website again to be sure the setting was
correct and verified that the machine was on the proper setting.

Before purchasing the machine and when plaintiffs were mixing
bottles by hand, their infant daughter was eating every three
hours, standard for most infants. However, shortly after they began
using the Formula Maker, plaintiffs noticed their infant daughter
began to scream and cry approximately every hour to hour-and-a-half
due to hunger. Plaintiffs were confused and became concerned about
their daughter's health. When Plaintiffs took their daughter to the
pediatrician for her two-month checkup, they were informed that
their daughter was in the 12th percentile for weight and that she
was below the standard for daily weight gain (that is, she was
gaining less than one ounce per day).

"Ms. Nahai and Mr. Soter repeatedly verified their Baby Brezza
machine was set properly, but it became increasingly apparent that
their Formula Maker was producing bottles with insufficient
powder," notes Mr. Lichtman. "And once they resumed mixing their
baby's formula by hand, her normal eating schedule resumed and her
health began to significantly recover."

The lawsuit states claims for violation of state consumer
protection laws, violation of express and implied warranties,
affirmative misrepresentation, negligence, concealment, and unjust
enrichment, and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief including
corrective action, a nationwide recall of the defective Formula
Maker machines, discontinuation of the sale and marketing of the
machines, and restitutionary and punitive damages.

The case is Ashley Nahai and Michael Soter v. Baby Brezza
Enterprises and The Betesh Group, No. 2:20-cv-03712-CCC-MF in the
District of New Jersey.

Contact:

         Jason L. Lichtman
         Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
         250 Hudson Street, 8th fl.
         New York, NY 10013-1413
         Phone: (212) 355-9500
         E-mail: jlichtman@lchb.com

         Andrew R. Kaufman
         Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
         222 Second Avenue South, Suite 1640
         Nashville, TN 37206
         Phone: (615) 313-9000
         E-mail: akaufman@lchb.com

         Donald A. Ecklund
         Carella Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C.
         5 Becker Farm Road
         Roseland, NJ 07068
         Phone: (973) 994-1700
         E-mail: decklund@carellabyrne.com
[GN]

BAJCO INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Valesh Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Valesh, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
Bajco International, LLC; Bajco, LLC; Bajco Michiana III, LLC;
Bajco Global Management, LLC; Bajco Global Management II, LLC;
Bajco 100, LLC; Bajco North, LLC; Bajco East, LLC; Bajco Central,
LLC; Bajco Florida, LLC; Bajco Illinois, LLC; Bajco Michiana, LLC;
Bajco Michiana II, LLC; Bajco Michiana IV, LLC; Bajco New York,
LLC; Bajco Ohio, LLC; Bajco Philadelphia, LLC; Bajco Williamsport,
LLC; Bajco Wisconsin, LLC; BETCO 36 Bajco Venture LLC; Nadeem
Bajwa; and Faisal Bajwa, Case No. 4:20-cv-00028 (N.D. Ind., May 1,
2020), arises from the Defendants' failure to compensate the
Plaintiff with minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Indiana Wage Payment Act, and the Indiana Wage
Deduction Act.

The Defendants repeatedly and willfully violated the FLSA and IWPA
by failing to adequately reimburse Delivery Drivers for their
delivery-related expenses, thereby, failing to pay Delivery Drivers
the legally mandated minimum wages for all hours worked, according
to the complaint. All Delivery Drivers at the Defendants' Papa
John's stores, including the Plaintiff, have been subject to the
same or similar employment policies and practices.

The Plaintiff worked at the Papa John's store in Lafayette,
Indiana.

The Defendants own and operate 125 Papa John's Pizza locations in
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zachary T. Williams, Esq.
          WITHERED BURNS & WILLIAMS, LLP
          8 North Third Street, Suite 401
          P.O. Box 499
          Lafayette, IN 47902-0499
          Phone: (765) 742-1988
          Fax: (765) 742-8774
          Email: zwilliams@witheredlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick I. Jones, Esq.
          WITHERED BURNS & WILLIAMS, LLP
          8 North Third Street, Suite 401
          P.O. Box 499
          Lafayette, IN 47902-0499
          Phone: (765) 742-1988
          Fax: (765) 742-8774
          Email: pjones@witheredlaw.com

               - and -

          Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
          Columbus, OH 43219
          Phone: (614) 604-8759
          Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
          Email: abiller@billerkimble.com

               - and -

          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
          Louise M. Roselle, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          8044 Montgomery Rd., Ste. 515
          Cincinnati, OH 45236
          Phone: (513) 715-8711
          Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
          Email: akimble@billerkimble.com
                 pkrzeski@billerkimble.com
                 lroselle@billerkimble.com


BAMFORD WATCHES: West Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bamford Watches LLC.
The case is styled as Mary West, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Bamford Watches LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-03414 (S.D.N.Y., May 1, 2020).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Bamford Watch Department is a watch label based in London and is
known for personalizing steel sports watches from major
international brands.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Paul Force, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com


BESAME COSMETICS: Kalender Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Besame Cosmetics Inc.
The case is styled as Frances Kalender, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Besame Cosmetics Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-03411 (S.D.N.Y., May 1, 2020).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Besame Cosmetics is a cosmetics company founded in 2004.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Paul Force, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com


BETESH GROUP: Lieff Cabraser, Carella Byrne File Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lieff Cabraser and Carella Byrne announce the filing of a class
action lawsuit in the District of New Jersey against Baby Brezza
Enterprises and The Betesh Group on behalf of Ashley Nahai and
Michael Soter, California residents and the parents of an infant
girl whose survival was threatened by an allegedly defective liquid
baby formula mixing machine manufactured and sold by Baby Brezza
and The Betesh Group.

Baby Brezza markets the Formula Makers like the "Baby Brezza
Formula Pro" and "Baby Brezza Formula Pro Advanced" as employing
"patented mixing technology [that] automatically mixes formula and
water to perfect consistency." As alleged in the Complaint, the
problem is that the Formula Makers do not perform as advertised,
and when operated correctly, produce formula that is too watery.
Watery formula is dangerous because it lacks enough nutrients to
allow infants to thrive. And improperly concentrated formula
(either too watery or too dense) is dangerous because infants'
digestive systems are not sufficiently developed to process formula
that is too watery or too concentrated. As the Complaint further
alleges, Baby Brezza knew or should have known that the Formula
Makers contain a dangerous design defect, and the sale of defective
makers and Baby Brezza's failure to disclose their propensity to
make dangerous insufficiently nutritive watery formula constitute
unfair and deceptive business practices and breach of express and
implied warranties.

"Infants are the most vulnerable but most important population we
have," notes Lieff Cabraser partner Jason Lichtman, who represents
the plaintiffs in the case. "Claiming you provide them with
‘perfect' nutrition when that food is actually watery and
therefore dangerous is unconscionable, and has to stop."

As the Complaint details, the plaintiffs first noticed something
amiss in the appearance of the liquid formula produced by the Baby
Brezza Formula Maker. They had been mixing bottles by hand before
purchasing the Formula Maker and therefore had a sense of what the
formula should look like, and the mixes produced by the machine
appeared more watery than the ones mixed by hand. However, because
Nahai and Soter were new parents and believed that Baby Brezza was
a reputable company that manufactured a quality product, they
assumed their perception was incorrect and that the liquid formula
produced by the Formula Maker was properly concentrated. Plaintiffs
checked the Baby Brezza website again to be sure the setting was
correct and verified that the machine was on the proper setting.

Before purchasing the machine and when plaintiffs were mixing
bottles by hand, their infant daughter was eating every three
hours, standard for most infants. However, shortly after they began
using the Formula Maker, plaintiffs noticed their infant daughter
began to scream and cry approximately every hour to hour-and-a-half
due to hunger. Plaintiffs were confused and became concerned about
their daughter's health. When Plaintiffs took their daughter to the
pediatrician for her two-month checkup, they were informed that
their daughter was in the 12th percentile for weight and that she
was below the standard for daily weight gain (that is, she was
gaining less than one ounce per day).

"Ms. Nahai and Mr. Soter repeatedly verified their Baby Brezza
machine was set properly, but it became increasingly apparent that
their Formula Maker was producing bottles with insufficient
powder," notes Mr. Lichtman. "And once they resumed mixing their
baby's formula by hand, her normal eating schedule resumed and her
health began to significantly recover."

The lawsuit states claims for violation of state consumer
protection laws, violation of express and implied warranties,
affirmative misrepresentation, negligence, concealment, and unjust
enrichment, and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief including
corrective action, a nationwide recall of the defective Formula
Maker machines, discontinuation of the sale and marketing of the
machines, and restitutionary and punitive damages.

The case is Ashley Nahai and Michael Soter v. Baby Brezza
Enterprises and The Betesh Group, No. 2:20-cv-03712-CCC-MF in the
District of New Jersey.

Contact:

         Jason L. Lichtman
         Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
         250 Hudson Street, 8th fl.
         New York, NY 10013-1413
         Phone: (212) 355-9500
         E-mail: jlichtman@lchb.com

         Andrew R. Kaufman
         Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
         222 Second Avenue South, Suite 1640
         Nashville, TN 37206
         Phone: (615) 313-9000
         E-mail: akaufman@lchb.com

         Donald A. Ecklund
         Carella Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C.
         5 Becker Farm Road
         Roseland, NJ 07068
         Phone: (973) 994-1700
         E-mail: decklund@carellabyrne.com
[GN]

BISON COOLERS: Kalender Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bison Coolers, LLC.
The case is styled as Frances Kalender, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Bison Coolers, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-03410 (S.D.N.Y., May 1, 2020).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Bison Coolers manufactures American coolers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Paul Force, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com


BITFINEX: General Counsel Bashes New Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Vladislav Sopov of U Today reports that Stuart Hoegner, general
counsel of Bitfinex, said that the attorneys that recently filed
the lawsuit against Bitfinex and Tether, asked the court for
additional time to 'amend' their documents.

Instead of amending the claims against Bitfinex, the Roche Friedman
law firm filed new lawsuits against top-notch crypto trading
ecosystems, including Binance and BitMEX as well as against
Block.one, TRON Foundation and Status. As per the claims, the
blockchain teams issued unregistered securities in the form of ICO
tokens while the exchanges helped them sell it.

Plaintiffs mentioned in the new complaints invested in the
ICO-projects through the exchange platforms they have now decided
to sue in U.S. court.

Mr. Hoegner highlighted that the positions of Tether and Bitfinex
remain unchanged: the class action against them is baseless.
Moreover, according to him, it poses a threat to the worldwide
blockchain community: "Their actions againist Tether and Bitfinex
are a direct attack against the efforts and commitment of our
customers, our stakeholders, and the entire digital token
community."

Thus, the claimants have zero chances for success, the Bitfinex
representative outlined. His 'hope' is that the attorneys of the
plaintiffs come to understand that 'there will never be a payday'
from Bitfinex and Tether. [GN]



BLACKBERRY LTD: Discovery Ongoing in Ontario Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
BlackBerry Limited said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 7, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended February 29, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the
class action suit pending before an Ontario Court.

On July 23, 2014, the plaintiffs in the putative Ontario class
action filed a motion for certification and leave to pursue
statutory misrepresentation claims. On November 16, 2015, the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued an order granting the
plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a statutory claim for
misrepresentation.

On December 2, 2015, the Company filed a notice of motion seeking
leave to appeal this ruling. On January 22, 2016, the Court
postponed the hearing on the plaintiffs' certification motion to an
undetermined date after asking the Company to file a motion to
dismiss the claims of the U.S. plaintiffs for forum non conveniens.


Before that motion was heard, the parties agreed to limit the class
to purchasers who reside in Canada or purchased on the Toronto
Stock Exchange. On November 15, 2018, the Court denied the
Company's motion for leave to appeal the order granting the
plaintiffs leave to file a statutory claim for misrepresentation.

On February 5, 2019, the Court entered an order certifying a class
comprised persons (a) who purchased BlackBerry common shares
between March 28, 2013, and September 20, 2013, and still held at
least some of those shares as of September 20, 2013, and (b) who
acquired those shares on a Canadian stock exchange or acquired
those shares on any other stock exchange and were a resident of
Canada when the shares were acquired. Notice of class certification
was published on March 6, 2019.

The Company filed its Statement of Defence on April 1, 2019, and
discovery is proceeding.

BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and
services to enterprises and governments around the world. The
company secures more than 500 million endpoints including 150
million cars. Based in Waterloo, Ontario, the company leverages
artificial intelligence ("AI") and machine learning to deliver
innovative solutions in the areas of cybersecurity, safety and data
privacy, and is a leader in the areas of endpoint security
management, encryption, and embedded systems.


BLACKBERRY LTD: Employment Class Suit in Ontario Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
BlackBerry Limited said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 7, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended February 29, 2020, that the company continues to defend
an employment class action suit filed before the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice.

On February 15, 2017, a putative employment class action was filed
against the Company in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The Statement of Claim alleges that actions the Company took when
certain of its employees decided to accept offers of employment
from Ford Motor Company of Canada amounted to a wrongful
termination of the employees’ employment with the Company.

The claim seeks (i) an unspecified quantum of statutory,
contractual, or common law termination entitlements; (ii) punitive
or breach of duty of good faith damages of CAD$20,000,000, or such
other amount as the Court finds appropriate, (iii) pre- and post-
judgment interest, (iv) attorneys' fees and costs, and (v) such
other relief as the Court deems just.

The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify the class
action on May 27, 2019. The Company commenced a motion for leave to
appeal the certification order on June 11, 2019.

The Court denied the motion for leave to appeal on September 17,
2019.

BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and
services to enterprises and governments around the world. The
company secures more than 500 million endpoints including 150
million cars. Based in Waterloo, Ontario, the company leverages
artificial intelligence ("AI") and machine learning to deliver
innovative solutions in the areas of cybersecurity, safety and data
privacy, and is a leader in the areas of endpoint security
management, encryption, and embedded systems.


BLACKBERRY LTD: Expert Discovery to be Completed June 29
--------------------------------------------------------
BlackBerry Limited said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 7, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended February 29, 2020, that expert discovery in the
consolidated class action suit pending before the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York is scheduled to be
completed on June 29, 2020.

On March 14, 2014, four putative U.S. class actions were
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, and on May 27, 2014, a consolidated amended class
action complaint was filed.

On March 13, 2015, the Court issued an order granting the Company's
motion to dismiss. The Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration and for leave to file an amended complaint on
November 13, 2015.

On August 24, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit affirmed the District Court order dismissing the complaint,
but vacated the order denying leave to amend and remanded to the
District Court for further proceedings in connection with the
plaintiffs' request for leave to amend. The Court granted the
plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend on September 13, 2017.

On September 29, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated
amended class action complaint, which added the Company's former
Chief Legal Officer as a defendant.

The Court denied the motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint
on March 19, 2018. During the first quarter of fiscal 2019, the
U.S. class actions lawsuit proceeded to discovery. Fact discovery
was completed on January 31, 2020, and expert discovery is
scheduled to be completed on June 29, 2020.

On August 2, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation that the Court grant the defendants' motion for
judgment on the pleadings dismissing the claims of additional
plaintiffs Cho and Ulug.

On September 24, 2019, the District Court Judge accepted the
Magistrate Judge's recommendation and dismissed the claims of Cho
and Ulug against all defendants. On October 17, 2019, Cho and Ulug
filed a Notice of Appeal.

All other proceedings, including plaintiffs' pending motion for
class certification but excluding fact and expert discovery, are
currently suspended pending the decision of the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals in Arkansas Teachers Retirement System et al. v.
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., et al., which involves an issue relevant
to the motion for class certification.

BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and
services to enterprises and governments around the world. The
company secures more than 500 million endpoints including 150
million cars. Based in Waterloo, Ontario, the company leverages
artificial intelligence ("AI") and machine learning to deliver
innovative solutions in the areas of cybersecurity, safety and data
privacy, and is a leader in the areas of endpoint security
management, encryption, and embedded systems.


BLACKBERRY LTD: Tentative Deal Reached in Calif. Workers Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
BlackBerry Limited said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 7, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended February 29, 2020, that a tentative settlement has been
reached in the employment class action suit pending before the San
Joaquin County Superior Court in California.

On February 4, 2019, a putative employment class action and
California Private Attorney General Act claim was filed against the
Company in the San Joaquin County Superior Court alleging the
Company (i) failed to provide itemized wage statements in violation
of California Labor Code Section 226(a); and (ii) failed to pay all
wages due at termination in violation of California Labor Code
Section 201. The complaint seeks statutory penalties, injunctive
relief, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.

The Company filed its answer denying the allegations in the
complaint on March 18, 2019, and discovery is proceeding.

On August 22, 2019, the Company filed a Motion for Summary
Adjudication of the named plaintiff's wage statement claims. The
Court took the motion under submission following oral argument on
November 13, 2019, and the motion remains pending.

The Court denied the motion on January 21, 2020.

The parties have reached a tentative settlement and will provide
notice of the settlement to the class after the Court enters its
order preliminarily approving the settlement.

BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and
services to enterprises and governments around the world. The
company secures more than 500 million endpoints including 150
million cars. Based in Waterloo, Ontario, the company leverages
artificial intelligence ("AI") and machine learning to deliver
innovative solutions in the areas of cybersecurity, safety and data
privacy, and is a leader in the areas of endpoint security
management, encryption, and embedded systems.


BLOCK.ONE: Schall Law Firm Announces Filing of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of EOS digital tokens against Block.one ("the Company")
for violations of the federal securities laws.

Investors who purchased EOS digital tokens between June 26, 2017
and April 3, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged
to contact the firm before June 8, 2020.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Specifically, Block.one failed to create
and file a Registration Statement for the securities it was
offering and selling.

Join the case to recover your losses.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.

Contact:

          The Schall Law Firm
          Brian Schall, Esq.
          www.schallfirm.com
          Office: 310-301-3335
          E-mail: info@schallfirm.com
[GN]

BLUE RIDGE: Suit vs. Virginia Community Bankshares Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Blue Ridge Bankshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended February 1, 2020, that the company has
assumed liability of Virginia Community Bankshares, Inc. (VCB) in
relation to the class action suit filed against the latter.

On August 12, 2019, a former employee of Virginia Community
Bankshares, Inc. (VCB) and participant in its Employee Stock
Ownership Plan (the "ESOP") filed a class action complaint against
VCB, Virginia Community Bank, and certain individuals associated
with the ESOP in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Virginia, Charlottesville Division (Case No. 3:19-cv-00045-GEC).


The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to ESOP participants in violation
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended.


The complaint alleges that the ESOP incurred damages "that approach
or exceed $12 million."

The Company automatically assumed any liability of VCB in
connection with this litigation as a result of the Company’s
acquisition of VCB.  

Blue Ridge said, "The outcome of this litigation is uncertain, and
the plaintiff and other individuals may file additional lawsuits
related to the ESOP. The defense, settlement, or adverse outcome of
any such lawsuit or claim could have a material adverse financial
impact on the Company."

Blue Ridge Bankshares, Inc. is a bank holding company headquartered
in Charlottesville, Virginia. It provides commercial and consumer
banking and financial services through its wholly-owned bank
subsidiary, Blue Ridge Bank, National Association (the "Bank"), and
its non-bank financial services affiliates. The Company was
incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia in July
1988 in connection with the holding company reorganization of the
Bank, which was completed in July 1988.


BLWD LLC: Kalender Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BLWD LLC. The case is
styled as Frances Kalender, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. BLWD LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-03409 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 1, 2020).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

BLWD LLC is a New York company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Paul Force, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com


BUSINESS FIRST: Faces Parshall Class Suit
-----------------------------------------
Business First Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on April 8, 2020,
that the company is defending against a class action suit entitled,
Paul Parshall, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Business First Bancshares, Inc., et al., Case
1:20-cv-00438-UNA.

On January 22, 2020, Business First Bancshares, Inc., a Louisiana
corporation, entered into that certain Agreement and Plan of
Reorganization, dated as of January 22, 2020 (the "Reorganization
Agreement"), by and between Business First and Pedestal Bancshares
Inc. ("Pedestal"), a Louisiana corporation and the parent holding
company of Pedestal Bank, pursuant to which on the terms and
subject to the conditions set forth therein, Pedestal will merge
with and into Business First, with Business First being the
surviving corporation.

Immediately following the merger, Pedestal Bank will merge with and
into b1BANK, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Business First and a
Louisiana state-chartered bank, with b1BANK surviving the merger.


The proposed merger is described in the joint proxy
statement/prospectus that was filed by Business First with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2020, in connection
with the merger.

On or about March 6, 2020, Business First mailed the joint proxy
statement/Prospectus to Business First's shareholders in connection
with the special meeting of its shareholders scheduled to be held
on April 14, 2020 at which its shareholders will consider and vote
upon, among other things, a proposal to approve the Reorganization
Agreement and the merger.

On March 25, 2020, a purported Business First shareholder filed a
lawsuit against Business First and the members of the Business
First board of directors, (collectively, the "Defendants") in the
United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
captioned Stephen Bushansky v. Business First Bancshares, Inc., et
al., Case 1:20-cv-02567 (the "Bushansky Action").

The Bushansky Action generally alleges that the joint proxy
statement/Prospectus omitted or misrepresented material information
concerning, among other things: (i) the pro forma forecasts and
estimates relied upon by Business First’s financial advisor,
Raymond James & Associates, Inc., in its valuation analyses; (ii)
the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses
that support the fairness opinion provided by Raymond James; and
(iii) Raymond James' potential conflicts of interest.

Among other relief, the Bushansky Action seeks (i) to enjoin the
merger, (ii) if the merger is consummated, to rescind it and set it
aside or award rescissory damages to the plaintiff, and (iii) an
award of unspecified costs, including attorneys' fees and
experts’ fees, to the plaintiff.

Additionally, on March 27, 2020, a purported Business First
shareholder filed a class action lawsuit against Business First,
members of the Business First board of directors, and Pedestal in
the United States District Court, District of Delaware, captioned
Paul Parshall, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Business First Bancshares, Inc., et al., Case
1:20-cv-00438-UNA (the "Parshall Action", and, together with the
Bushansky Action, the "Actions").

The Parshall Action generally alleges that the joint proxy
statement/Prospectus omits material information, which rendered the
joint proxy statement/Prospectus false and misleading, concerning,
among other things, (i) the Raymond James analyses regarding the
merger and (ii) Raymond James’ alleged conflicts of interest in
and regarding the merger.

Among other relief, the Parshall Action seeks (i) to enjoin the
merger, (ii) if the merger is consummated, to rescind it and set it
aside or award rescissory damages to the plaintiff, (iii) to direct
Business First 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 and (iv) an award
of unspecified costs, including attorneys' fees and experts’
fees, to the plaintiff.

The Defendants continue to believe that the Actions are entirely
without merit and that no further disclosure is required by
applicable rule, statute, regulation or law beyond that already
contained in the joint proxy statement/Prospectus. However, to
avoid the risk that the Actions may delay or otherwise adversely
affect the consummation of the merger and to minimize the expense
of defending such Actions, the Defendants have determined that they
will voluntarily make certain supplemental disclosures in the joint
proxy statement/Prospectus related to the proposed merger set forth
below (the "Supplemental Disclosures").

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://bit.ly/2Y4AyiF.

Business First Bancshares, Inc. provides banking services. The Bank
offers checking and saving accounts, certificate of deposits,
personal loans, mobile banking, debit and credit cards, safe
deposit boxes, wire transfers, overdraft protection, and treasury
management services. Business First Bancshares serves customers in
the United States. The company is based in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.


CANAN INC: Faces Class Suits over IPO
-------------------------------------
Canaan Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company is defending
against putative class action suits related to its initial public
offering (IPO).

On March 4, 2020, a putative class action was filed in the United
States District Court of Oregon against the Company, certain
officers and directors of the Company, and the underwriters in the
Company's initial Public Offering (IPO).  

The complaint alleges that the Form F-1 registration statement and
related prospectus for the Company's IPO (including amendments to
and documents incorporated in the registration statement) contained
material misstatements and omissions in violation of federal
securities laws.

Plaintiff claims, among other things, that the registration
statement and related prospectus failed to disclose a related party
transaction, misrepresented the Company's financial health, and
omitted material information about the Company's distributors and
clients and seeks to recover under Sections 11 and 12 of the
Securities Act of 1933.

