/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200521.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, May 21, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 102

                            Headlines

2U INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Maryland Suit
ADOMANI INC: Mollik Class Suit in California State Court
ADVANCED MICRO: Final Order & Judgment Issued in Dickey Class Suit
ALTRIA GROUP: Faces Walsh Antitrust Suit Over Sale of E-Cigs
AMERICA MOVIL: Consumer Class Suits Against Unit Pending in Mexico

AMERICAN FEDERATION: Mattos Appeals D. Md. Ruling to 4th Circuit
AQUA METALS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending in California
ASSOCIATED READY: Violates Wage and Hour Laws, Merolillo Alleges
AVEO PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Amended Hackel Suit Still Pending
AZTECAS MUFFLERS: Faces Herrera Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

BANK BRADESCO: Class Suit Over Operation Zealots Closed
BARING BDC: Appeal in Triangle Capital Securities Suit Pending
BASF METALS: Hollin Appeals Ruling in Antitrust Suit to 2nd Cir.
BAXTER INT'L: Bid to Dismiss IV Solutions Sales Suit Granted
BAXTER INT'L: Court Appoints Lead Plaintiffs in Silverman Suit

BED BATH: Faces Vitiello Securities Class Suit
BIG CITY ACCESS: Underpays Construction Workers, Fear Claims
BKV OPERATING: Hilton Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
BRIGGS & RILEY: Alcazar Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Court Grants Bid for Protection

CAPITAL ONE: Hagan Sues over Aggressive Collection Calls
CHURCHILL DOWNS: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Thimmegowda Pending
CHURCHILL DOWNS: Bid to Compel Arbitration Pending
CHURCHILL DOWNS: COVID-19 Pandemic Moves Soileau Fairness Hearing
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: COVID Triggers Coverage, Derek Scott Says

CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Homestate Sues Over Refusal to Pay Insureds
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Student A Sues Over COVID-19 Tuition Refunds
COMPANHIA DE SANEAMENTO: Appeal in Brazilian Class Suit Pending
CONCESIONARIA VUELA: Martinez-Sanchez Seeks Air Ticket Refunds
CORE-MARK INTERNATIONAL: Cunha Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages

CORREVIO PHARMA: S.D.N.Y. Securities Suit Ongoing
CORT BUSINESS: Nelson Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to C.D. Calif.
CUMBERLAND MUTUAL: N&S Sues Over Denial of COVID-19 Loss Coverage
DEPT OF EDUC: Barber Seeks to Certify Student Loan Borrowers Class
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: B&R Supermarket Class Action Ongoing

EMIRATES: Faces Suarez Suit Over Failure to Provide Full Refunds
EMORY UNIVERSITY: DeMasi Seeks Refund Due to COVID-19 Closure
EQUITY BANCSHARES: Bid to Dismiss SDNY Securities Suit Pending
FACEBOOK INC: Settlement in Principle Reached in Biometrics Suit
FACEBOOK INC: Settlement Reached in Cyber-Attack Class Suit

FACEBOOK INC: Suit Over Platform & User Data Practices Ongoing
FEDERAL SIGNAL: Discovery Ongoing in Hearing Loss Litigation
FLOOR & DECOR: Still Defends Securities Litigation in Georgia
FLORIDA POWER: Sued by Casa La Play Over Street Lighting Charges
FORD MOTOR: Settlement in Takata Airbag Related Suit Effective

FORT WORTH, TX: Faces Davenport Civil Rights Suit in N.D. Texas
FORTRESS SYSTEMS: Fourth Cir. Appeal Filed in Sharkey FLSA Suit
FREDDIE MAC: 6th Cir. Declines to Hear OPERS Appeal
FREDDIE MAC: Preferred Stock Purchase Deal Litig. in Discovery
FTS INTERNATIONAL: Glock Suit Proceeds to Mediation

GENERAL ELECTRIC: Appeal in Varga Putative Class Suit Pending
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Class Suit Pending
HARTFORD CASUALTY: Dr. Jeffrey Sues Over Refusal to Pay Insureds
ILLINOIS: Faces Lewis Suit Alleging Violation of Disabilities Act
INDIANA: Tully Sues Election Comm. Over Violation of Civil Rights

INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Dismissal of LIBOR Suit Under Appeal
INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Putnam Appeals Order in Antitrust Suit
JANUS HENDERSON: Y-GAR Capital Class Suit Concluded
JERSEY CITY, NJ: O'Garro Sues in D.N.J. Alleging Violation of ADA
JM SMUCKER: Ashton Sues Over False Advertising of Folgers Coffee

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Appeal in TRACLEER(R) Antitrust Suit Underway
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bid to Dismiss Plan Participants' Suit Granted
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Suit Over HIV Therapy Ongoing
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Continues to Defend Contaminated Talc Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Continues to Defend INVOKANA(R) Suits

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Remicade Antitrust Litigation Ongoing
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Says Settlement in XARELTO(R) Suit Funded
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Suit Over Baby Powder Products Ongoing in Ill.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: XARELTO Sales Class Suit in Louisiana Ongoing
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: ZYTIGA(R) Antitrust Class Suit Ongoing