On March 6, 2020, a putative class action making substantially
similar allegations concerning the Form F-1 registration statement
and seeking to recover under Section 11 of the Securities Act of
1933 was filed in New York County Supreme Court against the Company
and certain officers and directors of the Company.

Canaan said, "The management of the Company believes that there may
be defenses to one or more of the claims asserted in the lawsuits.
The management of the Company has engaged counsel with the
intention to vigorously defend these lawsuits."

Canaan Inc. provides semiconductor solutions. The Company produces
custom designed integrated circuit microprocessors for
supercomputing hardware. Canaan serves customers worldwide. The
company is based in  Hangzhou, China.


CITIGROUP INC: Fails to Provide Proper COBRA Notice, Pinazo Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Pinazo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CITIGROUP INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-21866-XXXX (M.D. Fla.,
May 4, 2020), alleges that the Defendant violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended by the
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, by failing
to provide him with a COBRA notice that complies with the law.

Despite having access to the Department of Labor's Model COBRA
form, Citigroup chose not to use the model form--presumably to save
Citigroup money because COBRA coverage is inherently expensive for
employers, according to the complaint. The deficient COBRA notices
at issue in this lawsuit both confused and misled the Plaintiff;
and has also caused the Plaintiff economic injuries in the form of
lost health insurance, as well as informational injuries.

The Defendant has repeatedly violated ERISA by failing to provide
participants and beneficiaries in the Plan with adequate notice, as
prescribed by COBRA, of their right to continue their health
coverage upon the occurrence of a "qualifying event" as defined by
the statute, the Plaintiff asserts. Simply put, he contends, the
Defendant's COBRA notice and process violates the law. Rather than
including all information required by law in a single notice
"written in a manner calculated to be understood by the average
plan participant," the Defendant's COBRA notification process
instead offers only part of the legally required information, he
continues.

As a result of these violations, which threaten Class Members'
ability to maintain their health coverage, the Plaintiffs seek
statutory penalties, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses, and other appropriate relief as set forth herein and
provided by law.

Manuel Pinazo is a former employee of the Defendant and was covered
based on his health plan through the Defendant.

Citigroup is the plan sponsor and plan administrator of the
Citigroup Health Plan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Main Number: 813-224-0431
          Direct Dial: 813-386-0995
          Facsimile: 813-229-8712
          Email: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                 bhill@wfclaw.com
                 gnichols@wfclaw.com

               - and -

          Chad A. Justice, Esq.
          JUSTICE FOR JUSTICE LLC
          1205 N Franklin St., Suite 326
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: 813-566-0550
          Facsimile: 813-566-0770
          Email: chad@getjusticeforjustice.com


CLEARVIEW AI: Faces John Suit in New York Over Violation of BIPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dean John, Ryan Balfanz, Benjamin Jais, Rosemary Arias, and Aimee
Albrecht, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. CLEARVIEW AI, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-03481 (S.D.N.Y., May 4,
2020), is brought for violations of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act, California Common Law Right of Publicity,
California Constitutional Right to Privacy, intentional
interference with contractual relations and unjust enrichment.

Since its inception, Clearview has covertly collected billions of
personal photographs from across the internet, extracted biometric
information from them, and aggregated that data into a massive
surveillance database that can identify hundreds of millions of
Americans in seconds with just a picture, the Plaintiffs assert.
The Plaintiffs allege that Clearview created this dystopian dragnet
without ever obtaining permission from the subjects of the images
or the websites on which they were hosted.

To obtain its database, Clearview "scraped" or "mined" facial
pictures and data from major web platforms like Google, Facebook,
YouTube, Twitter, Venmo, and millions of other websites without the
consent of the people whose information was being gathered and
often against the express terms of those companies, who were
hosting such data, according to the complaint. Clearview never
asked the Plaintiffs for permission to use the photos they uploaded
to Facebook, nor did Clearview compensate them for or notify them
of its use of their photos.

The Plaintiffs say that they would not have uploaded photos to
Facebook had they known that Clearview would scrape and use their
photographs for its dystopian facial recognition system. The
Plaintiffs' photos and personal information are stored in
Clearview's servers without their consent, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs signed up for social media platforms, including
Facebook.

Clearview AI is an American, for-profit technology company that
markets and licenses advanced facial recognition software that
infringes the privacy and civil liberties of nearly everyone in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott Martin, Esq.
          Steven M. Nathan, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          33 Whitehall St., 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (646) 357-1100
          Email: smartin@hausfeld.com
                 snathan@hausfeld.com

               –and–

          James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: (202) 540-7200
          Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com

               –and–

          Greg G. Gutzler, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          444 Madison Avenue, Fourth Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 646-933-1000
          Email: ggutzler@cowperlaw.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: 312-214-7900
          Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
                 akeller@dicellolevitt.com

               –and–

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          David M. Berger, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          505 14th Street, Suite 1110
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Phone: (510) 350-9700
          Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
          Email: ehg@classlawgroup.com
                 dmb@classlawgroup.com


CNA FINANCIAL: Alliance Radiology Slams Denied Insurance Coverage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance Radiology, P.A., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CNA Financial Corporation and
Continental Casualty Company, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02218 (D.
Kan., April 29, 2020), seeks injunctive relief, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest at the maximum rate, attorney's fees and
costs and such other relief for breach of contract.

Alliance is a radiology practice with twenty-eight physicians
reading radiology studies for approximately 20 hospitals as well as
several freestanding imaging centers located in the Kansas City,
Missouri metropolitan area. It purchased an all-risk commercial
property insurance policy from CNA and Continental to protect it in
the event of property loss and business interruption. But during
the COVID-19 pandemic, CNA and Continental denied coverage despite
the fact that the policy does not contain an exclusion for pandemic
and/or virus-related losses. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
      Bradley T. Wilders D. Kan #78301
      Curtis Shank, Esq.
      STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
      460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
      Kansas City, MO 64112
      Telephone: (816) 714-7100
      Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
      Email: stueve@stuevesiegel.com
             wilders@stuevesiegel.com
             shank@stuevesiegel.com

             - and -

      J. Kent Emison, Esq.
      LANGDON & EMISON LLC
      911 Main Street
      PO Box 220
      Lexington, MO 64067
      Phone: (660) 259-6175
      Fax: (660) 259-4571
      Email: kent@lelaw.com

             - and -

      John J. Schirger, Esq.
      Matthew W. Lytle, Esq.
      Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq.
      MILLER SCHIRGER, LLC
      4520 Main Street, Suite 1570
      Kansas City, MO 64111
      Telephone: (816) 561-6500
      Facsimile: (816) 561-6501
      Email: jschirger@millerschirger.com
             mlytle@millerschirger.com
             jfeierabend@millerschirger.com

             - and -

      Richard F. Lombardo, Esq.
      James D. Myers, Esq.
      Dawn M. Parsons, Esq.
      Michael F. Barzee, Esq.
      Rachael D. Longhofer, Esq.
      SHAFFER LOMBARDO SHURIN, P.C.
      2001 Wyandotte Street
      Kansas City, MO 64108
      Tel: (816) 931-0500
      Fax: (816) 931-5775
      Email: rlombardo@sls-law.com
             jmyers@sls-law.com
             dparsons@sls-law.com
             mbarzee@sls-law.com
             rlonghofer@sls-law.com


CREDIT SUISSE: Bid to Dismiss Bank Bill Swap Related Suit Narrowed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Credit Suisse Group AG said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York has granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss the class action related to
Australian Bank Bill Swap reference rate.

On August 16, 2016, Credit Suisse Group AG and Credit Suisse AG,
along with other financial institutions, were named in a putative
class action brought in the SDNY, alleging manipulation of the
Australian Bank Bill Swap reference rate.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 16, 2016, which
defendants moved to dismiss on February 24, 2017.

On November 26, 2018, the SDNY granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motions to dismiss, including dismissing the complaint
in its entirety against Credit Suisse Group AG and Credit Suisse
AG.

On March 4, 2019, plaintiffs were granted leave to file a second
amended complaint. On April 3, 2019, plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint. On May 20, 2019, defendants filed motions to
dismiss.

On February 13, 2020, the SDNY granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss.

Credit Suisse Group AG, through its subsidiaries, provides various
financial services worldwide. It operates through Swiss Universal
Bank, International Wealth Management, Asia Pacific, Global
Markets, and Investment Banking & Capital Markets segments. Credit
Suisse Group AG was founded in 1856 and is based in Zurich,
Switzerland.


CREDIT SUISSE: Discovery Underway in ADRs Related Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Credit Suisse Group AG said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that discovery is ongoing in the class action
suit related to American Depositary Receipts (ADRs).

On December 22, 2017, Credit Suisse Group AG and certain current
and former executives were named in a class action complaint filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (SDNY) on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of
Credit Suisse Group AG American Depositary Receipts (ADRs),
asserting claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
US Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder,
alleging that defendants sanctioned increases to trading limits
that ultimately led to write-downs in the fourth quarter of 2015
and the first quarter of 2016 and a decline in the market value of
the ADRs.

On April 18, 2018, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which
asserts substantially the same claims as the original complaint.

On February 19, 2019, the SDNY granted in part and denied in part,
defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The decision
narrows the scope of the action to claims related to statements
concerning Credit Suisse's risk limits and controls.

On May 16, 2019, the SDNY denied defendants; motion for
reconsideration.

Discovery is ongoing.

Credit Suisse Group AG, through its subsidiaries, provides various
financial services worldwide. It operates through Swiss Universal
Bank, International Wealth Management, Asia Pacific, Global
Markets, and Investment Banking & Capital Markets segments. Credit
Suisse Group AG was founded in 1856 and is based in Zurich,
Switzerland.


CREDIT SUISSE: Dropped as Defendant in Amended MX Bond Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Credit Suisse Group AG said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that the plaintiffs in the class action suit
related to the Mexican government bond market have filed a second
consolidated amended complaint that does not name any Credit Suisse
entity as a defendant.

Credit Suisse AG and affiliates have been named in multiple
putative class actions in US federal court alleging a conspiracy
among Credit Suisse entities and other dealer banks to manipulate
the Mexican government bond market.

These actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York and on July 18, 2018, plaintiffs
filed their consolidated amended complaint.

On September 17, 2018, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.

On September 30, 2019, the SDNY granted defendants' motion to
dismiss.

On December 9, 2019, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended
complaint that does not name any Credit Suisse entity as a
defendant.

Credit Suisse Group AG, through its subsidiaries, provides various
financial services worldwide. It operates through Swiss Universal
Bank, International Wealth Management, Asia Pacific, Global
Markets, and Investment Banking & Capital Markets segments. Credit
Suisse Group AG was founded in 1856 and is based in Zurich,
Switzerland.


CREDIT SUISSE: ETN Related Class Action Suits Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Credit Suisse Group AG said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend class
actions related to Exchange Traded Notes (ETN).

Since March 14, 2018, three class action complaints were filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (SDNY) on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of
VelocityShares Daily Inverse VIX Short Term Exchange Traded Notes
linked to the S&P 500 VIX Short-Term Futures Index due December 4,
2030 (XIV ETNs).

On August 20, 2018, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class
action complaint, naming Credit Suisse Group AG and certain
affiliates and executives, along with Janus Index & Calculation
Services LLC and affiliates, which asserts claims for violations of
Sections 9(a)(4), 9(f), 10(b) and 20(a) of the US Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Sections 11 and
15 of the US Securities Act of 1933 and alleges that the defendants
are responsible for losses to investors following a decline in the
value of XIV ETNs on February 5, 2018.

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on November 2,
2018. On September 25, 2019, the SDNY granted defendantss motion to
dismiss and dismissed with prejudice all claims against the
defendants. On October 18, 2019, plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal.

On April 17, 2018, Credit Suisse AG, along with Janus Index &
Calculation Services LLC, was named in an individual civil action
in the Northern District of Alabama that makes allegations similar
to those alleged in the consolidated New York class action.

On August 10, 2018, defendants filed a motion to transfer the
action to the SDNY, which was denied on December 17, 2018. On
September 26, 2018, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Alabama complaint.

On December 4, 2018, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which
defendants moved to dismiss on January 11, 2019. On August 22,
2019, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants'
motion to dismiss.

On February 4, 2019, Credit Suisse Group AG and certain affiliates
and executives, along with Janus Index & Calculation Services LLC
and affiliates, were named in a separate individual action brought
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York (EDNY), which asserts claims substantially similar to those
brought in the consolidated class action.

On March 29, 2019, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its action and
filed a substantially similar complaint in the SDNY.

On May 16, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On January
2, 2020, the SDNY granted defendants' motion to dismiss. On
February 3, 2020, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.

On June 3, 2019, Credit Suisse AG, an affiliate and executives were
named in a separate individual action brought in the SDNY by a
purchaser of XIV ETNs, which asserts claims similar to those
brought in the consolidated class action complaint as well as
additional claims under New York and Pennsylvania state law.

On November 12, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs responded to the motion to dismiss by filing an amended
complaint in lieu of opposing the motion to dismiss.

The action has been stayed pending a resolution of the appeal in
the consolidated class action.

On February 4, 2019, Credit Suisse Group AG and certain affiliates
and executives, along with Janus Index & Calculation Services LLC
and affiliates, were named in a class action complaint filed in the
SDNY brought on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of
VelocityShares Daily Inverse VIX Medium Term Exchange Traded Notes
linked to the S&P 500 VIX Mid-Term Futures Index due December 4,
2030 (ZIV ETNs).

The complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 9(a)(4),
9(f), 10(b) and 20(a) of the US Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Sections 11 and 15 of the US Securities
Act of 1933 and alleges that the defendants are responsible for
losses to investors following a decline in the value of ZIV ETNs in
February 2018. On August 20, 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint.

On October 21, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

Credit Suisse Group AG, through its subsidiaries, provides various
financial services worldwide. It operates through Swiss Universal
Bank, International Wealth Management, Asia Pacific, Global
Markets, and Investment Banking & Capital Markets segments. Credit
Suisse Group AG was founded in 1856 and is based in Zurich,
Switzerland.


CREDIT SUISSE: Settlement in Unsecured Bonds Suit Has Initial Okay
------------------------------------------------------------------
Credit Suisse Group AG said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York has issued an order preliminarily approving
the global settlement in the class action suit related to the
unsecured bonds issued by Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, the Federal Home
Loan Banks and the Federal Farm Credit Banks.

Since February 22, 2019, Credit Suisse AG and CSS LLC, together
with other financial institutions, have been named in multiple
putative class action complaints filed in the SDNY, alleging a
conspiracy among the financial institutions to fix prices for
unsecured bonds issued by Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, the Federal Home
Loan Banks and the Federal Farm Credit Banks.

On April 3, 2019, the SDNY consolidated the putative class action
complaints. On May 23, 2019, class plaintiffs in the consolidated
putative class action filed a consolidated amended complaint that
removed Credit Suisse AG as a defendant.

On June 13, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On July 12,
2019, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint. On
August 29, 2019, the SDNY granted defendants' motion to dismiss,
but granted plaintiffs leave to amend.

On September 10, 2019, plaintiffs filed a third consolidated
amended complaint. On September 17, 2019, defendants filed a motion
to dismiss certain aspects of the complaint, which was denied on
October 15, 2019.

On December 6, 2019, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle the putative class action in its entirety. Class
plaintiffs filed a motion seeking preliminary approval of the
global settlement on December 16, 2019, and the SDNY issued an
order preliminarily approving the global settlement on February 3,
2020.

Credit Suisse Group AG, through its subsidiaries, provides various
financial services worldwide. It operates through Swiss Universal
Bank, International Wealth Management, Asia Pacific, Global
Markets, and Investment Banking & Capital Markets segments. Credit
Suisse Group AG was founded in 1856 and is based in Zurich,
Switzerland.


CREDIT SUISSE: Still Defends Lawsuit over Interest Rate Swaps
-------------------------------------------------------------
Credit Suisse Group AG said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend class
action suits related to interest rate swaps.

Credit Suisse Group AG and affiliates, along with other financial
institutions, have been named in one consolidated putative civil
class action complaint and one consolidated complaint filed by
individual plaintiffs relating to interest rate swaps, alleging
that dealer defendants conspired with trading platforms to prevent
the development of interest rate swap exchanges.

The individual lawsuits were brought by TeraExchange LLC, a swap
execution facility, and affiliates, and Javelin Capital Markets
LLC, a swap execution facility, and an affiliate, which claim to
have suffered lost profits as a result of defendants' alleged
conspiracy.

All interest rate swap actions have been consolidated in a
multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  Both class and individual
plaintiffs filed second amended consolidated complaints on December
9, 2016, which defendants moved to dismiss on January 20, 2017. On
July 28, 2017, the SDNY granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motions to dismiss. On May 30, 2018, class plaintiffs
filed a third amended consolidated class action complaint.

On June 14, 2018, a new direct action complaint was filed by swap
execution facility trueEX LLC. On June 20, 2018, the trueEX LLC
complaint was added to the existing multi-district litigation. On
August 9, 2018, trueEX LLC filed an amended complaint against
Credit Suisse Group AG and affiliates, along with other financial
institutions, which defendants moved to dismiss on August 28, 2018.
On November 20, 2018, the SDNY issued an order granting in part and
denying in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the trueEX LLC
amended complaint.

On February 20, 2019, class plaintiffs in the consolidated
multi-district litigation filed a motion for class certification.
On March 20, 2019, class plaintiffs filed a fourth amended
consolidated class action complaint. On June 18, 2019, defendants
filed their opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

Credit Suisse Group AG, through its subsidiaries, provides various
financial services worldwide. It operates through Swiss Universal
Bank, International Wealth Management, Asia Pacific, Global
Markets, and Investment Banking & Capital Markets segments. Credit
Suisse Group AG was founded in 1856 and is based in Zurich,
Switzerland.


DENTALPLANS.COM: Bradley Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Bradley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DENTALPLANS.COM, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-01094, (D. Md., April 28, 2020), seeks injunctive relief,
statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies resulting from violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Bradley claims to have received pre-recorded message calls from
DentalPlans.com in an effort to extend dental coverage for her
family. Its calls continued even after she opted out, says the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter A. Holland, Esq.
      Emanwel J. Turnbull, Esq.
      THE HOLLAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
      914 Bay Ridge Rd. Ste 230
      Annapolis, MD 21401
      Tel: (410) 280-6133
      Fax: (410) 280-8650
      Email: peter@hollandlawfirm.com
             eturnbull@hollandlawfirm.com

             - and -

      William B. Bowles, Esq.
      Amanda J. Allen, Esq.
      THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, PLLC
      4030 S. Henderson Blvd.
      Tampa, FL 33629
      Telephone: (813) 500-1500
      Facsimile: (813) 435-2369
      Email: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
             Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com

             - and -

      Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
      BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
      155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 729-5288
      Fax: (312) 729-5289
      Email: ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com


DICK'S SPORTING: Juric Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Juric and Justine Stuhl, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-00651-MJH (W.D. Pa., May 4, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, and the
New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.

The Defendant required the Plaintiffs and other Assistant Managers
to work more than 40 hours per workweek without paying them any
overtime compensation and the Plaintiffs and other Assistant
Managers did in fact work more than 40 hours per workweek without
receiving overtime compensation, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as Assistant
Manager-Operations and Assistant Manager-Softlines at various
Dick's retail locations.

Dick's is a retail sporting goods chain, which operates 726 retail
locations across the country.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: (412) 322-9243
          Fax: (412) 231-0246
          Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 245-1000
          Fax: (646) 509-2060
          Email: jms@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Pooja Shethji, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          601 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 200W
          Washington, DC 20001
          Phone: (202) 918-2382
          Fax: (202) 847-4410
          Email: pshethji@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          951 Yamato Road
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: (561) 447-8888
          Fax: (561) 447-8831
          Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Palitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A
          800 Third Avenue, Suite 2800
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (800) 616-4000
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          Email: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Class Cert. Bid in Encampments Suit Renewed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as SHANEL PROCTOR et al. v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Case No. 1:18-cv-00701-TNM (D. Colo.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting its renewed motion
for class certification of:

   "homeless individuals living in encampments who are subject
   to the District of Columbia's practice of destroying rather
   than storing their unattended personal belongings during
   encampment clearings."

The Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the District's practice as a
violation of Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment right to be free of
unreasonable searches and seizures and of their Fifth Amendment
rights to adequate notice of and an opportunity to challenge
government action. [CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jon-Michael Dougherty, Esq.
          Sarah L. Wilson, Esq.
          Ross A. Demain, Esq.
          Jon-Michael Dougherty, Esq.
          Victor D. Ban, Esq.
          Nicholas Pastan, Esq.
          Eric Chung, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          One City Center, 850 Tenth St., N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20001-4956
          Telephone: (202) 662-6000

DOMO INC: Bid to Stay Volonte Securities Class Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Domo, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 13, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2020, that the motion to stay the
securities class action suit entitled, Volonte v. Domo, Inc., et.
al, Case No. 19-04-01778, is pending.

In November 2019, a securities class action complaint captioned
Volonte v. Domo, Inc., et. al, Case No. 19-04-01778, was filed by a
stockholder of the Company in the Fourth Judicial District Court
for the County of Utah in the State of Utah against the Company,
certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors,
and the underwriters of the Company's June 2018 initial public
offering alleging violations of securities laws and seeking
unspecified damages.

The Company believes this lawsuit is also without merit and intends
to defend the case vigorously.

In January 2020, the defendants filed a motion to stay the Volonte
action in favor of the Patton action.

The motion has been fully briefed and is set for hearing on April
23, 2020.

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

Domo, Inc. operates a cloud-based platform in the United States.
Its platform digitally connects chief executive officer to the
frontline employee with the people, data, and systems in an
organization, giving them access to real-time data and insights,
and allowing them to manage business from smartphones. The Company
was formerly known as Domo Technologies, Inc. and changed its name
to Domo, Inc. in December 2011. Domo, Inc. was founded in 2010 and
is headquartered in American Fork, Utah.


DOMO INC: Continues to Defend Patton Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Domo, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 13, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a securities class action suit entitled, Patton v. Domo,
Inc., et. al, Case No. 2:19-cv-00781-DAK-EJF.

In October 2019, a securities class action complaint captioned
Patton v. Domo, Inc., et. al, Case No. 2:19-cv-00781-DAK-EJF, was
filed by a stockholder of the Company in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Utah against the Company and certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors alleging
violations of securities laws and seeking unspecified damages.

The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to
defend the case vigorously.

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

Domo, Inc. operates a cloud-based platform in the United States.
Its platform digitally connects chief executive officer to the
frontline employee with the people, data, and systems in an
organization, giving them access to real-time data and insights,
and allowing them to manage business from smartphones. The Company
was formerly known as Domo Technologies, Inc. and changed its name
to Domo, Inc. in December 2011. Domo, Inc. was founded in 2010 and
is headquartered in American Fork, Utah.


DREAM TEAM PIZZA: Worman Seeks Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Worman, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. DREAM TEAM PIZZA, LLC, and JAMIE POULSEN, Case No.
2:20-cv-02223-JAR-JPO (D. Kan., May 1, 2020), is brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid minimum wages and
overtime hours owed to the Plaintiff.

The Defendants employ delivery drivers, who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizzas and other food items to their
customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the
reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles,
the Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates
that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable
approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers'
unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal
minimum wage during some or all workweeks, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from January 2018
until September 2019 as a delivery driver.

The Defendants operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores
throughout Kansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laura C. Fellows, Esq.
          PAUL LLP
          601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Phone: (816) 984-8100
          Email: Laura@PaulLLP.com


DREXDEL UNIVERSITY: Students Seek Tuition Refunds in Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Seltzer of Inside Higher ED reports that students attending
Miami and Drexel universities are trying to take their respective
institutions to court, arguing they should be reimbursed for costs
including tuition after campuses closed due to the coronavirus
pandemic.

It's a significant development in the tensions over how much
students who had been studying on campuses should pay for a
semester suddenly upended by social distancing and classes shifting
to online or remote instruction. Many colleges and universities
have been offering refunds of fees, room and board. But leaders
have generally resisted tuition refunds, often arguing that they
are still delivering the core educational product for which tuition
pays.

The Miami and Drexel students filed class-action lawsuits in
federal Court in South Carolina, Law360 reported. They're being
represented by a law firm based in the same state, Anastopoulo Law
Firm LLC.

Students allege breach of contract and unjust enrichment. They seek
unspecified damages, fees and costs.

They argue the universities prevented students from receiving the
benefits of learning in person when they temporarily closed campus.
The institutions are "still offering some level of academic
instruction via online classes," but students are nonetheless being
deprived certain benefits, they argued.

The students argue that they chose to attend particular
institutions based on advertising promoting on-campus experiences.
In addition to instruction, tuition covers other services like
computer labs, libraries and networking opportunities, they
argued.

"Moreover, the value of any degree issued on the basis of online or
pass/fail classes will be diminished" student complaints said,
according to Law 360. [GN]



DYNAGAS LNG: Bid to Dismiss SDNY Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------
Dynagas LNG Partners LP said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 16, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion to dismiss a
securities class action in New York remains pending.

On May 16, 2019, a purported stockholder of the Partnership filed a
putative class action lawsuit against the Partnership and certain
related entities and individual officers and directors of the
Partnership in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Case No. 19-cv-04512).

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the common stock of the Partnership between February 16,
2018 and March 21, 2019.

The Complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false
and/or misleading statements regarding, among other matters, new
charter agreements that the Partnership entered into with various
energy companies and the Partnership's expectations about its
ability to sustain its quarterly distribution. The complaint seeks
unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, and other costs.

On August 19, 2019, the Court appointed a group of shareholders as
Lead Plaintiffs in the action, who filed an amended complaint on
September 26, 2019. The amended complaint makes allegations similar
to those in the original complaint, extends the class period
(December 21, 2017 through March 21, 2019), adds as defendants
three additional directors of the Partnership and the underwriters
of the Partnership's Series B Preferred Units Offering, and asserts
new claims under Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
on behalf of plaintiffs who acquired Partnership securities or sold
put options contemporaneously with the Series B Preferred Units
Offering, and under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 based on allegedly false and/or misleading statements
in the offering documents for the Series B Preferred Units
Offering.  

The Partnership, related entity defendants, and underwriter
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
December 5, 2019, which is now fully briefed, but has not yet been
decided by the Court.

Dynagas said, "We believe that the allegations in the lawsuit are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend our position."

Dynagas LNG Partners LP, through its subsidiaries, operates in the
seaborne transportation industry worldwide.  The company owns and
operates liquefied natural gas (LNG) carriers. Dynagas GP LLC
serves as the general partner of Dynagas LNG Partners LP. The
Company was founded in 2013 and is headquartered in Monaco.


E TRADE FINANCIAL: Brown Sues Over Morgan Stanley Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. E*Trade Financial Corporation, Rodger A.
Lawson, Kevin T. Kabat, Michael A. Pizzi, Richard J. Carbone,
Robert Chersi, Jaime W. Ellertson, James P. Healy, James Lam,
Shelley B. Leibowitz, Rebecca Saeger, Donna L. Weaver And Joshua
Weinreich, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-03322 (S.D. N.Y., April 28,
2020), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert
with them from proceeding with, consummating or closing the merger
between E*TRADE and Morgan Stanley, rescinding it in the event
defendants consummate the merger, rescissory damages, costs of this
action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys'
and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

E*Trade Financial shareholders stand to receive 1.0432 shares of
Morgan Stanley common stock for each share of E*Trade stock they
own.

The complaint alleges that the registration statement related to
the transaction lacked the financial projections for the E*Trade in
recommending that its shareholders vote in favor of the merger; and
the summary of certain valuation analyses conducted by E*Trade's
financial advisors, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC and Ardea Partners
LP in support of their opinion that the merger is fair to
shareholders.

E*Trade is a financial services company that provides brokerage and
related products and services for traders, investors, stock plan
administrators and participants, and registered investment
advisors.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


E-HOUSE (CHINA): Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP announces that on April 9, 2020, it filed a
securities class action lawsuit, captioned Maso Capital Investments
Limited v. E-House (China) Holdings Limited, No. 1:20-cv-02943
(S.D.N.Y.), on behalf of its clients Maso Capital Investments
Limited, Blackwell Partners LLC - Series A, and Crown Managed
Accounts SPC for and on behalf of Crown/Maso Segregated Portfolio
(together, the "Maso Entities") against E-House (China) Holdings
Limited ("E-House"), and certain directors, officers, and
affiliates (collectively, "Defendants").

The Action asserts claims under Sections 10(b), 13(e), 20A and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and SEC Rules 10b-5 and 13e-3 promulgated thereunder. It is brought
on behalf of all former owners of E-House American Depository
Receipts ("ADS"), who sold E-House ADS, and were damaged thereby:
(i) during the period from April 15, 2016, until August 31, 2016,
inclusive (the "Class Period"); or (ii) by way of, or as a result,
of tendering their ADS as part of the Merger (as defined herein),
regardless of when that tender occurred.

E-House describes itself as a "leading real estate services company
in China." In June 2015, the Company announced that it had received
a buyout offer from its CEO, Defendant Zhou, and another Director,
Defendant Shen. Shortly thereafter, SINA Corporation joined them in
forming a "Buyer Group." On April 15, 2016, the E-House executed a
merger agreement with the Buyer Group, where each ADS would be
bought for $6.85 per ADS (the "Merger"). ADS holder approval,
however, would still be required before the Merger could close.

The Company published a preliminary proxy seeking ADS holder
approval for the Merger on April 25, 2016. In an attempt to
persuade public ADS holders to accept the deal, the preliminary
proxy contained numerous false and misleading statements and
omissions. Specifically, that: (i) the Merger was fair and in the
best interest of those investors not affiliated with the Buyer
Group; (ii) there were no plans for post-Merger transactions; and
(iii) the projections in the proxies were based on the best
available information. In truth, the Merger was not fair, there
were planned post-Merger transactions, and the projections in the
proxies were not the best available. The merger was approved based
on Defendants' false information on August 5, 2016, and closed on
August 12, 2016.

According to their plans, yet contrary to their proxies, Defendants
set into motion post-Merger transactions, which culminated in the
registration of shares for listing on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange
in July 2018. This relisting reflected a valuation far higher than
the consideration of $6.85 per ADS given in connection to the
Merger. As a result of Defendants' wrongful scheme to take E-House
private at less than fair value (with the goal of relisting it at a
higher valuation), former ADS holders outside the Buyer Group have
suffered harm under the federal securities laws.

If you sold or otherwise disposed of E-House ADS during the Class
Period or if you tendered ADS into the Merger you are a member of
the "Class" and may be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff.
Lead Plaintiff motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York no later than June 9,
2020. The Lead Plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for
absent members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as
Lead Plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in the Action. If you
are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can
share in that recovery as an absent Class member. You may retain
counsel of your choice to represent you in the Action.

If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have any
questions about this lawsuit, you may contact David J. Schwartz,
Esq. of Labaton Sucharow, at (800) 321-0476, or via email at
dschwartz@labaton.com.

The Maso Entities are represented by Labaton Sucharow, which
represents many of the largest pension funds in the United States
and internationally with combined assets under management of more
than $2 trillion. Labaton Sucharow has been recognized for its
excellence by the courts and peers, and it is consistently ranked
in leading industry publications. Offices are located in New York,
NY, Wilmington, DE, and Washington, D.C. More information about
Labaton Sucharow is available at www.labaton.com.

Contact:

         David Schwartz
         LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
         Tel: (800) 321-0476
         E-mail: dschwartz@labaton.com
                 recover@labaton.com
[GN]



EBAY INC: Faces Mercado Consumer Suit for Allowing Price Gouging
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeanette Mercado, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. EBAY INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
5:20-cv-03053 (N.D. Cal., May 4, 2020), is brought to hold eBay
accountable for permitting price gouging to run rampant across its
platform in order to enrich itself at the expense of vulnerable
consumers in California and nationwide.

Not only is such gross misconduct unfair and inhumane, it is a
criminal offense that constitutes a per se violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law, the Plaintiff contends.

While eBay now publicly states that it is trying to stem the use of
eBay's platform by sellers, who have charged, and continue to
charge, gouging rates to consumers across the country, eBay's very
business model not only allows but encourages such price gouging,
to eBay's financial benefit: in addition to charging fees for
initially listing items, eBay charges a "final value fee" when
items actually sell, which is calculated as a percentage of the
total amount of the sale, says the complaint. Thus, the higher the
sale price, the more profit eBay stands to earn.

Jeanette Mercado is a resident and domicile of Orange County,
California.

eBay is an online auction and classified advertisement Web
site.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alan Kang, Esq
          AK LAW, A.C.P.C.
          333 City Blvd. West, 17th Floor
          Orange, CA 92868-5905
          Phone: (714) 388-6937
          Email: alan@aklawacpc.com

               - and -

          Adam Moskowitz, Esq.
          Howard M. Bushman, Esq.
          Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
          THE MOSKOWTIZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
          2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Phone: (305) 740-1423
          Email: adam@moskowitz-law.com
                 howard@moskowitz-law.com
                 joseph@moskowitz-law.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey R. Sonn, Esq
          SONN LAW GROUP
          One Turnberry Place
          19495 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 607
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Phone: 305-912-3000
          Fax: 786-485-1501
          Email: jsonn@sonnlaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
          Francis J. Balint, Jr., Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          2325 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Phone: (602) 274-1100
          Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
          Email: afriedman@BFFB.com
                 fbalint@BFFB.com


ECOPETROL SA: Continues to Defend AWA Indigenous Community Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ecopetrol S.A.  said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that the parties in the AWA Indigenous Community
class action are waiting for the evidentiary stage to start.

On April 2, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Ecopetrol and CENIT by the Inda Guacaray and Inda Sabaleta
reservations of the AWA Indigenous community who claim damages to
their communities by environmental contamination and damage to
natural resources that the defendants supposedly caused by act or
omission during various environmental incidents. In August 2018
Ecopetrol answered the complaint. The parties are currently waiting
for the evidentiary stage to start.

Although the plaintiffs did not clearly determine the amount of
their claims, Ecopetrol and the National Agency for Legal Defense
(Agencia Nacional de Defensa Jurídica del Estado or ANDJE) have
initially calculated the amount to be up to COP$358,201,371,800.

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

Ecopetrol S.A. operates as an integrated oil and gas company. It
operates through three segments: Exploration and Production;
Refining, Petrochemical, and Biofuels; and Transport and Logistics.
The company was formerly known as Empresa Colombiana de Petroleos
and changed its name to Ecopetrol S.A. in June 2003. Ecopetrol S.A.
was founded in 1948 and is based in Bogota¡, Colombia.            



ECOPETROL SA: Suit Over BT Energy Incident Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------
Ecopetrol S.A.  said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that the class action suit related to the
loading incident at the BT Energy Challenger vessel is ongoing.

On October 22, 2014, the company was served with a class action
suit against it seeking monetary damages of approximately COP$7.4
trillion related to an incident that occurred on August 21, 2014,
during the loading operations of the BT Energy Challenger vessel.

The claimants alleged possible damage to the port area of
Ecopetrol's terminal in Covenas, as well as of marine and submarine
areas and beaches that form the geographical area of the
Morrosquillo Gulf.

This allegation is currently under investigation by the Harbor
Master of Covenas. Ecopetrol filed a motion requesting the judge to
require the claimants to amend their claim to more precisely set
forth the facts and evidence it believes establishes Ecopetrol’s
liability.

On March 3, 2015, Ecopetrol filed its statement of defense arguing
the exclusive fault of a third party. On October 20, 2015, the
Court denied a class action of more than 100 informal traders in
the region because there is no common identity with the initial
class (hotel employees). However, during 2016 the Sucre
Administrative Tribunal accepted another 1,208 informal traders and
fishermen as claimants.

On March 10, 2017, a mandatory conciliatory hearing was held in
order to seek an agreement but it failed.

In January 2018, a judicial order was issued to commence the
evidence gathering process, a decision which was objected by the
parties.

In September 2018, all the ordered statements were made, the
evidentiary stage was finalized and the parties filed their final
closing briefs. As of the date of this annual report the case
remained pending.

As of the date of this annual report, the claims have decreased to
COP$7.3 trillion, as a result of the reconsideration of the amount
initially requested and the inclusion of new claimants in the
process.

Ecopetrol S.A. operates as an integrated oil and gas company. It
operates through three segments: Exploration and Production;
Refining, Petrochemical, and Biofuels; and Transport and Logistics.
The company was formerly known as Empresa Colombiana de Petroleos
and changed its name to Ecopetrol S.A. in June 2003. Ecopetrol S.A.
was founded in 1948 and is based in Bogota¡, Colombia.            



EDUARDO MELONI: Settlement Reached in Newman Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as HOWARD NEWMAN, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. EDUARDO MELONI, P.A.
d/b/a THE MELONI LAW FIRM, Case No. 0:20-cv-60027-UU (S.D. Fla.),
the Hon. Judge Ursula Ungaro entered an order:

   1. denying as moot Plaintiff's motion for class certification
      and appointment of class counsel; and

   2. directing the Plaintiff to file his unopposed motion for
      preliminary approval of the class action settlement, along
      with any other relevant settlement documents, on or before
      May 25, 2020.

On April 23, 2020, the Plaintiff, with Defendant's consent, filed
the Notice that the parties have reached an agreement in principle
for a class-wide settlement of this litigation. The Plaintiff
therefore requested that the Court deny all pending motions as
moot, including his pending Motion for Class Certification and
Appointment of Class Counsel, and allow the parties 30 days to
finalize their class-wide settlement agreement and allow Plaintiff
to submit his unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the
class action settlement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(e).

The Meloni Law Firm is a law firm in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.[CC]

EHEALTH INC: Bragar Eagel Announces Class Action Filing
-------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California on behalf of investors that purchased eHealth, Inc.
(NASDAQ: EHTH) securities between March 19, 2018 and April 7, 2020
(the "Class Period"). Investors have until June 8, 2020 to apply to
the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

On April 8, 2020, analyst Muddy Waters Research issued a report
stating that the Company uses "highly aggressive accounting" to
mask "a significantly unprofitable business." Muddy Waters wrote
that "[a]fter ASC 606 went into effect," eHealth's "member churn .
. . skyrocketed," and concluded "that EHTH is pursuing low quality,
lossmaking growth while its LTVs are based on lower churn,
pre-growth cohorts." Further, Muddy Waters charged eHealth's
management with "running a massive stock promotion."

The complaint, filed on April 8, 2020, alleges that eHealth
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose to investors: (1) its
highly aggressive accounting and modeling assumptions; (2) its
skyrocketing rate of member churn, resulting from eHealth's pursuit
of low quality, lossmaking growth; (3) its reliance on direct
response television advertising, which attracts an unprofitable,
high churn enrollee; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.

If you purchased eHealth securities during the Class Period, are a
long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more
about these claims, or have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact:

       Melissa Fortunato
       Marion Passmore
       BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
       E-mail: investigations@bespc.com
       Telephone: (212) 355-4648

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York and California. The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities,
derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal
courts across the country. [GN]

EHEALTH INC: Frank R. Cruz Announces Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired eHealth, Inc. (NASDAQ: EHTH)
securities between March 19, 2018 and April 7, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). eHealth investors have until June 8, 2020 to file
a lead plaintiff motion.

On April 8, 2020, Muddy Waters Research published a report
alleging, among other things, that eHealth misled investors
regarding member churn and revenue recognition. The report stated
that the Company's "member churn . . . skyrocketed" and "that EHTH
is pursuing low quality, lossmaking growth while its LTVs are based
on lower churn, pre-growth cohorts."

On this news, eHealth's stock price fell $12.82, nearly 12%, to
close at $103.20 per share on April 8, 2020, thereby injuring
investors.

The complaint alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) its highly aggressive accounting and modeling assumptions; (2)
its skyrocketing rate of member churn, resulting from eHealth's
pursuit of low quality, lossmaking growth; (3) its reliance on
direct response television advertising, which attracts an
unprofitable, high churn enrollee; and (4) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

Follow us for updates on Twitter: twitter.com/FRC_LAW.

If you purchased eHealth securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than June 8, 2020 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.
If you purchased eHealth securities, have information or would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact

     Frank R. Cruz
     The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz
     1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
     Los Angeles, California 90067
     Tel: 310-914-5007
     E-mail: info@frankcruzlaw.com
     Web site: http://www.frankcruzlaw.com/

If you inquire by email please include your mailing address,
telephone number, and number of shares purchased. [GN]

EHEALTH INC: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
eHealth, Inc. ("eHealth" or the Company") (NASDAQ: EHTH )
securities between March 19, 2018 and April 7, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). eHealth investors have until June 8, 2020 to file
a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their eHealth investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

On April 8, 2020, Muddy Waters Research published a report
alleging, among other things, that eHealth misled investors
regarding member churn and revenue recognition. The report stated
that the Company's "member churn . . . skyrocketed" and "that EHTH
is pursuing low quality, lossmaking growth while its LTVs are based
on lower churn, pre-growth cohorts."

On this news, eHealth's stock price fell $12.82, nearly 12%, to
close at $103.20 per share on April 8, 2020, thereby injuring
investors.

The complaint alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) its highly aggressive accounting and modeling assumptions; (2)
its skyrocketing rate of member churn, resulting from eHealth's
pursuit of low quality, lossmaking growth; (3) its reliance on
direct response television advertising, which attracts an
unprofitable, high churn enrollee; and (4) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

If you purchased eHealth securities, have information or would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact:

         Howard G. Smith, Esquire
         LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
         Tel: 215-638-4847
              888-638-4847
         E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
         Web site: www.howardsmithlaw.com
[GN]

EISENMANN SE: Certification of Non-Management Workers Class Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex
rel. GREGOR LESNIK; STJEPAN PAPES, v. EISENMANN SE, et al., Case
No. (N.D. Cal.), Mr. Stjepan Papes will move the Court on June 4,
2020 for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all non-management individuals employed by ISM Vuzem,
      d.o.o., who worked at the Tesla facility located in
      Fremont, California, at any time from July 1, 2014,
      through April 30, 2016"; and

   2. appointing Plaintiff Stjepan Papes as a class
      representative for the proposed class; and

   3. appointing Plaintiff's counsel as Class Counsel under
      Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(g).

Stjepan Papes is a former employee of the Defendant. The class in
this case consists of 177 non-exempt workers employed by Vuzem in
California from July 2014 through April 2016. The Class Members all
worked at a single location, the Tesla plant located in Fremont,
California. They all performed similar construction-related work,
including installing steel structures, installing air conditioning
and ventilation systems, welding, and replacing pipes.

Eisenmann is a leading global industrial solutions provider for
surface finishing, material flow automation, and environmental
engineering technology.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William C. Dresser, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM C. DRESSER
          North Second Street, Suite 1230
          San Jose, CA 95113
          Telephone: (408) 279-7529
          Facsimile: (408) 298-3306
          E-mail: loofwcd@aol.com

               - and -

          Hunter Pyle, Esq.
          Katherine Fiester, Esq.
          HUNTER PYLE LAW
          428 Thirteenth Street, 11th Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 444-4400
          Facsimile: (510) 444-4410
          E-mail: hunter@hunterpylelaw.com
                  kfiester@hunterpylelaw.com

EQUITY BUSINESS: Faces Hackworth Antitrust Class Suit in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equity Business
Solutions, LLC. The case is captioned as Jonathan E. Hackworth and
Emmett C. Abdoney, on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Equity Business Solutions, LLC, Case No. 20-CA-003485 (Fla. Cir.,
Hillsborough Cty., April 21, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Steven Scott Stephens.

The lawsuit alleges violation of antitrust-related laws.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Allen Yanchunis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N Franklin St., Fl. 7
          Tampa, FL 33602-5157
          Telephone: 813-275-5272
          Facsimile: 813-275-9295
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com


FACEBOOK INC: Must Face Renewed Privacy Suit Over User Tracking
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that a federal appeals court in April revived
nationwide litigation accusing Facebook Inc (FB.O) of violating
users' privacy rights by tracking their internet activity even
after they logged out of the social media website.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said
Facebook users could pursue several claims under federal and
California privacy and wiretapping laws.

A spokeswoman for Facebook said the proposed class action was
without merit, and the Menlo Park, California-based company will
continue defending itself.

Facebook users had accused the company of quietly storing cookies
on their browsers that tracked when they visited outside websites
containing "like" buttons, and then selling personal profiles based
on their browsing histories to advertisers.

U.S. District Judge Edward Davila in San Jose, California had
dismissed the lawsuit in 2017, including claims under the federal
Wiretap Act, and said the users lacked legal standing to pursue
economic damages claims.

But in the decision, Chief Judge Sidney Thomas wrote for a
three-judge panel that users had a reasonable expectation of
privacy, and had sufficiently alleged a "clear invasion" of their
right to privacy.  [GN]



FARMERS GROUP: Kingray Sues Over Refusal to Pay Insurance Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kingray Inc. d/b/a La Quinta Beer Hunter, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. FARMERS GROUP INC.,
FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. and TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Case
No. 5:20-cv-00963 (C.D. Cal., May 4, 2020), seeks a declaratory
judgment that Farmers is contractually obligated to pay business
interruption losses incurred due to the Plaintiff's and other Class
members' compliance with COVID-19 Civil Authority Orders.

The Plaintiff and other businesses nationwide purchased commercial
property insurance to ensure that they would not be forced to close
their doors for good if they were shuttered temporarily by an
unanticipated crisis. Such a crisis is now upon us, but Farmers and
other insurers are refusing to pay the claims, the Plaintiff
contends.

Despite the provision of business interruption coverage in these
policies, the Defendants are denying their obligation to pay for
business income losses and other covered expenses incurred by
policyholders for the physical loss and damage to the insured
property arising from COVID-19 Civil Authority Orders put in place
as a precaution to slow the contagion, according to the complaint.


The Plaintiff now brings this action on behalf of a Nationwide
Class and a California Sub-Class of policyholders, who purchased
standard Farmers commercial property insurance to insure property
in the United States and California, respectively, where such
policies provide for business income loss and extra expense
coverage and do not exclude coverage for pandemics, and who have
suffered losses due to measures put into place by a COVID-19 Civil
Authority Order.

Kingray operates a sports bar and grill in Riverside County,
California.

Farmers Group, Inc., is a California corporation with its
headquarters and principal place of business located in Los
Angeles, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert G. Loewy, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT G. LOEWY, P.C.
          20 Enterprise, Suite 310
          Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
          Phone: 949/468-7150
          Email: rloewy@rloewy.com

               - and -

          Rachel L. Jensen, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619/231-1058
          Fax: 619/231-7423
          Email: rachelj@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul J. Geller, Esq.
          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Phone: 561/750-3000
          Fax: 561/750-3364
          Email: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com
                 sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com

               - and –

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: (631) 367-7100
          Fax: 631/367-1173
          Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Phone: (973) 994-1700
          Fax: 973/994-1744
          Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
                 ltaylor@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          Stephen A. Weiss, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          77 Water Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: (212) 584-0700
          Fax: 212/584-0799
          Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
                 sweiss@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Robert S. Schachter, Esq.
          ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP
          41 Madison Avenue, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10010
          Phone: (212) 223-3900
          Fax: (212) 371-5969
          Email: rschachter@zsz.com


FLORIDA: Felons' Voting Rights Case Now a Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Veronica Stracqualursi and Kelly Mena of CNN report that a legal
challenge against a Florida law that requires former felons to pay
back all legal financial obligations before they vote is now a
class action lawsuit.

The federal judge overseeing the case granted class certification
to the lawsuit, paving the way for any final decision issued,
following a trial in late April, to apply not just to the original
17 plaintiffs but to all Florida felons.

US District Court Judge Robert Hinkle's final ruling would extend
to over 430,000 felons who would be eligible to vote but for unpaid
financial obligations.

Convicted felons in Florida had their voting rights restored with a
constitutional amendment passed in November 2018.