KENON HOLDINGS: Appeal in Suit Against ZIM Pending
KINGDOM TRUST: McNally Class Suit Initiated in C.D. California
KOREA ELECTRIC: Electricity Tariff Related Suits Ongoing
KROY LLC: Braman Sues in N.D. Ohio Over Underpaid Overtime Wages
LIBERTY OILFIELD: Wards Seeks OT Pay for Equipment Operators

MICROSOFT CORP: Claims Administration Process to Begin
MICROSOFT CORP: Denial of Class Cert. in "Moussouris" Affirmed
MIDLAND FUNDING: Faces Peterson FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
MILLMAN SURVEYING: Misclassifies Project Managers, Hackathorn Says
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Zagoria Seeks to Recover Tuition and Fees

NIELSEN HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss PERS Mississippi Suit Underway
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Denial of Class Certification Upheld
OPEN TEXT: Bid to Dismiss Suit Against Carbonite Underway
P&N CUISINE: de Jesus Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
PACESETTER PERSONNEL: Conditional Class Certification Sought

POPE RESOURCES: Faces Rayonier Merger-Related Suits
PRIME NOW: Mabanta Labor Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
QS NEXT: Rodriguez Sues Over Insufficient Financial Disclosures
QUALCOMM INC: 9th Cir. Appeal in California Suit Still Pending
QUALCOMM INC: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings Remains Pending

QUALCOMM INC: Broadcom Merger-Related Suit Dismissed
QUALCOMM INC: Canadian Consumer Class Suits Ongoing
SC JOHNSON: Moran Sues Over Unlawful Marketing of Windex Products
SCORES HOLDING: Case Conference Moved to May 28 Due to COVID-19
SCRATCH FINANCIAL: Faces AMC TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Fax Ads

SEAWORLD PARKS: Faces Kouball Suit Over Unlawfully Charged Fees
SENTINEL INSURANCE: Faces One40 Suit Over Refusal to Pay Insureds
SERVING IMMIGRANTS: Cugat Seeks Unpaid OT Wages for Paralegals
SETERUS INC: Barilla Suit Seeks to Certify FDCPA Class
SOCIETY INSURANCE: Faces Biscuit Suit Over Denial of Coverage

SOUTHERN POWER: Discovery Deadlines in MCERS Vacated Due to COVID
STATE FARM: King Seeks to Certify Class of Plan Beneficiaries
STEVENS INSTITUTE: Mitelberg Sues Over Failure to Refund Fees
STUBHUB INC: Menzel Sues Over Failure to Provide Ticket Refund
SVB FINANCIAL: Fails to Pay PPP Loan Agents, Brunner Suit Claims

TANDEM DIABETES: Faces 4 Class Suits Over January Data Breach
TENARIS SA: Bid to Dismiss Securities Litigation in EDNY Pending
TESLA INC: Appeal in Investor Suit Over Model 3 Production Pending
TESLA INC: Must Defend Against Suit Over Elon Musk Tweets
TESLA INC: Trial in Suit Over 2018 Bonuses Set for June 2021

TESORO HIGH: Hall Appeals Judgment in Land-Lease Suit to 8th Cir.
TIKTOK INC: DM Sues Over Unauthorized Use of Biometric Info
TIKTOK INC: ER Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometric Data
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Consolidated Isolde Class Suit Dismissed
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: October 26 Trial Set for Guardrail Class Suit

UNIFUND CCR: Valentine Sues in New Jersey Over Violation of FDCPA
UNITED STATES: Does Sue Over Rights Deprivation Under CARES Act
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: Hickey Seeks Refund of Tuition and Fees
UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC: Saroya Seeks of Refunds Tuition & Fees
WILLIS TOWERS: 5th Cir. Denies Second Petition for Rehearing

WILLIS TOWERS: Appeal on Dismissal of Stockholders Suit Pending
WILLIS TOWERS: Renewed Motions to Dismiss Proxy Litigation Denied
WINK LABS: Cohen Sues Over Abrupt Imposition of Monthly Payment
XP INC: IPO-Related Class Suits Underway in New York
[^] WEBINAR: Best Practices in Qualifying the Class


                            *********

2U INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Maryland Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
2U, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a
consolidated class action suit entitled, In re 2U, Inc., Securities
Class Action, No. 1:19-cv-7390 (D. Md.).

On August 7 and 9, 2019, Aaron Harper and Anne M. Chinn filed
putative class action complaints against the company, Christopher
J. Paucek, the Company's CEO, and Catherine A. Graham, the
company's former CFO, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The district court transferred the cases to the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland, and the docket numbers
are now 8:19-cv-3455 (D. MD) and 8:20-cv-1006 (D. MD).

The complaints allege violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, based upon allegedly false and misleading statements
regarding the company's business prospects and financial
projections.

The proposed class consists of all persons who acquired the
company's securities between February 26, 2018 and July 30, 2019.

2U siad, "We believe that the claims are without merit and we
intend to vigorously defend against these claims. However, due to
the complex nature of the legal and factual issues involved, the
outcome of this matter is not presently determinable."