After Amendment 4 went into effect in January 2019, the GOP-led
Florida legislature passed a bill that clarified all terms of
sentence to include legal financial obligations such as fines, fees
and restitution. [GN]

FRANKLIN LIMESTONE: Kalender Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Franklin Limestone
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Frances Kalender, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Franklin Limestone
Company, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-03396 (S.D.N.Y., May 1, 2020).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Franklin Limestone Co. LLC was founded in 2012. The Company's line
of business includes the manufacturing of plastics and foam
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Paul Force, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com


FRESH DIRECT: Soler Sues Over Discriminatory Screening Policies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vidal Soler and Corey Stewart, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. FRESH DIRECT, LLC and FRESH DIRECT
HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-03431 (S.D.N.Y., May 1, 2020), is
brought to challenge the flawed, overbroad and discriminatory
criminal conviction screening policies and practices used by the
Defendants to deny employment to otherwise qualified job
applicants, like the Plaintiffs, in violation of their rights under
the New York City Human Rights Law, New York State Human Rights
Law, and Article 23-A of the New York State Correction Law.

New York City and State have long understood the importance of
gainful employment for individuals with criminal convictions and,
accordingly, both jurisdictions mandate that an employer cannot
deny employment to individuals with criminal convictions unless it
performs a thorough and individualized analysis of specific
"Article 23-A" factors and properly determines, based on that
analysis, that the individual poses an unreasonable risk or
possesses convictions that are directly related to the ability to
perform the job sought, according to the complaint.

The Plaintiffs alleges that FreshDirect's criminal history policies
and practices do not comply with New York law. They aver that
FreshDirect has instituted a sham process for evaluating applicants
criminal histories that does not carefully weigh the Article 23-A
factors as legally mandated--by, for example, using categorical
bans on wide swaths of convictions to presumptively disqualify
applicants with convictions before any individual Article 23-A
analysis, excessively weighing certain Article 23-A factors over
other factors (and thus fixing the outcome of its analysis before
reviewing the particulars of an individual analysis), and refusing
to solicit relevant information from applicants before performing
its analysis as required under the law.

The Plaintiffs contend that each of them were denied employment by
the Defendants because of their criminal convictions.

FreshDirect is an online grocery store that delivers to residences
and offices in New York City and State, as well as Connecticut, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Washington, D.C.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ossai Miazad, Esq.
          Christopher M. McNerney, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 245-1000
          Facsimile: (646) 509-2060


FRONTIER AIRLINES: Refuses to Refund Air Tickets, Obertman Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FELIKS OBERTMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. FRONTIER AIRLINES INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00820-KJM-CKD
(E.D. Cal., April 21, 2020), alleges that Frontier has breached its
contracts with thousands of paying customers by offering credits
for future travel on the airline instead of providing refunds for
flights canceled by the airline.

The Plaintiff contends that under the terms of Frontier's uniform
contracts with its customers, when the airline cancels a flight,
the airline must either re-accommodate passengers on another flight
or refund the passengers. Instead of following the terms of its
Contract of Carriage, Frontier is unilaterally pushing vouchers or
credits on customers, making it impossible for many customers to
request refunds, and denying refunds when legitimate requests are
made, the Plaintiff adds.

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19
a pandemic. In efforts to curb the spread of the virus, federal,
state and local governments have implemented temporary travel
restrictions and guidelines advising against essential travel. In
the United States, the federal government has limited travel from
China, Europe, and the United Kingdom, permitting only the return
of U.S. citizens and permanent residents. The Department of State
also advised on March 19, 2020, that U.S. citizens should
temporarily avoid all international travel, with the exception that
U.S. residents abroad should arrange for immediate return to the
United States where possible.

Frontier is an airline in the United States, operating flights to
over 100 destinations throughout the United States and 30
international destinations. Frontier typically operates around 300
daily flights; but this year, Frontier has responded to a sudden
drop in demand for passenger air travel by canceling scores of
scheduled flights.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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 -

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
          Joshua R. Levine, Esq.
          Daniel Tropin, 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 -

          Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 389-0600
          Facsimile: (612) 389-0610
          Email: mweiner@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


GATE GOURMET: Faces Rahman Suit Alleging Violation of Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mohammed Rahman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GATE GOURMET, INC., GATEGROUP U.S. HOLDING, INC., and
DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 4:20-cv-03047 (N.D. Cal., May 4,
2020), is brought to seek damages and penalties, as well as
interest, attorney's fees, costs, and injunctive relief, all under
California law, including California Labor Code, IWC Wage Order,
California Code of Civil Procedure and California Business &
Professions Code.

The Defendants have failed to pay the Plaintiff for all hours
worked by requiring the Plaintiff to submit to mandatory searches
of their persons and/or personal property off the clock and without
compensation, according to the complaint. Many of the hours for
which the Defendants have failed to compensate the Plaintiff by
conducting security searches off the clock are hours worked over 40
hours in a week, over 8 hours in a day, and/or over 12 hours in a
day.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff is entitled to time and a half and/or
double time pay for many of the hours for which the Defendants
failed to pay compensation, says the complaint.

Mr. Rahman worked as a non-exempt employee in the Gate Gourmet
facility.

Gate Gourmet provides catering and meal preparation services for
airlines and operates in or near airports throughout the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Randall B. Aiman-Smith, Esq.
          Reed W.L. Marcy, Esq.
          Hallie Von Rock, Esq.
          Carey A. James, Esq.
          AIMAN-SMITH & MARCY
          7677 Oakport St., Suite 1150
          Oakland, CA 94621
          Phone: 510.817.2711
          Fax: 510.562.6830
          Email: ras@asmlawyers.com
                 rwlm@asmlawyers.com
                 hvr@asmlawyers.com
                 caj@asmlawyers.com
                 bar@asmlawyers.com


GDS HOLDINGS: Ramzan Consolidated Class Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
GDS Holdings Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 17, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the consolidated class
action suit initiated by Hamza Ramzan has been dismissed.

On August 2, 2018, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against GDS Holdings Limited, its Chief Executive Officer Mr.
William Wei Huang, and its Chief Financial Officer Mr. Daniel
Newman by Hamza Ramzan, a GDS shareholder in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

The complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of a class
comprising purchasers of GDS's American Depositary Shares (ADS)
shares during the proposed class period from March 29, 2018 to July
31, 2018.

On October 26, 2018 the Court appointed GDS shareholder Yuanli He
as the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, and on December 24, 2018
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint.

The amended complaint alleged, among other things, that GDS made
material misstatements and omissions in its 2017 Form 20-F Annual
Report with respect to the commitment rate and utilization rate at
GDS’s GZ1 data center, and inflated the purchase prices for its
acquisitions of the GZ2, GZ3, and SZ5 data centers.

The complaint alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the SEC, against all Defendants and also alleged
control person claims under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against the company's Chief Executive Officer Mr. William Wei Huang
and our Chief Financial Officer Mr. Daniel Newman.

The complaint sought, among other relief, class certification of
the lawsuit, unspecified damages, prejudgment and postjudgment
interest, costs and expenses.

On February 22, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas and, alternatively, to transfer venue to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

On September 30, 2019, the court granted Defendants' motion to
transfer the case to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. Defendants then moved to dismiss the
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on December 6, 2019.

On April 7, 2020, the court granted Defendants' motion and
dismissed the action in its entirety against all Defendants.

The dismissal of the action is not yet final, as Plaintiffs' time
to appeal or seek other relief from the judgment has not yet
expired.

GDS Holdings said, "We believe that Plaintiffs' claims lack merit
and we intend to continue to vigorously defend ourselves in this
litigation. Other than as described above, we are not currently a
party to, nor are we aware of, any legal proceeding, investigation
or claim which, in the opinion of our management, could have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or
results of operation."

GDS Holdings Limited, together with its subsidiaries, designs,
builds, and operates data centers in the People's Republic of
China. GDS Holdings Limited was incorporated in 2006 and is
headquartered in Shanghai, the People's Republic of China.


GENERAL MOTORS: Class Cert. Bid in Sloan Suit Granted in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MONTEVILLE SLOAN, et al. v.
GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-07244-EMC (N.D. Cal. Filed
Dec. 19, 2016), the Hon. Judge Edward m. Chen entered an order:

   1. granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's
      motion for partial summary judgment as follows:

      California
      -- Count 2 - Consumer Legal Remedies Act - DENY
      -- Count 4 - Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer
                   Warranty Act for Breach of Implied Warranty
                  - DENY
      -- Count 5 - Fraudulent Omission - GRANT
      -- Count 6 - Unjust Enrichment - GRANT
      -- Count 7 - Violation of the California Unfair
                   Competition Law - DENY

      New Jersey
      -- Count 74 - Violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
                    Act - GRANT
      -- Count 75 - Breach of Implied Warranty of  
                    Merchantability - GRANT
      -- Count 76 - Fraudulent Omission - GRANT
      -- Count 77 - Unjust Enrichment - GRANT

      North Carolina
      -- Count 88 - Violations of the North Carolina Unfair and
                    Deceptive Trade Practices Act - DENY
      -- Count 90 - Breach of Implied Warranty of
                    Merchantability - DENY
      -- Count 91 - Fraudulent Omission - DENY
      -- Count 92 - Unjust Enrichment - GRANT

      Texas
      -- Count 123 - Violation of Texas Deceptive Trade
                     Practices - Consumer Protection Act - DENY
      -- Count 125 - Breach of Implied Warranty of
                     Merchantability - DENY
      -- Count 126 - Fraudulent Omission - GRANT
      -- Count 127 - Unjust Enrichment - GRANT

      Nationwide
      -- Count 1 - MMWA - GRANT as to New Jersey Plaintiffs, but
                          DENY as to California, North Carolina,
                          and Texas plaintiffs.;

   2. denying the Defendant's motion to exclude expert
      Testimony; and

   3. granting in part accelerated Plaintiffs' motion for class
      certification:

      The certification is with the following terms: Class
      vehicles are 2011-2014 Chevrolet Avalanches; 2011-2014
      Chevrolet Silverados; 2011-2014 Chevrolet Suburbans; 2011-
      2014 Chevrolet Tahoes; 2011-2014 GMC Sierras; 2011-2014
      GMC Yukons; and the 2011-2014 GMC Yukon XLs with LC9
      engines (whether purchased new or used) and manufactured
      on or after February 10, 2011 (the date upon which the
      redesigned rocker cover was incorporated into vehicle
      production). Any vehicle that has already received
      adequate piston replacement (i.e. piston replacement in
      which the new pistons were not merely new versions of the
      same defective pistons) is excluded from the class.

      The classes are defined as follows:

      California Class

      "all current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that was
      purchased or leased in the State of California. The Court
      certifies the claims of the California Class for violation
      of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act for breach of
      implied warranty, Cal. Civ. Code section 1790 et seq. The
      Court appoints Raul Siqueiros as the class representatives
      for the California Class.

      North Carolina Class


      "all current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that was
      purchased or leased in the State of North Carolina. The
      Court certifies the claims of the North Carolina Class for
      breach of implied warranty of merchantability. The Court
      appoints William Davis, Jr. as the class representative
      for the North Carolina Class.; and

      Texas Class

      "all current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that
      was purchased or leased in the State of Texas. The Court
      certifies the claims of the Texas Class for breach of
      implied warranty of merchantability. The Court appoints
      Rudy Sanchez as the class representative for the Texas
      Class.

Although GM contends that the small individual recovery amounts
could be eaten up by class procedural requirements, the Court,
having concluded that common issues of fact and law predominate,
finds GM's arguments unavailing. Class litigation would be a
superior method of resolving class members' claims, the Court
says.

In this suit, the Plaintiffs allege that the GM knowingly
manufactured and sold a car engine with inherent defects that
caused excessive oil consumption and engine damage. The alleged
defects affect 2010 to 2014 model-year GM vehicles. The Plaintiffs
assert claims under various state consumer-protection and fraud
statutes on behalf of a nationwide class as well as various
statewide  classes.

General Motors is an American multinational corporation
headquartered in Detroit that designs, manufactures, markets, and
distributes vehicles and vehicle parts, and sells financial
services, with global headquarters in Detroit's Renaissance.[CC]

GENESCO INC: Settlement in Indiana & Massachusetts Suits Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Genesco Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 1, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended February 1, 2020, that the proposed settlement in the
Chen and Salas v. Genesco Inc., et al. and "Massachusetts lawsuit"
has been approved by the court and the distribution of relief to
class members is in process.

On May 19, 2017, two former employees of the company's former Hat
World subsidiary filed a putative class and collective action, Chen
and Salas v. Genesco Inc., et al., in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of the FLSA
and certain Illinois and New York wages and hours laws, including,
among others, failure to pay overtime to store managers, and also
seeking back pay, damages, statutory penalties, and declaratory and
injunctive relief.

On March 8, 2018, the court granted the company a motion to
transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Indiana.

On March 9, 2018, a former employee of the company's former Hat
World subsidiary filed a putative class action in the Superior
Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts claiming violations of
the Massachusetts Overtime Law, M.G.L.C. 151 Section 1A, by failing
to pay overtime to employees classified as store managers, and
seeking restitution, an incentive award, treble damages, interest,
attorneys fees and costs.

The company reached an agreement in principle to settle the Chen
and Salas and Massachusetts matters for payment of attorneys' fees
and administrative costs totaling $0.4 million plus total payments
to members of the plaintiff class who opt to participate in the
settlement of up to $0.8 million.

The proposed settlement has been approved by the court and the
distribution of relief to class members is in process.

Genesco said, 'We do not expect that the proposed settlement will
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or
results of operations."

Genesco Inc. sell shoes and hats. It operates Journeys, Journeys
Kidz, and Shi by Journeys stores that offer footwear for young men,
women, and children. It also operates Underground Station, Jarman,
Hat World, Lids, Hat Shack, Hat Zone, Head Quarters, Cap
Connection, Lids Kids, and Johnston & Murphy. The company was
founded in 1925 and is based in Nashville.


GEOPARK LIMITED: Brazil Unit Continues to Defend Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
GeoPark Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that GeoPark Brazil continues to defend a class
action before the Federal Prosecutor's Office.

In Brazil, GeoPark Brazil is a party to a class action filed by the
Federal Prosecutor's Office regarding a concession agreement of
exploratory Block PN-T‑597, which the Agencia Nacional do
Petroleo (ANP) initially awarded GeoPark Brazil in the 12th oil and
gas bidding round held in November 2013.

The Brazilian Federal Court issued an injunction against the ANP
and GeoPark Brazil in December 2013 that prohibited GeoPark
Brazil's execution of the concession agreement until the ANP
conducted studies on whether drilling for unconventional resources
would contaminate the dams and aquifers in the region.

On July 17, 2015, GeoPark Brazil, at the instruction of the ANP,
signed the concession agreement, which included a clause
prohibiting GeoPark Brazil from conducting unconventional
exploration activity in the area.

Despite the clause containing the prohibition, the judge in the
case concluded that the concession agreement should not be
executed.

Thus, GeoPark Brazil requested that the ANP comply with the
decision and annul the concession agreement, which the ANP's Board
did on October 9, 2015. The annulment reverted the status of all
parties to the status quo ante, which maintains GeoPark Brazil's
right to the block.

GeoPark said, "There is no assurance that we will be able to enter
into a concession agreement in the PN-T‑597 Block that would be
favorable to our exploration goals."

GeoPark Limited is an oil and natural gas exploration and
production (E&P) company that operates in Latin America. The
Company operates in Colombia, Chile, Brazil, Peru and Argentina.


GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS: Murdock Sues Over High Levels of NDMA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Murdock, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS INC. USA, Case No.
2:20-cv-05495-BRM-ESK (D.N.J., May 4, 2020), arises from Glenmark's
manufacturing of ranitidine-based prescription medications that
contain dangerously high levels of N-nitrosodimethylamine.

NDMA is a carcinogenic and liver-damaging impurity. Ranitidine is
an over-the-counter and prescription medication that is designed to
decrease the amount of acid created by the stomach. Ranitidine is
intended to be used for the treatment of heartburn associated with
indigestion and sour stomach.

The Plaintiff alleges that Glenmark's manufacturing process has
caused its ranitidine medications to contain dangerously high
levels of NDMA. NDMA is classified as a probable human carcinogen,
and animal studies have shown that "exposure to NDMA has caused
tumors primarily of the liver, respiratory tract, kidney and blood
vessels."

According to the complaint, Glenmark marketed its ranitidine
medications as safe and effective products. In short, when
consumers purchase or are prescribed ranitidine medications
manufactured by Glenmark, they expect that the medications will be
safe and effective for the purpose for which it is purchased. They
do not expect, and Defendant does not disclose, that the
medications contain the harmful impurity NDMA. Contrary to these
assertions, Glenmark's ranitidine medications contain dangerously
high levels of NDMA that would not be present if the medications
were properly synthesized.

The Plaintiff and the Class and Subclass were injured by the full
purchase price of their Glenmark ranitidine medications because
these medications are worthless, as they contain harmful levels of
NDMA, says the complaint.

Mr. Murdock was prescribed and consumed ranitidine medications
manufactured by Glenmark.

Glenmark has been engaged in the manufacturing of defective
ranitidine throughout the United States, including in the State of
New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          Email: jmarchese@bursor.com
                 aobergfell@bursor.com

               - and -

          Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          2665 S. Bayshore Dr., Ste. 220
          Miami, FL 33133-5402
          Phone: (305) 330-5512
          Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
          Email: swestcot@bursor.com


GREENLAND TECH: Discussion Over Attorneys' Fees Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Greenland Technologies Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
April 3, 2020, for the fiscal year ended February 1, 2020, that
discussion as to amount of attorneys' fees in Wheby v. Greenland
Acquisition Corporation, et al., Case No. 19-1758-MN (D. Del.), is
ongoing.

As disclosed in the Definitive Proxy Statement the company filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on September 26,
2019, a purported class action challenging the Business Combination
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware, captioned Wheby v. Greenland Acquisition Corporation, et
al., Case No. 19-1758-MN (D. Del.).  

The Action alleged certain violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and sought, among other things, to enjoin
the Business Combination from closing (or, if consummated, to
rescind the Business Combination or award rescissory damages), to
require the Company to issue a separate proxy statement, and to
receive an award of attorneys' fees and costs.  

The Company believed and continues to believe that the allegations
in the complaint were without merit and that no further disclosure
beyond that already contained in the Preliminary Proxy Statement
was required under applicable law to supplement the Preliminary
Proxy Statement.  

Nonetheless, in order to moot plaintiff's unmeritorious disclosure
claims, avoid nuisance and possible expenses, and provide
additional information to the shareholders, the Company determined
to voluntarily make minor modifications to the Definitive Proxy
Statement, which the Company deemed immaterial.

On October 14, 2019, the plaintiff, the Company and all other named
defendants in the Action entered into a confidential memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU"), pursuant to which a Stipulation and
Order of Dismissal of the Action was filed on October 14, 2019. The
Stipulation of Dismissal was approved and entered by the District
Court on October 15, 2019.  

Among other things, the Stipulation of Dismissal acknowledged that
the Definitive Proxy Statement mooted the plaintiff's claims
regarding the sufficiency of disclosures, dismissed all claims
asserted in the Action, with prejudice as to the plaintiff only,
permits the plaintiff to seek an award of attorneys' fees in
connection with the mooted claims, and reserves the defendants’
rights to oppose such an award, if appropriate.  

Pursuant to the MOU, the parties have engaged in discussions
regarding the amount of attorneys' fees, if any, to which the
plaintiff’s counsel is entitled in connection with the Action.

Those discussions remain ongoing.

Greenland Technologies Holding Corporation is a British Virgin
Islands company. It is a developer and manufacturer of traditional
transmission products for material handling machineries and a
developer of a robotic cargo carrier prototype expected to be
available for commercial use in the near future in China.


GRIZZLY COOLERS: Faces Kalender ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grizzly Coolers, LLC.
The case is styled as Frances Kalender, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Grizzly Coolers, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-03408 (S.D.N.Y., May 1, 2020).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Grizzly Coolers sells bear tested coolers made for hunting,
camping, fishing, tailgating, and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Paul Force, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com


HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY: Stellato Seeks Refund of Tuition and Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriel Stellato, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01999 (E.D.N.Y.,
May 1, 2020), is brought on behalf of all people, who paid tuition
and fees for the Spring 2020 academic semester at the Hofstra, and
who, because of the Defendant's response to the Novel Coronavirus
Disease 2019 pandemic, lost the benefit of the education for which
they paid, and/or the educational and related services and
facilities for which they paid, without having their tuition and
fees refunded to them.

On March 20, 2020, Hofstra, through a news release, announced that
because of the global COVID-19 pandemic, all in-person classes
would be suspended, and that virtual classes would begin on March
23, 2020. Hofstra has not held in-person classes since March 6,
2020. Classes that have continued since then have only been offered
in an online format, at times with little or no actual, real-time
instruction from professors. As a result of the closure of the
Defendant's facilities, the Defendant has not delivered the
educational services, facilities, access and/or opportunities that
Mr. Stellato and the putative class contracted and paid for.

The remote learning options are in no way the equivalent of the in-
person education that the Plaintiff and the putative class members
contracted and paid for, according to the complaint. As such, the
Defendant's educational services have diminished in value
significantly compared to the in- person education services that
the Defendant was providing prior to canceling in-person classes.

The Plaintiff and the putative class are, therefore, entitled to a
refund of tuition and fees for in-person educational services,
facilities, access and/or opportunities that the Defendant has not
provided, says the complaint. Even if the Defendant claims it did
not have a choice in cancelling in-person classes, it nevertheless
has improperly retained funds for services that have diminished in
value or are not being provided at all.

The Plaintiff is a Hofstra undergraduate student, and paid his
tuition for the Spring 2020.

Hofstra is a private university, with a total enrollment of
approximately 10,800 students, comprised of approximately 6,500
undergraduate students and approximately 4,300 graduate and
professional students.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
          Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          Email: jmarchese@bursor.com

               - and -

          Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          2665 S. Bayshore Dr., Ste. 220
          Miami, FL 33133-5402
          Phone: (305) 330-5512
          Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
          Email: swestcot@bursor.com


INOVIO PHARMA: Faces McDermid Class Action in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------
Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on April 3, 2020,
that the company faces a purported shareholder class action suit
entitled,  McDermid v. Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and J. Joseph
Kim.

On March 12, 2020, a purported shareholder class action complaint,
McDermid v. Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and J. Joseph Kim, was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, naming the Company and J. Joseph Kim, the
Company's Chief Executive Officer, as defendants.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's development of a
vaccine for COVID-19, also known as coronavirus, in its public
disclosures in violation of certain federal securities laws.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the
putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including
reasonable attorneys' fees.

The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.

Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. researches and develops
pharmaceuticals. The Company develops cancer DNA and infectious DNA
vaccines, anti-inflammatory drugs, and animal health products.
Inovio Pharmaceuticals serves the healthcare sector in the United
States. The company is based in Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania.


JAGUAR HEALTH: Discovery Ongoing in Plant Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Jaguar Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 3, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended February 1, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in
the class action suit entitled, Tony Plant v. Jaguar Animal Health,
Inc., et al.

On July 20, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court, Northern District of California,
Civil Action No. 3:17‑cv‑04102, by Tony Plant on behalf of
shareholders of the Company who held shares on April 12, 2017 and
were entitled to vote at the 2017 Special Shareholders Meeting,
against the Company and certain individuals who were directors as
of the date of the vote, in a matter captioned Tony Plant v. Jaguar
Animal Health, Inc., et al., making claims arising under Section
14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a‑9, 17
C.F.R. Section 240.14a‑9, promulgated thereunder by the SEC.

The claims alleged false and misleading information provided to
investors in the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus on Form S‑4
(File No. 333‑217364) declared effective by the Commission on
July 6, 2017 related to the solicitation of votes from shareholders
to approve the merger and certain transactions related thereto.

The Company accepted service of the complaint and summons on behalf
of itself and the United States‑based director Defendants on
November 1, 2017. The Company has not accepted service on behalf
of, and Plaintiff has not yet served, the non‑U.S.‑based
director Defendants.

On October 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking appointment as
lead plaintiff and appointment of Monteverde & Associates PC as
lead counsel. That motion was granted. Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint against the Company and the United States based director
Defendants on January 10, 2018.

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on March 12, 2018, for
which oral arguments were held on June 14, 2018. The court
dismissed the amended complaint on September 20, 2018. Plaintiff
was entitled to amend that complaint within 20 days from the date
of dismissal.

On October 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint to
focus on the Company's commercial strategy in support of Equilevia
and the related disclosure statements in the Form S 4.

On November 6, 2018, the Defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint. The Defendants argue in their motion that the
second amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted because the omissions and misrepresentations alleged
in the complaint are immaterial as a matter of law.

The court denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss on June 28,
2019. The Company answered the second amended complaint on August
2, 2019; the answer denied the material allegations of the second
amended complaint.

The parties are now engaged in discovery.

Jaguar said, "If the Plaintiff were able to prove his allegations
in this matter and to establish the damages he asserts, then an
adverse ruling could have a material impact on the Company. The
Company believes that it is not probable that an asset has been
impaired or a liability has been incurred as of the date of the
financial statements and the amount of any potential loss is not
reasonably estimable."

Jaguar Health, Inc., a commercial stage natural-products
pharmaceuticals company, focuses on developing gastrointestinal
products for human prescription use and animals worldwide. Jaguar
Health, Inc. is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


JUMIA TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Class Suits in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jumia Technologies AG said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 3, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that class action suits
against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York and the Kings County Supreme Court in New York
remain in their preliminary stages.

Since May 2019, several class action lawsuits have been filed
against the company and certain officers in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York and the Kings County Supreme
Court in New York.

The claims in these cases relate to alleged misstatements and
omissions of non-financial information in our initial public
offering prospectus and statements made by our company in
connection with our initial public offering.

These actions remain in their preliminary stages.

Jumia Technologies AG provides e-commerce platform. The Company
offers marketplace, logistics, shipment, delivery, and payment
services. Jumia Technologies serves clients worldwide. The company
is based in Berlin, Germany.


KAISER ALUMINUM: Johnson Sues Over Illegal Attendance Policy
------------------------------------------------------------
Nolan Johnson v. KAISER ALUMINUM CORP., a foreign corporation; and
KAISER ALUMINUM FABRICATED PRODUCTS, LLC, a foreign limited
liability company, Case No. 1:20-cv-00385 (W.D. Mich., May 4,
2020), is brought as a Rule 23 Class and Collective Action
Complaint against the Defendants on behalf of the Plaintiff and
similarly-situated proposed class members seeking claims pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Michigan Persons with
Disability Civil Rights Act, and the Family Medical Leave Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants maintain a Companywide
"No Fault Attendance Policy," which provides that employees are to
receive disciplinary attendance points for days they are absent
despite providing a doctor's note and without regard to whether the
leave is protected under the ADA or FMLA. The Defendants' employees
are reprimanded for taking sick leave through its Policy, even when
the employees provide the Defendant with a doctor's note despite
such leave being protected by the ADA or the FMLA.

The Plaintiff sought medical leave, and provided the Defendants
with adequate notice of his disability/medical condition, which
includes providing the Defendants with several doctor's notes.
Specifically, the Plaintiff suffered from lower back pain and
sciatica as a result of a work related injury where he slipped on
an oil soaked pad, thereby, substantially limiting the Plaintiff in
major life activities. The Defendants reprimanded the Plaintiff for
taking medical leave by giving him disciplinary attendance points
for days he was out of work on medical leave, even though the
Plaintiff provided the Defendants with medical documentation
concerning these days.

Ultimately, the Plaintiff alleges, he was terminated from
employment for violating the Defendants' illegal Policy, which
reprimands its employees for taking job-protected medical leave.
The Plaintiff is similarly-situated to the class and collective
action members, who are/were subjected to adverse employment
actions based on violations of the Defendants' illegal Policy, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff, Nolan Johnson, suffered from a disability, who
worked for the Defendants as a Die Shop Technician.

Kaiser Aluminum Corporation is a foreign corporation with its
principal place of business in Foothill Ranch, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael N. Hanna, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          2000 Town Center, Suite 1900
          Southfield, MI 48075
          Phone: (313) 251-1399
          Email: mhanna@forthepeople.com


KAREN HERMAN: Matthews Suit Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as LARRY A. MATTHEWS JR. and
ERNEST CLOUD, for themselves and all others similarly situated v.
KAREN K. HERMAN, Chief Judge of Orleans Parish Criminal District
Court, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01275-JTM-KWR (E.D. La.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

     1. certifying a class consisting of:

        "all individuals with pending state misdemeanor or felony
cases who will, after acceptance of their charges by the District
Attorney, appear before Defendant Judges for proceedings concerning
pretrial release";

     2. appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel; and

     3. scheduling a hearing on this matter.

Karen K. Herman is a judge for the Orleans Parish Criminal Court,
Section I, in Orleans Parish, Louisiana.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Eric A. Foley, Esq.
         James W. Craig, Esq.
         RODERICK & SOLANGE
         MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER
         4400 S. Carrollton Ave.
         New Orleans, La 70119
         Telephone: (504) 620-2259
         Facsimile: (504) 208-3133
         E-mail: eric.foley@macarthurjustice.org
                 jim.craig@macarthurjustice.org

              - and -

         Alec Karakatsanis, Esq.
         Civil Rights Corps, Esq.
         1601 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 800
         Washington, DC 20009
         Telephone: (202) 681-2409
         E-mail: alec@civilrightscorps.org

KC TREE: Prince Suit Seeks to Certify Employees Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as WILLIAM PRINCE, Individually
and for Others Similarly Situated v. KANSAS CITY TREE CARE, LLC,
Case No. 2:19-cv-02653-KHV-JPO (D. Kan.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court for an order:

   1. granting conditional certification of and authorize
      notice be sent to:

      "all employees of KC Tree Care, LLC who were paid a day
      rate with no overtime at any time in the past 3 years";

   2. approving the Notice and Consent forms;

   3. authorizing the mailing, emailing, and texting of notice,
      along with a reminder notice;

   4. authorizing Class Counsel to contact the Putative Class
      Members by telephone if their mailed or emailed Notice and
      Consent forms return undeliverable;

   5. directing KC Tree to produce to Class Counsel the contact
      information for each of the Putative Class Members within
      10 days of the Court's order; and

   6. authorizing a 60-day opt-in period for the Putative Class
      Members to join the case.

In this lawsuit, KC Tree employed Mr. Prince and the Putative Class
Members on a Day Rate Basis. KC Tree maintained a common practice
and policy applicable to Prince and all its employees it paid a day
rate with no overtime. KC Tree employed Prince and the Putative
Class Members as operators and groundsmen on a day rate basis
without any guaranteed salary.

KC Tree provides landscaping services. The company offers tree
purning, stump removal, tree cabling, and bracing services.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  rschreiber@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          David I. Moulton, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Fax: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
                  dmoulton@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

          Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
          WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
          www.williamsdirks.com
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: 816-945-7165

KEEPCUP LTD: Kalender Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Keepcup Ltd. The case
is styled as Frances Kalender, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Keepcup Ltd., Case No. 1:20-cv-03407
(S.D.N.Y., May 1, 2020).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

KeepCup is an Australian company that manufactures reusable coffee
cups.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Paul Force, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com


KIRKLAND'S INC: Miles Class Action Underway in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Kirkland's, Inc.said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 10, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended February 1, 2020, that Kirkland's Stores, Inc.
continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Miles v.
Kirkland's Stores, Inc.

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

The case has been removed to Federal Court, Central District of
California, and trial is not yet set.

The complaint alleges, on behalf of Miles and all other hourly
Kirkland’s employees in California, various wage and hour
violations.

The company denies the material allegations in the complaint and
believe that our employment policies are generally compliant with
California law.

To date, the parties have exchanged the court mandated initial
disclosures.

Kirkland's said, "We believe the case is without merit and intend
to vigorously defend ourselves against the allegations."

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

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


KIRKLAND'S INC: Plaintiff Wants Gennock Suit Moved to State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kirkland's, Inc.said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 10, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended February 1, 2020, that the plaintiffs in the
case, Gennock v. Kirkland's, Inc., have filed a Praecipe to
transfer the case to the Pennsylvania state court.

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

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

On October 21, 2019, the District Court dismissed the matter and
ruled that the Plaintiffs did not have standing based on the Third
Circuit's recent decision in Kamal v. J. Crew Group, Inc., No.
17-2345 (3d. Cir. 2019).

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

Kirkland's said, "We continue to believe that the case is without
merit and intend to continue to vigorously defend ourselves against
the allegations. The matter is covered by insurance, and we do not
believe that the case will have a material adverse effect on our
consolidated financial condition, operating results or cash
flows."

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

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


KURA SUSHI: Continues to Defend Gomes Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 14, 2020, for the quarterly period ended
February 29, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class
action suit initiated by Brandy Gomes.

On May 31, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed by a
former employee Brandy Gomes in Los Angeles County Superior Court,
alleging violations of California wage and hour laws.

The Company was served with this complaint on June 28, 2019.

The Company disputes any allegations of wrongdoing and intends to
defend itself vigorously in this matter.

Kura Sushi said, "The Company is currently unable to estimate the
range of possible losses associated with this proceeding."

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

Kura Sushi USA, Inc. is a fast-growing, technology-enabled Japanese
restaurant concept that provides guests with a distinctive dining
experience by serving authentic Japanese cuisine through an
engaging revolving sushi service model, which the company refers to
as the "Kura Experience". The company is based in Irvine,
California.


KUSHCO HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss May Class Action Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
KushCo Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended February 29, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss filed in the class action suit entitled, May v. KushCo
Holdings, Inc., et al. filed April 30, 2019. Case No.
8:19-cv-00798-JLS-KES, before the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, remains pending.

This putative shareholder class action against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a
class of purchasers of the Company's securities between July 13,
2017 and April 9, 2019, inclusive.

In September 2019, the Court appointed co-lead plaintiffs and
co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs. The lead plaintiffs' amended
complaint was filed in November 2019.

In February 2020, the Company moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these
claims.

KushCo Holdings, Inc. primarily engages in the wholesale
distribution of packaging supplies in the United States, Canada,
Europe, and internationally. The company offers pop-top bottles;
child resistant exit, paper exit, and foil barrier bags; tubes; and
polystyrene, silicone-lined polystyrene or glass containers. The
company was formerly known as Kush Bottles, Inc. and changed its
name to KushCo Holdings, Inc. in September 2018. KushCo Holdings,
Inc. was founded in 2010 and is headquartered in Garden Grove,
California.


LOS ANGELES, CA: Certification of Classes & Subclasses Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as  ODNEY O. CULLORS et al. on
behalf of themselves and all others similar situated v. COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-03760-DMG-PLA (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs will move the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2) injunctive relief class
      comprised of:

      "all current and future pretrial detainees incarcerated in
      any Los Angeles County jail facility from the present
      until the COVID-19 pandemic has ended with development of
      a vaccine available to all inmates.

   2. certifying an identical injunctive relief class comprised
      of:

      "all current and future post-conviction prisoners
      incarcerated in any LACJ facility"; and

   3. certifying two injunctive relief subclasses comprised of:

      "pretrial and post-conviction prisoners -- who are
      medically vulnerable based on their age and/or underlying
      health condition.

The case arises from the Defendants Los Angeles County and the Los
Angeles County Sheriff's Department's ("LASD") failure to
adequately protect the lives and safety of persons incarcerated
within Los Angeles County Jail system ("LACJ") from the novel
coronavirus and its resulting disease, COVID-19. The Plaintiffs
contend that despite clear guidance from national and local public
health agencies regarding the urgent need to address this growing
pandemic within correctional facilities, the Defendants have failed
to take constitutionally adequate measures to respond to the urgent
threat posed to people confined in its jail.

Los Angeles County, officially the County of Los Angeles, in the
Los Angeles metropolitan area of the U.S. state of California, is
the most populous county in the United States.

The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, officially the County
of Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, is the United States' largest
sheriff's department, with approximately 18,000 employees.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dan Stormer, Esq.
          Shaleen Shanbhag, Esq.
          Tanya Sukhija-Cohen, Esq.
          Theresa Zhen, Esq.
          HADSELL STORMER RENICK & DAI LLP
          128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Telephone: (626) 585-9600
          Facsimile: (626) 577-7079
          E-mail: dstormer@hadsellstormer.com
                  sshanbhag@hadsellstormer.com
                  tanya@hadsellstormer.com
                  tzhen@hadsellstormer.com

               - and -

          Barrett S. Litt, Esq.
          Lindsay Battles, Esq.
          KAYE, MCLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT, LLP
          975 East Green St.
          Pasadena, CA 91106
          Telephone: (626) 844-7660
          Facsimile: (626) 844-7670
          E-mail: blitt@kmbllaw.com
                  lbattles@kmbllaw.com

               - and -

          Peter J. Eliasberg, Esq.
          ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
          1313 W. 8th St.
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 977-9500
          Facsimile: (213) 977-5299
          E-mail: peliasberg@aclu.sc.org

               - and -

          Catherine Sweetser, Esq.
          Alicia Virani, Esq.
          Aaron Littman, Esq.
          UCLA LAW CLINICS
          385 Charles E. Young Drive East
          Los Angeles, CA 90095
          Telephone: (310) 825-9562
          E-mail: csweetser@sshhlaw.com
                  virani@law.ucla.edu
                  littman@law.ucla.edu

               - and -

          Alec Karakatsanis, Esq.
          Katherine C. Hubbard, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
          1601 Connecticut Ave. NW, Ste. 800
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 894-6126
          Facsimile: (202) 609-8030
          E-mail: alec@civilrightscorps.org
                  katherine@civilrightscorps.org

               - and -

          Eric Balaban, Esq.
          Andrea Woods, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT
          915 15th St., N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 393-4930
          Facsimile: (202) 393-4931
          E-mail: ebalaban@aclu.org
                  awoods@aclu.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andrew Baum, Esq.
          Michael E. Gerst, Esq.
          GLASER WEIL FINK HOWARD
          AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP
          10250 Constellation Boulevard, 19th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 553-3000
          Facsimile: (310) 556-2920
          E-mail: abaum@glaserweil.com

LOUISIANA: Gumns et al. Seek to Certify Suit Over COVID Policies
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DANIEL GUMNS, MICHAEL VIDEAU,
TREVON WILEY, IAN CAZENAVE, REGINALD GEORGE, LIONEL TOLBERT, OTTO
BARRERA, KENTRELL PARKER, MICHAEL ROBINSON, JULIUS ALLEN, ERNEST
ROGERS, ALFOANSO GARNER, BRADLEY WINTERS, KENDRICK WILSON, and
JAMES HUGHES, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
individuals v. JOHN BEL EDWARDS, in his official capacity as
Governor of the State of Louisiana; LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SAFETY & CORRECTIONS; JAMES LEBLANC, in his official capacity as
Secretary of the Department of Safety and Corrections; JOHN
MORRISON, in his official capacity as Medical Director of the
Department of Safety and Corrections; LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH; and STEPHEN R. RUSSO, in his official capacity as Interim
Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health, Case No.
3:20-cv-00231-SDD-RLB (M.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for
an order:

   1. certifying themselves to represent a class consisting of:

      (a) a subclass of all incarcerated individuals who are, or
      will in the future be, subject to the medical care
      policies and practices of the Louisiana Department of
      Public Safety and Corrections (DOC), and subjected to
      DOC's COVID-19 policies and practices; and (b) a subclass
      of all individuals being held in pre-trial detention who
      are, or will in the future be, subjected to the medical
      care policies and practices of the DOC, and subjected to
      the DOC's COVID-19 policies and practices"; and

   2. appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for the
      class and subclasses.

Louisiana is a southeastern U.S. state on the Gulf of Mexico. The
Department of Public Safety and Corrections is a state agency of
Louisiana, headquartered in Baton Rouge. The agency comprises two
major areas: Public Safety Services and Corrections Services. The
Secretary, who is appointed by the Governor, serves as the
department's chief executive officer.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mercedes Montagnes, Esq.
          Jamila Johnson, Esq.
          Nishi Kumar, Esq.
          THE PROMISE OF JUSTICE INITIATIVE
          1024 Elysian Fields Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70117
          Telephone: (504) 529-5955
          Facsimile: (504) 595-8006
          E-mail: mmontagnes@defendla.org

               - and -

          Jared Davidson, Esq.
          Southern Poverty Law Center
          201 Saint Charles Avenue, Suite 2000
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 486-8982
          Facsimile: (504) 486-8947
          E-mail: jared.davidson@splcenter.org

               - and -

          Melinda Haag, Esq.
          Sharon Frase, Esq.
          Lacey Bangle, Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP
          405 Howard Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2669
          Telephone: (415) 773-5495
          Facsimile: (415) 773-5759
          E-mail: mhaag@orrick.com
                  sfrase@orrick.com
                  lbangle@orrick.com

LUVO INC: Kalender Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Luvo, Inc. The case
is styled as Frances Kalender, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Luvo, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-03406 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 1, 2020).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Luvo Inc. is a privately held frozen food company that develops,
manufactures, markets and sells retail food products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Paul Force, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com


MANAHAWKIN NURSING: Faces Tith Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ketya Tith, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated
v. MANAHAWKIN NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER, Case No.
1:20-cv-05436 (D.N.J., May 1, 2020), is brought to redress the
Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
Jersey Wage and Hour Law.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant failed to pay the
Plaintiff proper overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA and
NJWHL. The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours in a
workweek. However, the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff
overtime wages unless the Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours in a
workweek for the Defendant through a single staffing agency, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Licensed Practical
Nurse from February 2018 to January 2020.

The Defendant is an entity operating a nursing and rehabilitation
center in Manahawkin, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1101 Kings Highway N., Suite 402
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Phone: (856) 685-7420
          Fax: (856) 685-7417


MARTIN A. KATZ CO: Alcazar Claims Website not Blind Friendly
------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Alcazar, individually and on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Martin A. Katz
Company, Inc. and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-02889 (N.D. Cal., April 27, 2020), seeks preliminary and
permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages
and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and
expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and
expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans
with Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.

The Martin A. Katz Company offers couture-quality jewelry including
earrings, rings, bracelets, neckpieces, pins, microbands, iconic
custom collections through https://www.martinkatz.com/. Alcazar is
legally blind and claims that said site cannot be accessed by the
visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bobby Saadian, Esq.
     Thiago Coelho, Esq.
     WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
     3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Tel: (213) 381-9988
     Fax: (213) 381-9989
     Email info@wilshirelawfirm.com


MATSUL INC: Chiriapa Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel A. Chiriapa, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Matsul Inc., Achla Shawarma
Factori Inc., Mor Melamed and Shoshana Melamed, Defendants, Case
No. 20-cv-03313 (S.D. N.Y., April 28, 2020) seeks unpaid minimum
wages and overtime wage orders pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 and the "spread-of-hours" and overtime wage orders of
the New York Commission of Labor, including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.

According to the complaint, the Defendants operate as "ACHLA!" a
Middle Eastern restaurant located at 43 Kennedy Drive, Spring
Vallecy NY where Chiriapa performed various kitchen and cleaning
duties usually in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
compensation for the hours over 40 per week that they worked.
Defendants also failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of their
hours worked and failed to pay Chiriapa the required
"spread-of-hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10
hours a day, it adds. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lina Stillman, Esq.
      STILLMAN LEGAL PC
      42 Broadway, 12th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212) 203-2417
      Website: www.FightForUrRights.com


MIIR INC: Kalender Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Miir Inc. The case is
styled as Frances Kalender, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Miir Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-03400 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 1, 2020).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

MiiR is a drinkware company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Paul Force, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com


NEXTIER OILFIELD: Fails to Pay Lawful Overtime Wages, Davis Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mackenzie Davis, Derek Comeaux, Casey Hayes, Corey Hudson and Ron
Migues, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. NEXTIER OILFIELD SOLUTIONS, INC., NEXTIER COMPLETION
SOLUTIONS, INC., and C&J ENERGY SERVICES, INC., Case No.
7:20-cv-00109 (W.D. Tex., May 4, 2020), is brought under the Fair
Labor Standards Act for declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees, as a result of the Defendants' failure
to pay the Plaintiff lawful overtime compensation for hours in
excess of 40 hours per week.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked in excess of 40
hours per week while working for the Defendants. The Defendant paid
the Plaintiffs one-and-one-half times their base hourly rate for
each hour they worked over 40 in a workweek. However, the Defendant
did not include all forms of compensation, such as nondiscretionary
bonuses, day rates and housing allowances given to the Plaintiffs,
in their regular rate of pay when calculating their overtime rate
of pay.

The Plaintiffs were hired by the Defendants as hourly employees at
the Defendants' location in Midland.

NexTier operates an oil and natural gas company with locations
across the United States including several in Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


OFFICE DEPOT: Ron Seeks to Certify Account Managers Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as -- RON STEIN, and all others
similarly situated v. OFFICE DEPOT, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-01100-LY
(W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying case as a collective action on
      behalf of:

      "all current and former Enterprise Account Managers and
      Global Account Managers employed by Defendant who managed
      large commercial enterprise sales accounts for the
      Defendant, and worked in excess of 40 hours in any
      workweek at any time for during the last three years";

   2. directing the Defendant to furnish the Plaintiff's counsel
      with a complete and accurate list of the names, last known
      addresses, email addresses, and telephone numbers of the
      potential class members within 14 days from the date of
      the Court's order in the form of an Excel spreadsheet;

   3. approving the issuance of notice and consent to join
      forms; and

   4. permitting the Plaintiff's counsel to send the notice and
      consent to join forms by mail and/or email.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has violated the overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay
properly their Enterprise Account Managers and Global Account
Managers overtime pay based upon their earned commissions and spiff
as well as allowing them to work off the clock. He adds that as a
result of the Defendant's illegal pay scheme, each Account Manager
and Global Account Manager did not receive time and one half of
his/her regular hourly rate of pay for all hours worked in excess
of 40 in one or more workweeks during his/her employment with
Defendant.

The Defendant is a large retailer of office supplies and equipment
such as paper products, computers, and furniture, as well as
printing services and is based in Stephenville, Texas.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

PAYSIGN INC: Faces Shi and Chase Putative Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Paysign, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 3, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that the company has been named as a
defendant in two putative class action suits entitled, Yilan Shi v.
Paysign, Inc. et. al., which was filed March 19, 2020 and has not
yet been served on the Company, and Lorna Chase v. Paysign, Inc.
et. al., which was filed on March 25, 2020 and has not yet been
served on the Company.

On March 16, 2020, during pre-market hours, Paysign announced that
it would be unable to file its annual financial report with the
Securities and Exchange Commission in a timely fashion because of
an ongoing audit, advising investors that "management identified
material weaknesses related to (i) assessment of internal controls
over financial reporting and (ii) [IT] general controls." On this
news, Paysign's stock price fell $0.93 per share, or 16.85%, to
close at $4.59 per share on March 16, 2020.

Following the company's press release on March 16, 2020, two
putative class actions were filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada on behalf of a class of persons
who acquired the company's common stock from March 12, 2019 through
March 15, 2020, inclusive.

The Complaints allege that the Company, Mark R. Newcomer, and Mark
Attinger violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Messrs.
Newcomer and Attinger violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
by making materially false or misleading statements, or failing to
disclose material facts, regarding the company's internal control
over financial reporting and the company's financial statements.

The Complaints seek certification as a class action, compensatory
damages, and attorney's fees and costs.

The Complaints are entitled Yilan Shi v. Paysign, Inc. et. al.,
which was filed March 19, 2020 and has not yet been served on the
Company, and Lorna Chase v. Paysign, Inc. et. al., which was filed
on March 25, 2020 and has not yet been served on the Company.

Paysign, Inc. is a vertically integrated provider of innovative
prepaid card programs and processing services for corporate,
consumer and government applications. The company's payment
solutions are utilized by its corporate customers as a means to
increase customer loyalty, increase patient adherence rates, reduce
administration costs and streamline operations. The company is
based in Henderson, Nevada.


PENNSYLVANIA  HIGHER: Sued Over Excessive Garnishment Rate
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason Alers and Kevin Crawford, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Pennsylvania Higher
Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA), Performant Recovery, Inc.,
Transworld Systems, Inc. And Account Control Technology, Inc.,
Defendants, Case 20-cv-02073 (E.D. Pa., April 29, 2020), seeks
money damages and injunctive relief for PHEAA's garnishment of
student borrowers' wages at 15% (instead of up to legally mandated
rate of 10%) and allege claims for negligence, negligence per se,
unjust enrichment and conversion under California and Pennsylvania
law and statutory violations under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs were charged at a rate in
excess of 10% of their pay during a given pay period in order to
pay off default student debts and whose wages were garnished by
PHEAA.

The PHEAA operates as American Education Services and Fedloan
Servicing, student loan servicers while Performant, Transworld, and
Account Control are debt collectors. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
     Jeremy Nash, Esq.
     Catherine Derenze, Esq.
     LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
     570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
     Newark, NJ 07102
     Telephone: (973) 623-3000
     Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
     Email: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
            jnash@litedepalma.com
            cderenze@litedepalma.com

            - and -

     James Pizzirusso, Esq.
     HAUSFELD LLP
     1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650
     Washington, DC 20006
     Tel: (202) 540-7200
     Fax: (202) 540-7201
     Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com

            - and -

     Brent Landau, Esq.
     HAUSFELD LLP
     325 Chestnut Street, Suite 900
     Philadelphia, PA 19106
     Tel: (215) 985-3270
     Fax: (215) 985-3271
     Email: blandau@hausfeld.com

            - and -

     Mindee J. Reuben, Esq.
     Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq.
     LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
     1835 Market Street, Suite 2700
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: (267) 314-7980, 519-8306
     Fax: (973) 623-0858
     Email: mreuben@litedepalma.com
            sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com


PERFORMANCE SHIPPING: Bid to Dismiss Robinson Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Performance Shipping Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 10, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company is
awaiting the court's order on the motion to dismiss filed in the
consolidated case, Jimmie O. Robinson v. Diana Containerships Inc.

Between October 23, 2017 and December 15, 2017, three largely
similar lawsuits were filed against the Company and three of its
executive officers.  

On October 23, 2017, a complaint captioned Jimmie O. Robinson v.
Diana Containerships Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-6160, was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.


The complaint is brought as a purported class action lawsuit on
behalf of a putative class consisting of purchasers of common
shares of the Company between January 26, 2017 and October 3, 2017.


On October 25, 2017, a complaint captioned Logan Little v. Diana
Containerships Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-6236, was filed in the
Eastern District.  

The complaint is brought as a purported class action lawsuit on
behalf of a putative class consisting of purchasers of common
shares of the Company between January 26, 2017 and October 3, 2017.


On December 15, 2017, a complaint captioned Emmanuel S. Austin v.
Diana Containerships Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-7329, was filed in the
Eastern District.  

The complaint is brought as a purported class action lawsuit on
behalf of a putative class consisting of purchasers of common
shares of the Company between June 9, 2016 and October 3, 2017.

The complaints name as defendants, among others, the Company and
three of its executive officers. The complaints assert claims under
Sections 9, 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  

On April 30, 2018, the Court consolidated the three lawsuits into
the first-filed Robinson lawsuit, appointed lead plaintiffs and
approved lead plaintiffs' selection of lead plaintiffs' counsel.  

On July 13, 2018, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint (superseding the three initial complaints).  

On September 21, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit.  Briefing on that motion was concluded on November 30,
2018.

The Company and its management believe that the complaints are
without merit and plan to vigorously defend themselves against the
claims.

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

Performance Shipping Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
shipping transportation services through its ownership of
containerships. The company was founded in 2010 and is based in
Athens, Greece.


PRICESMART INC: Bid to Dismiss PERA Class Action Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
PriceSmart, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 8, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended February 29, 2020, that the motion seeking
dismissal of the class action headed by Public Employees Retirement
Association of New Mexico (PERA) remains pending.

On May 22, 2019, a class action complaint was filed against
PriceSmart, Inc., as well as certain former and current officers in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California.

On October 7, 2019, the Court granted Public Employees Retirement
Association of New Mexico's (PERA's) Motion for Appointment as Lead
Plaintiff.

On January 3, 2020, PERA filed a consolidated class action
complaint, which alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against any
obligations or liability to the plaintiffs with respect to such
claims.

The Company believes the claims are without merit.  

Per a briefing schedule adopted by the Court, the Company filed a
Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's Consolidated Amended Complaint in
its entirety on March 3, 2020.

PriceSmart, Inc. owns and operates U.S. style membership shopping
warehouse clubs in Central America, the Caribbean, and Colombia.
PriceSmart, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in San
Diego, California.


PRODUCTION FIRE: Sandoval Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Sandoval, individually and an in behalf of all other similarly
situated v. PRODUCTION FIRE & SAFETY, LLC, AMPRO WELL SERVICES,
LLC, JAMES A. LEDOUX, and GEORGE PRATT DOUCET, Case No.
7:20-cv-00108-DC (W.D. Tex., May 4, 2020), is brought against the
Defendants for failing to pay the Plaintiff and the proposed class
all of their overtime pay as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the FLSA by
employing the Plaintiff "for a workweek longer than forty hours but
refusing to compensate them for their employment in excess of forty
hours, at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular
rate at which they are or were employed." The Defendants also
violated the FLSA by failing to maintain accurate time and pay
records for the Plaintiff. Lastly, the Defendants violated the FLSA
by retaliating against the Plaintiff individually by discharging
him after he had raised multiple complaints with the Defendants,
where he complained that he was not being paid for all compensable
time as required under the FLSA.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a safety tech
and/or gauger from October 2017 until March 2020.

The Defendants are an oilfield services company that provides fire
and safety compliance services and numerous other well
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Fernando M. Bustos, Esq.
          Brandon C. Callahan, Esq.
          Matthew N. Zimmerman, Esq.
          BUSTOS LAW FIRM, P.C.
          P.O. Box 1980
          Lubbock, TX 79408-1980
          Phone: (806) 780-3976
          Fax: (806) 780-3800
          Email: fbustos@bustoslawfirm.com
                 bcallahan@bustoslawfirm.com
                 mzimmerman@butsoslawfirm.com


PROGRESSIVE COUNTY: Lopezes Seek to Certify Policyholders Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as RICHARD LOPEZ AND GLORIA
LOPEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
PROGRESSIVE COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND APRIL HAGER, Case
No. 5:19-cv-00380-FB-ESC (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all individuals who had Medical Payments Coverage with
      their Auto Insurance policy issued by Progressive County
      Mutual Insurance Company in and subject to the laws of
      Texas, and against whom the Defendants asserted the
      existence of rights to reimbursement, a subrogation lien,
      or demands for repayment through a Sub41letter from their
      personal injury recoveries of money that was paid to
      anyone other than the insured individuals from April 3,
      2015 to the present";

   2. determining that this action is maintained as a class
      action;

   3. appointing themselves as class representatives; and

   4. appointing John R. Fabry, Of Counsel at The Carlson Law
      Firm, P.C. as Lead Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
      P. 23(g).

The suit seeks to recover damages for the unlawful assertion by
Defendants of non-existent rights to reimbursement and a purported
subrogation lien to take money from the Plaintiffs, Progressive's
insureds. Defendant Progressive's contractual subrogation rights to
reimbursement under its Auto Insurance contract with the Plaintiffs
are expressly limited to payments made directly to the insureds,
the suit claims.

Progressive was founded in 2007. The company's line of business
includes the underwriting of fire, marine, and casualty
insurance.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John R. Fabry, Esq.
          Steve Dummitt, Esq.
          THE CARLSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          618 S.W. Military Dr.
          San Antonio, TX 78221
          Telephone: (210) 923-7700
          Facsimile: (210) 923-3378
          E-mail: JFabrycarlsonattorneys.com
                  SDummit@carlsonattomeys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kymberly Kochis, Esq.
          Alexander P. Fuchs, Esq.
          EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US)
          1114 Avenue of the Americas LLP
          The Grace Building, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 389-5082
          Facsimile: (212) 389-5099
          E-mail: kymkochis@eversheds-sutherland.com
                  alexfuchs@eversheds-sutherland.com

               - and -

          Ian S. Shelton, Esq.
          EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
          600 Congress Avenue, Suite 2000
          Austin, Texas 78701
          Telephone: (512) 721-2714
          Facsimile: (512) 721-2656
          E-mail: ianshelton@eversheds-sutherland.com

               - and -

          Larry J. Goldman, Esq.
          Gregory J. Peterson, Esq.
          GOLDMAN & PETERSON PLLC
          10100 Reunion Place, Suite 800
          San Antonio, TX 78216
          Telephone: (210) 340-9800
          Facsimile: (210) 340-9888
          E-mail: larry@ljglaw.com
                 greg@ljglaw.com

QUALITY BRANDED: Kitchen Staff Claim Overtime Pay, Withheld Tips
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lucio Barragan, Nemecio Calderon, Rodolfo Hernandez Mora, Rosibel
Solorzano Rojas, Frankie Gil, Luis Hernandez, Valentin Miranda and
Melissa Burgstahler, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Off Cuts LLC, Bacon & Bagels LLC, Peanut
Butter & Kimchee LLC, Fourth Wall Restaurants, LLC, Elvin Pavlenko
and Michael J. Stillman, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-03357, (S.D.
N.Y. April 29, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid
overtime, withheld tips, unpaid spread of hours premium, liquidated
damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to New York Labor
Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate a restaurant chain in New York under the trade
name "Quality Branded" where Plaintiffs are cooks, line cooks,
bartenders, barbacks, servers, food preparers, porters and
dishwashers assigned to different locations. They claim to have
generally worked in excess of 40 hours a week without overtime for
hours in excess of 40 hours per workweek and spread of hours
premium for workdays exceeding 10 hours. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      Anne Seelig, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 465-1188
      Fax: (212) 465-1181


RED TIE LLC: Barnett Hits Illegal Tip Pool, Seeks Minimum Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Destiny Barnett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Red Tie, LLC Mike Mudaris, Doe Managers
1-3 and Does 4-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-03920,
(C.D. Cal., April 7, 2020) seeks to recover all tips kept by the
employer, liquidated damages, interest and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and California labor
laws.

Defendants operate as Red Tie Gentlemen's Club, an adult-oriented
entertainment facility located at 15832 Stagg Street, Van Nuys,
California where Barnett worked as a dancer. She was compensated
exclusively through tips from customers but was required to share
ter tips with other non-service employees who do not customarily
receive tips, including the managers, disc jockeys and the
bouncers, thus rendering their pay below the mandated minimum wage.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jacob J. Ventura, Esq.
     Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq.
     John P. Kristensen, Esq.
     KRISTENSEN LLP
     12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
     Los Angeles, CA 90066
     Telephone: (310) 507-7924
     Fax: (310) 507-7906
     Email: jacob@kristensenlaw.com
            john@kristensenlaw.com
            jesenia@kristensenlaw.com


RTI SURGICAL: Rosen Reminds of May 22 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of RTI Surgical Holdings, Inc. (RTIX)
between March 7, 2016 and March 16, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important May 22, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in
the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages
for RTI investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the RTI class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1812.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) RTI inappropriately recognized revenues with respect to
certain contractual arrangements, including other equipment
manufacturer customers; (2) RTI's internal controls over financial
reporting were not effective; (3) as a result, RTI would be forced
to delay the filing of its Form 10-K for fiscal year ended December
31, 2019; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 22,
2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1812.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors.

Contact:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 cases@rosenlegal.com
         Web site: www.rosenlegal.com
[GN]

SAEXPLORATION HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Bodin Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
SAExploration Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit initiated by John Bodin.

On August 18, 2019, a purported stockholder, John Bodin, filed a
putative class action lawsuit against the company and certain
former executive officers named therein in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas captioned John Bodin v.
SAExploration Holdings, Inc., et al. Case No. 4:19–cv–03089.

The Class Action Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of
stockholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's
publicly traded securities from March 15, 2016 through August 15,
2019 (the "Covered Period").

The complaint generally alleges that the Class Action Defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule
10b–5 by making false and misleading statements in the company's
periodic reports filed with the SEC during the Covered Period.

The complaint requests damages, including interest, and an award of
reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel and expert fees.

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

SAExploration Holdings, Inc., incorporated on February 2, 2011, is
an internationally focused oilfield services company. The Company
offers a range of seismic data acquisition and logistical support
services in Alaska, Canada, South America and Southeast Asia to
customers in the oil and natural gas industry. The company is based
in Houston, Texas.


SEA LIMITED: Bid to Dismiss Plutte Class Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Sea Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion to dismiss
filed in the class action suit entitled, Plutte v. Sea Limited, et
al., No. 655436/2018, is pending.

On November 1, 2018, a putative class action captioned Plutte v.
Sea Limited, et al., No. 655436/2018, was filed in New York state
court against the Company, certain of its officers and directors,
and the underwriters arising out of the company's initial public
offering in October 2017.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on January 25, 2019,
alleging that the prospectus and registration statements for the
company's initial public offering contained material misstatements
or omissions in violation of the U.S. securities laws.

In March 2019, the Company moved to dismiss the action in its
entirety, and the Court heard oral argument in December 2019.

The motion remains pending.

Sea Limited said, "We believe the case is without merit and intend
to vigorously defend the action."

Sea Limited, formerly Garena Interactive Holding Limited, is an
Internet company. The Company operates through three segments:
digital entertainment, e-commerce and digital financial services.


SPECTRUM BRANDS: Citronella Candle Maker Escapes Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Linda A. Goldstein and Amy Ralph Mudge of Baker & Hostetler LLP in
an article posted at Lexology.com said that a lawsuit relating to
the use of citronella products to fight off mosquitos was recently
dismissed by the Eastern District of Missouri. Filed last July, the
suit charged Spectrum Brands, manufacturer of Cutter Citro Guard
Citronella Candles and Repel Insect Repellent Citronella Candles,
with deceptive acts, false advertising, unjust enrichment and
fraud. The plaintiffs alleged that despite the CDC's and AMCA's
objections, Spectrum labeled the candles with packaging that
declared "repels mosquitos."

Even worse, the complaint quotes the Journal of Insect Science,
which maintains that the candles had "no repellency effect" on
mosquitos and "did not significantly reduce mosquito attraction."
Moreover, the paper stated that a lit candle, combined with a
person sitting nearby, "attracted slightly more mosquitoes than the
human bait person alone."

And . . . it gets even worse. The complaint cites a press release
from Spectrum stating that "67% of respondents identified
citronella as a very or somewhat effective active ingredient for
repelling insects. However, citronella is not one of the active
ingredients that the CDC recommends as effective."

Candle Clash

You have to give points to Spectrum for fighting the suit, but it
did, moving to dismiss in November 2019 on various fronts. It
turned out well for Spectrum – in a sense.

On the company's lack-of-standing argument, the court favored the
plaintiffs. Spectrum argued that the plaintiffs hadn't established
whether or not they had actually been bitten by a mosquito while
using the candles or under what conditions the use took place (was
the environment too windy, for instance, for the candle to work?).

No way, said the court – the class members were affected when the
candles allegedly failed to work as promised, and were economically
harmed when they paid for the products because they were
misrepresented.

As for scienter, the court ruled again for the class. Spectrum's
awareness "is buttressed by defendants' own press release that
seems to undercut their product labeling by openly acknowledging
government agency criticisms about citronella effectiveness as a
mosquito repellant."

The Takeaway

On a further reliance claim, the court again smacked down Spectrum,
which claimed that consumers could learn that citronella was
ineffective by citing "plaintiffs' own identification of the
studies and press releases now relied upon in the amended
complaint." But the plaintiffs' "investigatory duty is not
boundless" under New York law, the court wrote; the plaintiffs in
this case did not have recourse as consumers to readily available
information.

Things were looking bad for Spectrum. But choosing to fight is
often the best choice – you never know how you might win.

The court dismissed the case on Spectrum's lack of personal
jurisdiction arguments, which had nothing to do with the efficacy
of the candles. The plaintiffs' assertion of specific jurisdiction
in the case was "woefully insufficient, bordering on the
frivolous," according to the court. "This Court has found nothing
in the complaint that would even arguably constitute the kind of
contacts with the forum necessary to satisfy specific personal
jurisdiction," it wrote. "Spectrum Brands will, therefore, be
dismissed." One defendant -- United Industries Corp. -- remains in
the case to deal with those pesky mosquitos.  [GN]



SPIRIT AIRLINES: Refuses to Refund Air Tickets, Manchur Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD L. MANCHUR, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. SPIRIT AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-10771-LTS (D.
Mass., April 21, 2020), alleges that Spirit has engaged in unfair
and deceptive conduct through its policy of refusing monetary
refunds, limiting and forcing customers into a rebooked flight or
travel voucher instead of returning their money, and limiting the
voucher to time periods that are unreasonable.

The Plaintiff brings this action because Plaintiff and the Class
Members did not receive refunds for Spirit-canceled and/or
unilaterally re-scheduled flights, lost the benefit of their
bargain and/or suffered out-of-pocket loss, and are entitled to
recover compensatory damages, trebling where permitted, and
attorney's fees and costs.

Reflecting the need to provide individuals with such assistance,
the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES) is
set to provide a bailout to the airlines, providing them about $58
billion in aid. President Donald Trump announced in press
conference on April 9, 2020, that additional funding and financial
aid will be provided to airlines. Despite this, Spirit refuses to
comply with the law or countenance the exigent needs of its
customers, says the complaint.

Spirit is an American ultra-low-cost carrier headquartered in
Miramar, Florida, in the Miami metropolitan area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          Middleboro, MA 02346
          Telephone: (781) 983-7983
          E-mail: lawyer2@earthlink.net


STATE FARM MUTUAL: Johnson Suit Removed to District of Montana
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Mark Johnson, Molly Johnson, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company,
Britanie Vanmeter, Case No. DV-15-2019-0000934-NE, was removed from
the Montana District Court, Flathead County, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Montana on May 1, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:20-cv-00055-DLC to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as "Insurance for Contract Dispute."

State Farm is a large group of insurance companies throughout the
United States with corporate headquarters in Bloomington,
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan J. Lerner, Esq.
          LERNER LAW FIRM
          PO Box 1158
          Kalispell, MT 59903-1158
          Phone: (406) 756-9100
          Fax: (406) 756-9105
          Email: lerner@lernerlawmt.com

               - and -

          Allan M. McGarvey, Esq.
          McGARVEY HEBERLING SULLIVAN & McGARVEY
          745 S Main Street
          Kalispell, MT 59901-2529
          Phone: (406) 752-5566
          Fax: 752-7124
          Email: amcgarvey@mcgarveylaw.com

               - and -

          Brian Joos, Esq.
          Judah M. Gersh, Esq.
          VISCOMI, GERSH, SIMPSON & JOOS, PLLP
          121 Wisconsin Ave.
          Whitefish, MT 59937
          Phone: (406) 862-7800
          Email: joos@bigskyattorneys.com
                 gersh@bigskyattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Dale R. Cockrell, Esq.
          MOORE, COCKRELL, GOICOECHEA & JOHNSON, P.C
          PO Box 7370
          145 Commons Loop, Suite 200
          Kalispell, MT 59904-0370
          Phone: (406) 751-6000
          Fax: 756-6522
          Email: dcockrell@mcgalaw.com


STEVE NASH FITNESS: Terminated Employees File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Neetu Garcha of Global News (Canada) reports that after the sudden
mass terminations of all its staff, Steve Nash Fitness World (SNFW)
is now facing a class action lawsuit on behalf of some 1200 former
employees.

The proposed suit is on behalf of about 1,200 employees who were
suddenly terminated on March 24. It alleges their contracts were
breached by failing to provide notice of termination without cause
or payment in lieu of notice.

The suit seeks damages including individual termination pay of up
to eight weeks' of wages, and group termination payment of up to 16
weeks' worth of wages.

Lead plaintiff Brenie Matute claims the company had been planning
this and is using the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse.

"I believe the termination is not because of the COVID-19
situation, I'm afraid it was pre-meditated and this is precisely
why the case is going forward," alleges Matute, a former group
fitness instructor who is now teaching virtual classes from home.

"Termination with absolutely no notification prior to that, no
payment upon termination is definitely a surprise for everybody and
it has consequences," Matute said.

"People have lives, their livelihood was disrupted and their income
certainly."

Global News has also obtained a Notice of Intention to file for
insolvency filed by the company. A title search of the company's
other brand, Crunch Fitness in Surrey, shows seven liens against
the property all filed within the last two weeks. [GN]

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY: Yin Suit Seeks Refund of Tuition and Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Yin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 5:20-cv-00494-FJS-TWD
(N.D.N.Y., May 1, 2020), is brought on behalf of all people, who
paid tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 academic semester at the
Syracuse, and who, because of the Defendant's response to the Novel
Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic, lost the benefit of the
education for which they paid, and/or the educational and related
services and facilities for which they paid, without having their
tuition and fees refunded to them.

Effective at the end of the academic day on March 13, 2020,
Syracuse suspended all classes for the Spring 2020 semester because
of the global COVID-19 pandemic. Syracuse has not held any
in-person classes since March 13, 2020. Classes that have continued
have only been offered in an online format, with no in-person
instruction. As a result of the closure of the Defendant's
facilities, the Defendant has not delivered the educational
services, facilities, access and/or opportunities that he and the
putative class contracted and paid for, Mr. Yin contends.

Mr. Yin alleges that the online learning options being offered to
Syracuse students are subpar in practically every aspect, from the
lack of facilities, materials, and access to faculty. He notes that
students have been deprived of the opportunity for collaborative
learning and in-person dialogue, feedback, and critique. He adds
that the remote learning options are in no way the equivalent of
the in-person education that he and the putative class members
contracted and paid for.

Nonetheless, Mr. Yin asserts, Syracuse has announced on its Web
site that it will not refund any tuition or mandatory fees for the
Spring 2020 semester. The Plaintiff and the putative class are
entitled to a refund of tuition and fees for in-person educational
services, facilities, access and/or opportunities that the
Defendant has not provided, he contends. Even if the Defendant did
not have a choice in cancelling in-person classes, it nevertheless
has improperly retained funds for services it is not providing,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an undergraduate student at Syracuse pursuing a
Bachelor's Degree in Information Management and Technology.

Syracuse is one of the country's most preeminent universities, with
an enrollment of over 22,000 students.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          Email: pfraietta@bursor.com

               - and -

          Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          2665 S. Bayshore Dr., Ste. 220
          Miami, FL 33133-5402
          Phone: (305) 330-5512
          Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
          Email: swestcot@bursor.com


TELIGENT INC: Econazole Antitrust Litigation Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Teligent, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 13, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend the "Econazole Antitrust" suit.

To date, 13 putative class action antitrust lawsuits have been
filed against the Company along with co-defendants, including Taro
Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. and Perrigo New York Inc., regarding
the pricing of generic pharmaceuticals, including econazole
nitrate.

The class plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide or state classes
consisting of persons who directly purchased, indirectly purchased,
paid and/or reimbursed patients for the purchase of generic
pharmaceuticals from as early as July 1, 2009 until the time the
defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct ceased or will cease.

The class plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged overcharges
during the alleged period of conspiracy, and certain of the class
plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief against the defendants.

The actions have been consolidated by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
for pre-trial proceedings as part of the In re Generic
Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation matter.

On October 16, 2018 the court dismissed the class plaintiffs'
claims against the Company with leave to replead. On December 21,
2018 the class plaintiffs filed amended complaints, which the
Company moved to dismiss on February 21, 2019. This motion remains
pending.

On December 19, 2019 certain class plaintiffs filed a further
complaint that included additional claims against the Company based
on the Company's sales of fluocinolone acetonide.

A motion to dismiss this complaint has not yet been filed.

Teligent, Inc., a specialty generic pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and sells generic topical, branded
generic, and generic injectable pharmaceutical products in the
United States and Canada. The company was formerly known as IGI
Laboratories, Inc. and changed its name to Teligent, Inc. in
October 2015. Teligent, Inc. was founded in 1977 and is based in
Buena, New Jersey.


TELIGENT INC: Okla. Police Pension Fund & Retirement Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Teligent, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 13, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit initiated by Oklahoma Police Pension
Fund and Retirement System.

On April 15, 2019 a federal class action was filed the Oklahoma
Police Pension Fund and Retirement System against the Company and
certain individual defendants in the U.S. District Court, Southern
District of New York.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly-traded Teligent, Inc.
securities from March 7, 2017 through November 6, 2017.

The complaint alleges that defendants made false or misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational, and
compliance policies in violation of U.S. securities laws.

The plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages.

Teligent said, "Due to the early stage of these cases, we are
unable to form a judgment at this time as to whether an unfavorable
outcome is either probable or remote or to provide an estimate of
the amount or range of potential loss. We believe these cases are
without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend against these
claims."

Teligent, Inc., a specialty generic pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and sells generic topical, branded
generic, and generic injectable pharmaceutical products in the
United States and Canada. The company was formerly known as IGI
Laboratories, Inc. and changed its name to Teligent, Inc. in
October 2015. Teligent, Inc. was founded in 1977 and is based in
Buena, New Jersey.


TENCENT MUSIC: Continues to Defend Depositary Shares Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tencent Music Entertainment Group said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend class action suits related to American
depositary shares, (ADSs).

In September 2019 and October 2019, respectively, the Company, and
certain of its current and former directors and officers were named
as defendants in two putative securities class actions filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York and the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York.

Amended complaints in both actions were filed in February 2020, at
which time and Tencent, based on its status as the company's
controlling shareholder, was named as a defendant in the Eastern
District of New York action, and the Company's underwriters in its
initial public offering were added as defendants in both actions.


Both actions, purportedly brought on behalf of a class of persons
who allegedly suffered damages as a result of their trading in the
American depositary shares, (ADSs), allege that the company's
Registration Statement dated December 12, 2018 and its annual
report dated April 19, 2019 on Form 20-F contained material
misstatements and omissions in violation of the U.S. federal
securities laws.  

Tencent said, "These actions remain in their preliminary stages."

Tencent Music Entertainment operates an online music entertainment
platform in China. The Company offers platform that comprises of
online music, recording, music-centric live streaming enabling
users to discover, listen, sing, watch, perform, and socialize
music. The company is based in Shenzhen, China.


TERNIUM SA: Bid to Dismiss EDNY Class Action Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Ternium S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 9, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion to dismiss the class
action suit pending before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York is pending.

Following the Company's November 27, 2018 announcement that its
chairman Paolo Rocca had been included in an Argentine court
investigation known as the Notebooks Case (a decision subsequently
reversed by a higher court), a putative class action complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York.

On January 31, 2019, the court appointed lead plaintiff and lead
counsel. On June 17, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Ternium securities
from May 1, 2014 through November 27, 2018.

The individual defendants named in the amended complaint are the
company's chairman, its former Chief Executive Officer, its current
Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer.

That complaint alleges that during the class period, the Company
and the individual defendants inflated the price of Ternium's ADSs
by failing to disclose that sale proceeds received by Ternium when
Sidor was expropriated by Venezuela were received or expedited as a
result of alleged improper payments made to Argentine officials.

The complaint does not specify the damages that plaintiff is
seeking. Defendants' motions to dismiss are expected to be decided
during 2020.

Ternium said, "Management believes the Company has meritorious
defenses to these claims; however, at this stage the Company cannot
predict the outcome of the claim or the amount or range of loss in
case of an unfavorable outcome."

Ternium S.A., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and processes
various steel products in Mexico, Argentina, Paraguay, Chile,
Bolivia, Uruguay, Brazil, the United States, Colombia, Guatemala,
Costa Rica, Honduras, El Salvador, and Nicaragua. It operates in
two segments, Steel and Mining. Ternium S.A. was founded in 1961
and is based in Luxembourg City, Luxembourg. Ternium S.A. is a
subsidiary of Techint Holdings S.a r.l.


TILLY'S INC: Bid for Class Certification in Ward Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 1, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended February 1, 2020, that the motion for class
certification in the case, Skylar Ward, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, v. Tilly's, Inc., Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC595405, is pending.

In September 2015, the plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit against us alleging, among other things, various violations
of California's wage and hour laws.

The complaint sought class certification, unspecified damages,
unpaid wages, penalties, restitution, and attorneys' fees. In June
2016, the court granted the company's demurrer to the plaintiff's
complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to state a cause
of action against us and dismissed the complaint.

Specifically, the court agreed with the company that the
plaintiff's cause of action for reporting-time pay fails as a
matter of law as the plaintiff and other putative class members did
not "report for work" with respect to certain shifts on which the
plaintiff's claims are based.

In November 2016, the court entered a written order sustaining the
company's demurrer to the plaintiff's complaint and dismissing all
of plaintiff's causes of action with prejudice.

In January 2017, the plaintiff filed an appeal of the order to the
California Court of Appeal. In October 2017, the plaintiff filed
her opening appellate brief, and our responding appellate brief was
filed in December 2017.

In May 2018, the plaintiff filed her reply appellate brief. Later
in May 2018, an amicus brief was filed by Abercrombie & Fitch
Stores, Inc., in support of the company's position in this appeal.
Oral argument was heard by the California Court of Appeal in
November 2018.

On February 4, 2019, the Court of Appeal issued an opinion
overturning the trial court's decision, holding that the
plaintiff's allegations stated a claim.

In March 2019, the company filed a petition for review with the
California Supreme Court seeking its discretionary review of the
Court of Appeal's decision. The California Supreme Court declined
to review the Court of Appeal's decision.  

Since then, the parties have been engaged in discovery.

On March 2, 2020, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.  

The trial court has not yet set a deadline for us to file its
opposition to the motion for class certification or a hearing of
the motion.  

Tilly's said, "We have defended this case vigorously, and will
continue to do so."

Tilly's, Inc. retails casual apparel, footwear, and accessories for
young men and women, and boys and girls in the United States. Its
apparel merchandise includes tops, outerwear, bottoms, and dresses;
and accessories merchandise comprises backpacks, hats, sunglasses,
headphones, handbags, watches, jewelry, and others. Tilly's, Inc.
was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


TILLY'S INC: Settlement Talks in Gonzales Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 1, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended February 1, 2020, that settlement discussions in the
case, Juan Carlos Gonzales, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, v. Tilly's Inc. et al, Superior Court of
California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2017-00948710-CU-OE-CXC,
is ongoing.

In October 2017, the plaintiff filed a putative class action
against the company, alleging various violations of California's
wage and hour laws. The complaint seeks class certification,
unspecified damages, unpaid wages, penalties, restitution,
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

In December 2017, the company filed an answer to the complaint,
denying all of the claims and asserting various defenses.

In April 2018, the plaintiff filed a separate action under the
Private Attorneys General Act against the company seeking penalties
on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees for the
same alleged violations of California's wage and hour laws.

The company requested the plaintiff to dismiss the class action
claims based on an existing class action waiver in an arbitration
agreement which plaintiff signed with the company's co-defendant,
BaronHR, the staffing company that employed plaintiff to work at
the Company. In June 2018, the plaintiff's class action complaint
was dismissed.

The parties mediated the PAGA case with a well-respected mediator
on March 11, 2020. Although the case did not settle at the
mediation, the parties have agreed to continue their settlement
discussions with the assistance of the mediator.

The court has not yet issued a trial date. By agreement between
co-defendant BaronHR and Tilly's, BaronHR is required to indemnify
Tilly's in this matter.

Tilly's said, "We have defended this case vigorously, and will
continue to do so."

Tilly's, Inc. retails casual apparel, footwear, and accessories for
young men and women, and boys and girls in the United States. Its
apparel merchandise includes tops, outerwear, bottoms, and dresses;
and accessories merchandise comprises backpacks, hats, sunglasses,
headphones, handbags, watches, jewelry, and others. Tilly's, Inc.
was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


TILRAY INC: Kasilingam Sues in S.D.N.Y. Over Drop in Share Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ganesh Kasilingam, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. TILRAY, INC., BRENDAN KENNEDY, and MARK
CASTANEDA, Case No. 1:20-cv-03459 (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2020), seeks to
recover damages caused by the Defendants' alleged violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its top
officials relating to the precipitous decline in the market value
of the Company's securities.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons other than Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired
Tilray securities between January 15, 2019, and March 2, 2020, both
dates inclusive.

On January 15, 2019, Tilray issued a press release announcing entry
into a marketing and revenue sharing agreement with Authentic
Brands Group LLC, "an owner of a portfolio of global lifestyle and
entertainment brands" (the "ABG Agreement").

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) the purported advantages of the ABG Agreement were
significantly overstated; (ii) the underperformance of the ABG
Agreement would foreseeably have a significant impact on the
Company's financial results; and (iii) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On March 2, 2020, Tilray issued a press release announcing the
Company's financial results for the fourth quarter and full year
2019. Among other results, Tilray reported a net loss for the year
of $321.2 million, or $3.20 per share, compared to $67.7 million,
or $0.82 per share, for 2018. In addition, Tilray disclosed that
"the Company recorded non-cash charges of $112.1 million related to
impairment of the Authentic Brands Group LLC ('ABG') agreement as
well as $68.6 million in inventory reserves." On this news,
Tilray's stock price fell $2.33 per share, or 15.18%, to close at
$13.02 per share on March 3, 2020.

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

The Plaintiff acquired Tilray securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period.

Tilray was founded in 2013 and is headquartered in Toronto,
Ontario, and engages in the research, cultivation, processing, and
distribution of medical cannabis.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas G. Amon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS G. AMON
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1402
          New York, NY 10170
          Phone: (212) 810-2430
          Email: tamon@amonlaw.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          Gregory E. Del Gaizo, Esq.
          ROBBINS LLP
          5040 Shoreham Place
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Phone: (619) 525-3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
          Email: brobbins@robbinsllp.com
                 gdelgaizo@robbinsllp.com


TOP SHIPS: Court of Appeals Affirms Brady Class Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Top Ships Inc.  said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 10, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the Court of Appeals
issued a summary order affirming the District Court's decision
dismissing Plaintiffs' claims and denying leave to amend in the
consolidated "Brady class action".

On August 23, 2017, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York (No. 2:17-cv-04987(JFB)(SIL)) by Christopher
Brady on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
against (among other defendants) us and two of our executive
officers.

The complaint is brought on behalf of an alleged class of those who
purchased our common stock between January 17, 2017 and August 22,
2017, and alleges that the company and two of its executive
officers violated Sections 9, 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On August 24, 2017, a second purported securities class action
complaint was filed in the same court against the same defendants
(No. 2:17-cv-05016 (JFB)(SIL)) which makes similar allegations and
purports to allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

By order dated July 20, 2018, the court consolidated the two
actions under docket no. 2:17-cv-04987 and appointed lead
plaintiffs for the consolidated action.

On September 18, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint. The amended complaint purports to be brought on behalf
of shareholders who purchased the company's common stock between
November 23, 2016 and April 3, 2018, makes allegations similar to
those made in the original complaints, seeks similar relief as the
original actions, and alleges that some or all the defendants
violated sections 9, 10(b), 20(a), and/or 20A of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

All defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on
March 25, 2019. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated opposition to
defendants' motions to dismiss on May 24, 2019. Defendants filed
replies in further support of the motions to dismiss on June 28,
2019.  

In a Memorandum Decision and Order dated August 3, 2019, the Court
granted defendants' motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and
denied Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend. On August 7, 2019,
the Court entered judgment dismissing the case. Plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal on August 26, 2019.

Plaintiffs/appellants filed their opening brief on the appeal on
October 25, 2019.  Defendants/appellees filed their response briefs
on November 26 and November 27, 2019, and plaintiffs/appellants
filed their reply brief on December 11, 2019.  

The Court of Appeals held oral argument on March 10, 2020 and took
the matter under advisement. On April 2, 2020, the Court of Appeals
issued a summary order affirming the District Court's decision
dismissing Plaintiffs' claims and denying leave to amend. The Court
of Appeals is scheduled to issue a mandate making the decision
effective on April 23, 2020 if Plaintiffs do not file a motion for
reargument.  

Top Ships said, "We and our management believe that the allegations
in the complaints are without merit and we plan to vigorously
defend ourselves against the allegations."

Top Ships Inc. owns and operates tanker vessels worldwide. The
company's medium range tanker vessels transport crude oil,
petroleum products, and bulk liquid chemicals. The company was
formerly known as Top Tankers Inc. and changed its name to Top
Ships Inc. in December 2007. Top Ships Inc. was founded in 2000 and
is based in Maroussi, Greece.


TOP SHIPS: Kalani Investments et al. Seek Indemnification
----------------------------------------------------------
Top Ships Inc.  said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 10, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that by letter dated January
2, 2019, certain co-defendants in the class action litigation --
Kalani Investments Ltd. ("Kalani"), Murchinson Ltd. and Marc
Bistricer -- requested that the company indemnify and hold them
harmless against all losses, including reasonable costs of defense,
arising from the litigation, pursuant to the provisions of the
Common Stock Purchase Agreement between us and Kalani.

Top Ships said, "We acknowledged receipt of this indemnification
request by letter dated February 20, 2019, and reserve all of our
rights"

Top Ships Inc. owns and operates tanker vessels worldwide. The
company's medium range tanker vessels transport crude oil,
petroleum products, and bulk liquid chemicals. The company was
formerly known as Top Tankers Inc. and changed its name to Top
Ships Inc. in December 2007. Top Ships Inc. was founded in 2000 and
is based in Maroussi, Greece.

TWIN HILL: Continues to Face Suit Over American Airlines Uniforms
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tailored Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 8, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended February 1, 2020, that Twin Hill, a company's
subsidiary, continues to defend a class action suit initiated by
two American Airlines employees.

On August 2, 2017, two American Airlines employees, Thor Zurbriggen
and Dena Catan, filed a putative class action lawsuit against the
company's then-existing subsidiary Twin Hill in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No.
1:17-cv-05648).

The complaint alleged claims for strict liability, negligence, and
medical monitoring based on allegedly defective uniforms Twin Hill
supplied to American Airlines for its employees.

On September 28, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
adding nine additional named plaintiffs, adding American Airlines,
Inc. as a defendant, and adding claims for civil battery and
intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Plaintiffs filed a Seconded Amended Complaint on October 4, 2018 on
behalf of 39 named plaintiffs, adding PSA Airlines, Inc. and Envoy
Air Inc. as defendants, adding new factual allegations and adding a
new claim of fraud against American.  

The Second Amended Complaint included plaintiffs from the Onody
(Case No. 1:18-cv-02303) and Joy (Case No. 1:18-cv-05808) matters
we reported in prior filings. As a result, on October 16, 2018, the
judge dismissed the separate Onody and Joy matters.

The company had timely answered the Second Amended Complaint and
the matter will proceed in due course.

Tailored Brands said, "We believe that any lawsuit filed on the
basis of the safety of the Twin Hill uniforms supplied to American
Airlines is without merit, and we intend to contest this action
vigorously. Twin Hill has substantial and convincing evidence of
the uniforms' safety and fitness for their intended purpose, and we
believe that there is no evidence linking any of the plaintiffs'
alleged injuries to our uniforms. The range of loss, if any, is not
reasonably estimable at this time. We do not currently believe,
however, that it will have a material adverse effect on our
financial position, results of operations or cash flows."

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

Tailored Brands, Inc. operates as a specialty apparel retailer the
United States and Canada. It operates through two segments, Retail
and Corporate Apparel. The company was formerly known as The Men's
Wearhouse, Inc. and changed its name to Tailored Brands, Inc. in
February 2016. Tailored Brands, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is
based in Houston, Texas.


UNDERWRITERS LLOYD'S LONDON: Sun Cuisine Sues Over Policy Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sun Cuisine, LLC d/b/a Zest Restaurant and Market, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT
LLOYD'S LONDON, Subscribing to Contract Number B0429BA1900350 under
Collective Certificate Endorsement 350OR100802, Case No.
1:20-cv-21827-DPG (S.D. Fla., May 1, 2020), is brought for a
declaratory judgment of rights and obligations under a contract of
insurance and for Underwriter Defendants' anticipated breach of an
insurance policy by denying business interruption coverage, extra
expense coverage, and additional coverages to the Plaintiff and
other all-risk commercial property insurance policyholders.

The Plaintiff contends that it and other policyholders have
suffered enormous business income losses and related covered
expenses resulting from the national emergency and resulting
economic lock down enacted in almost every state in the nation due
to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Many businesses insure against such catastrophic events like the
current unforeseen COVID-19 pandemic through all-risk commercial
property insurance policies. These policies promise to indemnify
the policyholder for actual business income losses incurred when
business operations are involuntarily suspended, interrupted, or
curtailed by "direct physical loss of or damage to" the property or
when access to the premises is prohibited by a civil authority
order issued because of damage to nearby property. This coverage is
commonly known as "business interruption coverage" or "business
income loss and extra expense coverage" and is regularly included
in common standard form all-risk commercial property insurance
policies either within the body of the coverage provisions for the
insured property or by way of separate endorsement.

The Underwriter Defendants, and most insurance companies, who have
issued all risk commercial property insurance policies with
business interruption coverage, are denying the obligation to pay
for business income losses and other covered expenses incurred by
policyholders for the physical loss of or damage to the insured
property from this unprecedented national emergency declared or for
loss of business income sustained as the result of measures put in
place by the civil authorities to stop the rapid spread of COVID-19
among the population, the Plaintiff alleges.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a proposed class of
policyholders, who paid premiums in exchange for all-risk
commercial property insurance policies that include lost business
income, extra expense and civil authority coverages and do not
include exclusions for pandemics or presence of viruses.

The Plaintiff owns, operates, manages and controls restaurants and
related food and beverage operations in Miami, Florida.

Underwriters at Lloyd's London is composed of syndicates of
individual underwriters that share respective and several liability
under issued insurance policies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harley S. Tropin, Esq.
          Benjamin Widlanski, Esq.
          Gail A. McQuilkin, Esq.
          Javier A. Lopez, Esq.
          Robert Neary, Esq.
          KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Phone: (305) 372-1800
          Facsimile: (305) 372-3508
          Email: hst@kttlaw.com
                 bwidlanski@kttlaw.com
                 gam@kttlaw.com
                 jal@kttlaw.com
                 rn@kttlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel Tropin, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          One West Las Olas, Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 525-4100
          Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
          Email: tropin@kolawyers.com
                 streisfeld@kolawyers.com


UNITED AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Seeking Ticket Refunds
----------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that United Airlines passenger filed a
class-action lawsuit against the U.S. carrier in a Chicago federal
court this week after they refused to issue ticket refunds despite
coronavirus-related flight cancellations.

The passenger, a police officer from Minnesota named Jacob Rudolph,
purchased three plane tickets from Minneapolis to South Carolina
for $1,521. The lawsuit alleges United denied a refund request when
the April 4 flight was canceled, telling him that he could either
rebook his flight or receive a ticket credit.

"Plaintiff requested a refund for three tickets on a cancelled
(sic) flight and was entitled to a refund," the lawsuit says. "But
like so many other passengers, United denied that request. United
has engaged in unfair and deceptive conduct through its policy to
refuse refunds, limiting and forcing customers into a rebooked
flight or travel voucher instead of returning their money."

Mr. Rudolph's lawsuit seeks class action status on behalf of other
passengers who were denied cash refunds.  [GN]



UNITED STATES: Relief Payees Slam CARES Act Selective Dole Out
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ivania Amador, Christina Segundo-Hernandez, Angel Burgos Jimenez,
Juana Rueda, Jonah Elijah Macias and Bradley Harmon, Plaintiffs, v.
Steven Mnuchin, sued in his official capacity as U.S. Secretary of
the Treasury, Charles Rettig, sued in his official capacity as U.S.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, U.S. Department of the Treasury
and the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-01102, (D. Md., April 28, 2020), is a class action that seeks
to declare that the CARES Act violates the First Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution and the  Due Process and Equal Protection
guarantees of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, seeks
to enjoin its enforcement of requiring Plaintiffs and other
similarly-situated individuals to provide social security numbers
for their spouses in order to receive recovery payments, reasonable
costs, expenses and attorneys' fees and such additional relief
pursuant to the First and Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.

The U.S. Congress enacted the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security (CARES) Act in response to the severe health and economic
crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The CARES Act provides
direct economic assistance to workers and families. Plaintiffs are
individuals who possess social security numbers and whose spouses
lack social security numbers. They claim that they are denied
recovery payments even though they and their children are U.S.
citizens saying that the CARES Act excludes married couples where
one spouse lacks a social security number. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert P. Newman, Esq.
      801 Wayne Avenue, Suite 400
      Silver Spring, MD 20910
      Tel: (301) 892-2713, 786-3793
      Fax: (301) 883-1533
      Email: rnewman@rpnewmanlaw.com

             - and -

      Thomas A. Saenz, Esq.
      Belinda Escobosa, Esq.
      Andres Holguin-Flores, Esq.
      634 S. Spring St., 11th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90014
      Telephone: (213) 629-2512
      Facsimile: (213) 629-0266
      Email: bescobosa@maldef.org

             - and -

      Nina Perales, Esq.
      Fátima Menéndez, Esq.
      Samantha Serna, Esq.
      MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND
      110 Broadway, Suite 300
      San Antonio, TX 78205
      Telephone: (210) 224-5476
      Facsimile: (210) 224-5382
      Email: nperales@maldef.org

             - and -

      Andrea Senteno, Esq.
      MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND
      1016 16th Street NW, Suite 100
      Washington, DC 20036
      Phone: (202) 293-2828
      Facsimile: (202) 293-2849
      Email: asenteno@maldef.org


UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT: Paris Sues Over Failure to Refund Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lenny Paris, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT, Case No. 2:20-cv-02018
(E.D.N.Y., May 4, 2020), is brought on behalf of all people, who
paid tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 academic semester at the
Syracuse, and who, because of the Defendant's response to the Novel
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (pandemic, lost the benefit of the
education for which they paid, and the educational and related
services and facilities for which they paid, without having their
tuition and fees refunded to them.

On March 12, 2020, UConn, via letter from University President Tom
Katsouleas, announced that because of the global COVID-19 pandemic,
beginning Monday, March 23, 2020 (the first day after Spring
Break), all in-person classes would be suspended and would be
conducted remotely instead. Thus, UConn has not held any in-person
classes since March 13, 2020. Classes that have continued have only
been offered in an online format, with no in-person instruction.

As a result of the closure of the Defendant's facilities, the
Defendant has not delivered the educational services, facilities,
access and/or opportunities that Mr. Paris and the putative class
contracted and paid for, according to the complaint. The online
learning options being offered to UConn 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.

Nonetheless, the Plaintiff contends, UConn has announced on its
website that it will not refund any tuition or mandatory fees for
the Spring 2020 semester. The Plaintiff and the putative class are,
therefore, entitled to a refund of tuition and fees for in-person
educational services, facilities, access and/or opportunities that
the Defendant has not provided. Even if the Defendant did not have
a choice in cancelling in-person classes, it nevertheless has
improperly retained funds for services it is not providing, says
the complaint.

Mr. Paris is the parent of an undergraduate student at UConn.

UConn is Connecticut's largest university, with an enrollment of
over 32,000 students.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          2665 S. Bayshore Dr., Ste. 220
          Miami, FL 33133-5402
          Phone: (305) 330-5512
          Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
          Email: swestcot@bursor.com


UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Students Seek Refunds Over Closures
--------------------------------------------------------
Raychel Lean of Law.com reports that a University of Miami student
from South Carolina, disgruntled to be back home amid the COVID-19
pandemic, has turned to federal court with a putative class action
lawsuit that claims she and hundreds of other students aren't
getting their money's worth.

Named plaintiff Adelaide Dixon was staying at UM's Coral Gables
campus to complete her full-time degree — until the university
sent everyone home and suspended all in-person activities  for the
rest of spring semester.

Now dissatisfied with her online courses, Dixon alleges she wasn't
offered a refund.

And that's unfair, according to her lawsuit, which claims Dixon and
hundreds of other students paid higher fees for an "in-person,
hands-on curriculum," but what they got was online classes that
will diminish the value of the degree "for the rest of plaintiff's
life."

The complaint claims students are missing out on face-to-face
interactions with professors and peers, access to facilities,
participation in student unions and government, sports and other
activities, and opportunities to network and develop social
independence. Dixon alleges class members chose UM out of
"hundreds, if not thousands" of other schools for precisely those
benefits.

"Although defendant is still offering some level of academic
instruction via online classes, plaintiff and members of the
proposed class have been and will be deprived of the benefits of
on-campus learning," the complaint said.

UM did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The lawsuit, filed in the District of South Carolina, accuses UM of
breach of contract and unjust enrichment. It seeks damages and a
refund for the 2020 spring semester's fees and costs, including
room and board, parking fees and extracurricular fees.

There's no mention of what the plaintiff is studying, but Dixon's
LinkedIn page says she began a marketing degree at UM's business
school in 2018, and is set to graduate in 2022.

Eric Poulin and Roy Willey of Anastopoulo Law Firm in Charleston,
South Carolina, represent the plaintiff. They did not immediately
respond to a request for comment.

More than $5 million is at stake, according to the complaint, which
quotes a statement on UM's student housing page that said, "Living
on campus opens a world of interaction with other students, faculty
and staff members in many social, developmental and academic
activities."

Poulin and Willey also represent student Grainger Rickenbaker,
named plaintiff in a similar lawsuit against Drexel University in
Philadelphia.  [GN]

VALE SA: Bid to Dismiss EDNY Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vale S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 3, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion to dismiss filed by
the company in the class action suit entitled,  In re: Vale S.A.
Securities Litigation, No. 19 Civ. 526 (RJD) (E.D.N.Y.), is
pending.

The company and certain of its current and former executive
officers have been named defendants in putative securities class
action suits, under U.S. federal securities laws, brought before
federal courts in New York by holders of our securities.

These complaints were consolidated through an amended complaint
brought by the lead plaintiff in October 2019 before the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
captioned In re: Vale S.A. Securities Litigation, No. 19 Civ. 526
(RJD) (E.D.N.Y.).

The lead plaintiff alleges that the company made false and
misleading statements or omitted to make disclosures concerning the
risks of the operations of Dam I and the adequacy of the related
programs and procedures. The lead plaintiff has not specified an
amount of alleged damages in these actions.

In December 2019, the company made a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint and, in January 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an
opposition to the company's motion to dismiss.

On February 21, 2020, the company filed a reply to the opposition.


Vale said, "We will vigorously contest these claims. Given the
preliminary status of the actions, it is not possible at this time
to determine a range of outcomes or to make reliable estimates of
the potential exposure."

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

Vale S.A., together with its subsidiaries, produces and sells iron
ore and iron ore pellets for use as raw materials in steelmaking in
Brazil and internationally. It operates through Ferrous Minerals,
Coal, and Base Metals segments. The company was formerly known as
Companhia Vale do Rio Doce and changed its name to Vale S.A. in May
2009. Vale S.A. was founded in 1942 and is headquartered in Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil.


VALE SA: Continues to Defend Banco Safra S.A. Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Vale S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 3, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend
a class action suit entitled, Banco Safra S.A. -- Cayman Islands
Branch v. Samarco Mineracao S.A., et al., No. 16 Civ. 8800 (RMB)
(S.D.N.Y.

The company was named as defendants in an action captioned Banco
Safra S.A.—Cayman Islands Branch v. Samarco Mineracao S.A., et
al., No. 16 Civ. 8800 (RMB) (S.D.N.Y.).

The suit was brought as a putative class action on behalf of
holders of bonds issued by Samarco, alleging violations of the U.S.
federal securities laws on the basis of alleged false and
misleading statements or omissions concerning the risks of
operations of Samarco's Fundao dam and the adequacy of the related
programs and procedures.

In June 2019, the court dismissed the complaint. In December 2019,
the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the decision.

On March 10, 2020, the plaintiff filed its opening appeal brief. A
letter with the court requesting a deadline for the company's brief
is due by no later than March 24, 2020.

Vale said, "We expect a due date in early June. We believe that the
claims have no merit, and we will contest them."

Vale S.A., together with its subsidiaries, produces and sells iron
ore and iron ore pellets for use as raw materials in steelmaking in
Brazil and internationally. It operates through Ferrous Minerals,
Coal, and Base Metals segments. The company was formerly known as
Companhia Vale do Rio Doce and changed its name to Vale S.A. in May
2009. Vale S.A. was founded in 1942 and is headquartered in Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil.


VALE SA: Settlement Conference in ADRs Suit Set for June 10
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vale S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 3, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that a trial court has set a
settlement conference for June 10, 2020 to discuss final approval
of the settlement in the class action entitled, In re: Vale S.A.
Securities Litigation, No. 15 Civ. 9539 (GHW) (S.D.N.Y.).

With respect to litigation in the United States concerning
Samarco's Fundao dam, the company and certain of its current and
former officers have been named as defendants in an action
captioned In re: Vale S.A. Securities Litigation, No. 15 Civ. 9539
(GHW) (S.D.N.Y.).

The suit was brought as a putative class action on behalf of
holders of Vale's American Depositary Receipts (ADRs), alleging
violations of the U.S. federal securities laws on the basis of
alleged false and misleading statements or omissions concerning the
risks of operations of Samarco's Fundao dam and the adequacy of the
related programs and procedures.

On September 27, 2019, the court denied class certification. On
December 26, 2019, the court issued an order stating that the
parties had informed the court that they had reached a settlement
in principle.

On February 7, 2020, the parties submitted a motion to approve a
proposed stipulation settlement agreement. On February 22, 2020,
the court signed the company's proposed order preliminarily
approving the settlement in the total amount of US$25 million, and
has also set a settlement conference for June 10, 2020 to discuss
final approval of the settlement.

Vale S.A., together with its subsidiaries, produces and sells iron
ore and iron ore pellets for use as raw materials in steelmaking in
Brazil and internationally. It operates through Ferrous Minerals,
Coal, and Base Metals segments. The company was formerly known as
Companhia Vale do Rio Doce and changed its name to Vale S.A. in May
2009. Vale S.A. was founded in 1942 and is headquartered in Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil.


WALLGREENS BOOTS: Discovery Ongoing in Ill. Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended February 29, 2020, that discovery is
ongoing in the securities class action suit pending before the
Northern District of Illinois.

On April 10, 2015, a putative shareholder filed a securities class
action in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois
against Walgreen Co. and certain former officers of Walgreen Co.

The action asserts claims for violation of the federal securities
laws arising out of certain public statements the Company made
regarding its former fiscal 2016 goals. On June 16, 2015, the Court
entered an order appointing a lead plaintiff.

Pursuant to the Court's order, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
class action complaint on August 17, 2015, and defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint on October 16, 2015.

On September 30, 2016, the Court issued an order granting in part
and denying in part defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Defendants filed their answer to the complaint on November 4, 2016
and filed an amended answer on January 16, 2017. Plaintiff filed
its motion for class certification on April 21, 2017.

The Court granted plaintiffs' motion on March 29, 2018 and merits
discovery is proceeding.

On December 19, 2018, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint
and defendants moved to dismiss the new complaint on February 19,
2019.

On September 23, 2019, the Court issued an order granting in part
and denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss.

Discovery is proceeding.

Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. operates as a pharmacy-led health
and wellbeing company. It operates through three segments: Retail
Pharmacy USA, Retail Pharmacy International, and Pharmaceutical
Wholesale. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. was founded in 1901 and
is based in Deerfield, Illinois.


WALLGREENS BOOTS: Rite Aid Merger Suit Obtains Class Status
-----------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended February 29, 2020, that the Court
granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

On December 11, 2017, purported Rite Aid shareholders filed an
amended complaint in a putative class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
arising out of transactions contemplated by the merger agreement
between the Company and Rite Aid.

The amended complaint alleged that the Company and certain of its
officers made false or misleading statements regarding the
transactions.

The Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on April 15, 2019. The Company filed an answer and
affirmative defenses, discovery commenced, and the Court granted
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. operates as a pharmacy-led health
and wellbeing company. It operates through three segments: Retail
Pharmacy USA, Retail Pharmacy International, and Pharmaceutical
Wholesale. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. was founded in 1901 and
is based in Deerfield, Illinois.


WESTCOAST COMMUNICATION: Rentschler Seeks Wages Owed Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
William Rentschler, individually, and all others similarly situated
v. WESTCOAST COMMUNICATION SERVICES INC., a Florida Corporation;
SENTINEL SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., a Florida Corporation IMRAN
KAMADIA, individually, and LISA BOWLES, individually, Case No.
3:20-cv-00456 (M.D. Fla., May 4, 2020), is brought under the Fair
Labor Standards Act to recover all wages owed to the Plaintiff.

According to the complaint, during the Plaintiff's employment
period, he worked between 60 and 100 hours per week. The Defendants
failed to compensate the Plaintiff at the rate of time-and-a-half
his regular hourly rate for work he performed in excess of 40 hours
per week. The Defendants' actions were intentional and/or willful
and Plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to an additional amount of
liquidated (double) damages for minimum wages and overtime wages
owed.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a technician.

SSS, specializes in providing residential and commercial security
systems, fire alarm protection, and other related solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          Melissa Scott, Esq.
          Jake Blumstein, Esq.
          USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
          805 East Broward Blvd., Suite 301
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 871-0050
          Email: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
                 jake@jordanrichardspllc.com
                 melissa@jordanrichadrspllc.com


WHITSETT VISION: McKelvy Sues Over Failure to Offer COBRA Notice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amber McKelvy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WHITSETT VISION GROUP, PLLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-01571
(S.D. Tex., May 4, 2020), alleges that the Defendant violated the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended by the
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, by failing
to provide a COBRA notice that complies with the law.

Despite having access to the Department of Labor's Model COBRA
form, Whitsett chose not to use the model form to send timely
notice--presumably to save Whitsett money because COBRA coverage is
inherently expensive for employers, according to the complaint. The
failure to provide a timely COBRA notice misled Plaintiff and
caused the Plaintiff economic injuries in the form of lost health
insurance and unpaid medical bills, as well as informational
injuries.

Simply put, the Defendant's failure to provide a timely COBRA
notice violates the law, the Plaintiff contends. Rather than
including all information required by law in a single notice
"written in a manner calculated to be understood by the average
plan participant," the Defendant failed to provide any timely COBRA
notification to allow the Plaintiff to make an informed decision
within the statutory time period about the her healthcare options
for her and her family.

As a result of this violation, which threatens Class Members'
ability to maintain their health coverage, the Plaintiff seeks
statutory penalties, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses, and other appropriate relief.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendant and was covered
based on her health plan through the Defendant.

Whitsett is the plan sponsor and plan administrator of the Whitsett
Plan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Angelica M. Gentile, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone (305) 479-2299
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: agentile@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MASON LIETZ & KLINGER, LLP
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: 312.283.3814
          Fax: 773.496.8617
          Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com

               - and -

          Rachel Edelsberg, Esq.
          DAPEER LAW, P.A.
          3331 Sunset Avenue
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Phone: 305-610-5223
          Email: rachel@dapeer.com

               - and -

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


WILLIAMS INDUSTRIAL: Budde Shareholder Class Action Concluded
-------------------------------------------------------------
Williams Industrial Services Group Inc. said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 27, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that
the shareholder class action suit entitled, Budde v. Global Power
Equipment Group Inc., has been concluded.

The Company prevailed in a putative shareholder class action, which
was captioned Budde v. Global Power Equipment Group Inc. and filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
naming the Company and certain former officers as defendants.

This action and another action were filed on May 13, 2015 and June
23, 2015, respectively and, on July 29, 2015, the court
consolidated the two actions and appointed a lead plaintiff.

Following the District Court's dismissal with prejudice on
September 11, 2018, Plaintiffs appealed the decision to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit
held oral arguments on August 5, 2019.

On August 23, 2019, the Fifth Circuit issued a per curiam decision
affirming the District Court's dismissal. Plaintiffs had until
November 21, 2019, to petition for certiorari review by the Supreme
Court of the United States, but did not do so.

The matter is now concluded.

Williams Industrial Services Group Inc. provides general and
specialty construction, maintenance and modification, and plant
management support services to the nuclear, hydro and fossil power
generation, pulp and paper, refining, petrochemical, and other
process and manufacturing industries. The company was formerly
known as Global Power Equipment Group Inc. and changed its name to
Williams Industrial Services Group Inc. in June 2018. Williams
Industrial Services Group Inc. was founded in 1998 and is based in
Tucker, Georgia.


WIRELESS ADVOCATES: Sinclair Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Sinclair, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. WIRELESS ADVOCATES, LLC, Case No. 0:20-cv-60886-RAR
(S.D. Fla., May 1, 2020), is brought against the Defendant tp
recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938.

According to the complaint, while the Defendant required Kiosk
Managers like the Plaintiff to work overtime hours, the Defendant
did not pay them for all hours worked outside of the store. The
Plaintiff and the class spend substantial time monitoring,
reviewing, and responding to work messages on the GroupMe mobile
messaging application when they are not clocked into the
Defendant's timekeeping system, and therefore, they are not being
paid for work performed outside of the store.

The Plaintiff adds that he work unpaid time outside of the store
while participating in mandatory conference calls, communicating
with co-workers about work matters by e-mail, text messages and
phone calls. Accordingly, the Defendant failed to credit--and
therefore, compensate--the Plaintiff for all of his hours worked in
violation of the FLSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly-paid
Kiosk Manager from October 2007 to July 2017.

Wireless Advocates is a wireless product provider that partners
with major manufacturers, carriers, and channel partners to provide
a wide range of wireless services and products to its
customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Camar Jones, Esq.
          Tamra Givens, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                 cjones@shavitzlaw.com
                 tgivens@shavitzlaw.com


ZIMMER BIOMET: Karl Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Sales Reps Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JAMES KARL, on behalf of
himself, and on behalf of a class of those similarly situated v.
ZIMMER BIOMET HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation; ZIMMER US,
INC., a Delaware corporation; BIOMET U.S. RECONSTRUCTION, LLC, an
Indiana limited liability company; BIOMET BIOLOGICS, LLC, an
Indiana limited liability company; and BIOMET, INC., an Indiana
corporation, Case No. 3:18-cv-04176-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff
will moved the Court on June 18, 2020 for an order:

   1. certify a class of:

      "any person who, during the period commencing four years
      prior to the date of this lawsuit to the present, was
      hired or otherwise engaged as an independent contractor
      for the purposes of solicitation or sales of Zimmer Biomet
      products and/or services in California by ZIMMER US, INC.,
      BIOMET U.S. RECONSTRUCTION, LLC, and BIOMET BIOLOGICS,
      LLC"; and

   2. appointing his counsel to serve as class counsel.

Karl brought this action against the Defendants alleging they
misclassified him as an independent contractor. He filed the
operative first amended complaint on January 1, 2019. Mr. Karl now
seeks to certify a class of California sales representatives under
California Labor Code seeking proper itemized statements, unpaid
business expenses, restitution for unreimbursed business expenses
and unpaid employment benefits. Each claim is predicated on a
finding of employment misclassification under California statutory
and common law.

Zimmer is a publicly traded medical device company. It was founded
in 1927 to produce aluminum splints. The firm is headquartered in
Warsaw, Indiana, where it is part of the medical devices business
cluster.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Lohr, Esq.
          Alec Segarich, Esq.
          LOHR RIPAMONTI & SEGARICH LLP
          140 Geary Street, 4th Fl.
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 683-7266
          Facsimile: (415) 683-7267
          E-mail: jason.lohr@lrllp.com
                  alec.segarich@lrllp.com

               - and -

          Denis Kenny, Esq.
          SCHERER SMITH & KENNY LLP
          140 Geary Street, 7th Fl.
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 433-1099
          Facsimile: (415) 433-9434
          E-mail: denis@sfcounsel.com

ZOOM TELEPHONICS: Continues to Defend Schulze Putative Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zoom Telephonics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action initiated by William Schulze.

On January 23, 2020, William Schulze filed a complaint as lead
plaintiff on behalf of purchasers of Zoom modems in a putative
class action lawsuit against Zoom in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts.

The Schulze Complaint alleges that Zoom modems were sold as new
despite containing refurbished parts.

Zoom intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims.

Headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts, Zoom Telephonics, Inc.,
derives its net sales primarily from sales of Internet-related
communication products, principally dial-up modems, fixed and
mobile broadband products, WiFi(R) compatible and Bluetooth(R)
wireless products, and other communication-related products.

ZOOM VIDEO: Kirpekar Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Personal Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ajay Kirpekar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-03042-NC (N.D. Cal., May 4, 2020),
seeks damages and equitable relief to remedy the Defendant's
violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, and Consumer Privacy Act.

Zoom has failed to properly safeguard the personal information of
the increasing millions of users of its software application and
video conferencing platform, according to the complaint. Upon
installing or upon each opening of the Zoom App, Zoom collects the
personal information of its users and discloses, without adequate
notice or authorization, this personal information to third
parties, including Facebook, Inc., invading the privacy of millions
of users.

Had Zoom informed its users that it would use inadequate security
measures and permit unauthorized third-party tracking of their
personal information, users--like the Plaintiff and Class
members--would not have been willing to use the Zoom App, the
Plaintiff avers. Instead, the Plaintiff and Class members would
have forgone using Zoom and/or chosen a different video
conferencing product that did not send their personal information
to Facebook, or any other third party. Zoom's failure to implement
adequate security protocols and failure to provide accurate
disclosures to its users violated those users' privacy and falls
well short of Zoom's promises, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has downloaded, installed, and opened the Zoom App.

Zoom provides video communications products and services to
companies and individuals throughout California and the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dennis Stewart, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK, PLLC
          600 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (612) 333-8844
          Fax: (612) 339-6622
          Email: dstewart@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          David A. Goodwin, Esq.
          Ling S. Wang, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                 dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
                 lwang@gustfsongluek.com

               - and -

          Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
          Roberta A. Yard, Esq.
          REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
          332 Minnesota Street, Suite W-1050
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Phone: (651) 287-2100
          Fax: (651) 287-2103
          Email: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
                 r.yard@rwblawfirm.com


ZOOMPASS HOLDINGS: 3d Cir. Dismissed 3rd Appeal in NJ Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zoompass Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 9, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the United States Court
of Appeal for the Third Circuit has dismissed a third class action
appeal.

During the year ended December 31, 2017, the Company learned that a
class action complaint had been filed against the Company, its
Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.  

The Class Action Complaint alleges, inter alia, that defendants
violated the federal securities laws by, among other things,
failing to disclose that the Company was engaged in an unlawful
scheme to promote its stock.  

The Company has been served with the Class Action Complaint. The
Company has analyzed the Class Action Complaint and, based on that
analysis, has concluded that it is legally deficient and otherwise
without merit. The Company intends to vigorously defend against
these claims.

Also during the year ended December 31, 2017, the Company learned
that two derivative complaints on behalf of the Company have been
filed against the Company's Directors and Chief Executive Officer,
President, Corporate Secretary, and Chief Financial Officer, and
nominally against the Company, in Nevada state and federal court.


The state court action subsequently was removed to federal court.
The Derivative Complaints allege, inter alia, that the Company's
officers and directors directed the Company to undertake an
unlawful scheme to promote its stock.  

The Company has been served with the Derivative Complaints. The
Company has analyzed them and, based on its analysis, has concluded
that the Derivative Complaints are legally deficient and otherwise
without merit. The Company intends to vigorously defend against
these claims.   

On August 7, 2018, the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey dismissed the Class Action Complaint.
Additionally, subsequent to the year end on August 21, 2018, the
Company was served with the Second Amended Complaint in the
District of New Jersey.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint on September 18, 2018.  

On January 23, 2019, the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with
prejudice.  

Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal order
on February 7, 2019. On May 14, 2019, the Plaintiff's motion to
reconsider was denied.

On June 27, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an appeal with United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On March 12, 2020, the
United States Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit dismissed the
Third appeal.

Zoompass Holdings, Inc. develops a mobile money platform that
enables brands to transform their financial interactions with
customers. The company was founded in 2009 and is headquartered in
Toronto, Canada with an additional location in Englewood, New
Jersey. Zoompass Holdings, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of
Paymobile Inc.


ZTO EXPRESS: Birmingham Retirement & Relief System Suit Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc.  said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the class action suit
entitled, City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System v. ZTO
Express (Cayman) Inc., et al., 01-CV-2017-902004.00, remains
stayed.

Starting in May 2017, our company and certain of directors and
officers, and the underwriters of the company's initial public
offering in October 2016 (the "Underwriter Defendants") have been
named as defendants in City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief
System v. ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc., et al., 01-CV-2017-902004.00
(Cir. Ct. Jefferson County Ala., filed on May 16, 2017) (the
"Alabama Action").

On June 28, 2017, the company removed the Alabama Action to the
federal District Court for the Northern District of Alabama and the
Underwriter Defendants joined in the removal.

On July 14, 2017, City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System
filed a Motion to Remand the Alabama Action back to state court. On
August 4, 2017, the company and the Underwriter Defendants
submitted a joint Motion to Change Venue, requesting the court to
transfer the Alabama Action to the federal District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

On August 29, 2017, the court issued an order staying the
proceedings of the Alabama Action pending the United States Supreme
Court's decision in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver Cty. Employees Ret. Fund,
and denying without prejudice City of Birmingham Retirement and
Relief System's Motion to Remand and our company and the
Underwriter Defendants’ Motion to Change Venue.

On April 17, 2018, City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System
filed a motion to lift stay and remand the Alabama Action back to
state court, which motion was granted by the court on April 18,
2018.

On May 9, 2018, the plaintiff and defendants filed a joint motion
to stay the Alabama Action in favor of the New York Action.

The court granted that motion on August 9, 2018, and the case
remains stayed.

ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc. provides express delivery and other
value-added logistics services in the People's Republic of China.
The company offers delivery services for e-commerce and traditional
merchants, and other express service users. As of December 31,
2018, it operated a fleet of approximately 4,500 self-owned trucks.
ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc. was founded in 2009 and is headquartered
in Shanghai, the People's Republic of China.


ZTO EXPRESS: Guo and McGrath Suits Remain Stayed
------------------------------------------------
ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc.  said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the lawsuits
captioned as, Guo v. ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc., et al. and McGrath
v. ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc., et al., remain stayed.

Starting in May 2017, the company and certain of directors and
officers, and the underwriters of the company's initial public
offering in October 2016 (the "Underwriter Defendants") have been
named as defendants in Guo v. ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc., et al., 17
Civ. 03676 (Sup. Ct. Mateo County Ca., filed on August 11, 2017)
(the "Guo Case"); McGrath v. ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc., et al., 17
Civ. 03805 (Sup. Ct. Mateo County Ca., filed on August 21, 2017)
(the "McGrath Case); and The Ronald & Maxine Linde Foundation v.
ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc., et al., 18 Civ. 00264 (Sup. Ct. Mateo
County Ca., filed on January 17, 2018) (the "Linde Foundation
Case").

On September 15, 2017, the company removed the Guo Case and McGrath
Case to the federal District Court for the Northern District of
California and the Underwriter Defendants consented to the removal.


Also, on September 15, 2017, the company and the Underwriter
Defendants filed a joint motion to transfer in the Guo Case and
McGrath Case, requesting the court to transfer the two cases to the
federal District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On September 26, 2017, the plaintiffs filed motions to remand these
two cases back to state court. On December 22, 2017, the court
granted plaintiffs' motions to remand and denied the company and
Underwriter Defendants' joint motion to transfer.

On February 15, 2018, the company and the Underwriter Defendants
filed a joint motion to stay the Guo Case and McGrath Case in state
court. On April 24, 2018, the court granted the Company and the
Underwriter Defendants' motion, and the case remains stayed.

ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc. provides express delivery and other
value-added logistics services in the People's Republic of China.
The company offers delivery services for e-commerce and traditional
merchants, and other express service users. As of December 31,
2018, it operated a fleet of approximately 4,500 self-owned trucks.
ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc. was founded in 2009 and is headquartered
in Shanghai, the People's Republic of China.


[^] WEBINAR: Best Practices in Qualifying the Class
---------------------------------------------------
Beard Group, Inc. is hosting a webinar for plaintiff practitioners
on client intake for mass torts and class actions on Thurs., May
28
at 2 p.m. Eastern Time.

Register FREE at bit.ly/2KqkcIV

Lead generation is just half the battle. You still have to win
over
the client. Register now and learn the following:

     -- Primary elements in responding to a lead
     -- How to customize scripts for case, demographics
     -- Developing effective screening criteria
     -- Tactics in converting leads to plaintiffs on first
        contact
     -- Minimize lead loss
     -- Publicity vs. conversion budgets

Benefits:

     -- Optimize your marketing budget's ROI
     -- Maximize the size of your class
     -- Reduce acquisition cost per client

Tom Ball, Senior Vice President at Alert Communications, will
present what his company has learned after completing millions of
new client intakes for law firms and legal marketing agencies.

Thurs., May 28
2 p.m. Eastern
Register FREE at bit.ly/2KqkcIV

                        Asbestos Litigation


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***