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

Headquartered in Landover, Maryland, 2U, Inc. provides cloud-based
SaaS solutions that address the needs of nonprofit colleges and
universities to attract, enroll and deliver quality education to
students. The 2U platform enables clients to offer full
undergraduate, graduate and doctoral programs online.


ADOMANI INC: Mollik Class Suit in California State Court
--------------------------------------------------------
ADOMANI, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that status conference was
scheduled to begin May 11, 2020, in the class action suit initiated
by M.D. Ariful Mollik

On August 23, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit captioned M.D.
Ariful Mollik v. ADOMANI, Inc. et al., Case No. RIC 1817493, was
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Riverside against the company, certain of its executive
officers, Edward R. Monfort, its former Chief Technology Officer
and former director, and the two underwriters of our offering of
common stock under Regulation A in June 2017.

This complaint alleges that documents related to the company's
offering of common stock under Regulation A in June 2017 contained
materially false and misleading statements and that all defendants
violated Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, and that the
company and the individual defendants violated Section 15 of the
Securities Act, in connection therewith.

The plaintiff seeks on behalf of himself and all class members: (i)
certification of a class under California substantive law and
procedure; (ii) compensatory damages and interest in an amount to
be proven at trial; (iii) reasonable costs and expenses incurred in
this action, including counsel fees and expert fees; (iv) awarding
of rescission or rescissionary damages; and (v) equitable relief at
the discretion of the Court.

Plaintiff's counsel has subsequently filed a first amended
complaint, a second amended complaint, and a third amended
complaint. Plaintiff Mollik was replaced by putative class
representatives Alan K. Brooks and Electric Drivetrains, LLC. Alan
K. Brooks was subsequently dropped as a putative class
representative.

On October 25, 2019, the company answered the third amended
complaint, generally denying the allegations and asserting
affirmative defenses.

On November 5, 2019, Network 1 and Boustead Securities (together
the "Underwriters") filed a cross-complaint against the Company
seeking indemnification under the terms of the underwriting
agreement the Company and the Underwriters entered for the
Company's initial public offering (the "Underwriting Agreement").

On December 10, 2019, the Company filed its answer to the
Underwriters' cross-complaint, generally denying the allegations
and asserting affirmative defenses.

Also on this date, the Company filed a cross-complaint against the
Underwriters seeking indemnification under the terms of the
Underwriting Agreement.

On January 14, 2020, Mr. Monfort filed a cross-complaint against
the Underwriters seeking indemnification under the terms of the
Underwriting Agreement. On January 15, 2020, Mr. Monfort filed a
cross-complaint against the Company seeking indemnification under
the terms of the Company's Amended and Restated Bylaws and Section
145 of the Delaware General Corporation Law.

On February 18, 2020 the company filed an answer to Mr. Monfort's
cross-complaint, generally denying the allegations and asserting
affirmative defenses. On April 6, 2020, the Company Defendants, Mr.
Monfort, and Plaintiff Electric Drivetrains engaged in mediation.

The Underwriters declined to participate in the mediation. The
mediation did not result in settlement. On April 16, 2020, Electric
Drivetrains requested that defendants stipulate to Electric
Drivetrains' filing a fourth amended complaint.

ADOMANI said, "We believe that the purported class action lawsuit
is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action."

ADOMANI, Inc. provides zero-emission electric and hybrid drivetrain
systems for integration in new and existing school buses and medium
to heavy-duty commercial fleet vehicles. ADOMANI, Inc. was founded
in 2012 and is headquartered in Corona, California.


ADVANCED MICRO: Final Order & Judgment Issued in Dickey Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended March 28, 2020, that the Court in Dickey
et al. v. AMD, No. 15-cv-04922, has issued a final order and
judgment.

On October 26, 2015, a putative class action complaint captioned
Dickey et al. v. AMD, No. 15-cv-04922 was filed against the Company
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

Plaintiffs allege that the Company misled consumers by using the
term "eight cores" in connection with the marketing of certain AMD
FX CPUs that are based on the Company's "Bulldozer" core
architecture.

The plaintiffs allege these products cannot perform eight
calculations simultaneously, without restriction. The plaintiffs
seek to obtain damages under several causes of action for a
nationwide class of consumers who allegedly were deceived into
purchasing certain Bulldozer-based CPUs that were marketed as
containing eight cores. The plaintiffs also seek attorneys' fees.

On December 21, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which was granted on April 7, 2016.

The plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint with a narrowed
putative class definition, which the Court dismissed upon the
Company's motion on October 31, 2016. The plaintiffs subsequently
filed a second amended complaint, and the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint.

On June 14, 2017, the Court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss, and allowing the
plaintiffs to move forward with a portion of their complaint.

On March 27, 2018, plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification. On January 17, 2019, the Court granted plaintiffs'
motion for class certification. The class definition does not
encompass the Company's Ryzen or EPYC processors. On January 31,
2019, the Company filed a petition in the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals, seeking review of certain aspects of the January 17, 2019
class certification order.

On May 9, 2019, the parties attended mediation and reached a
tentative settlement.

On June 3, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the
Company's petition seeking appellate review of the January 17, 2019
class certification order.

On August 9, 2019, the parties executed a formal settlement
agreement. On August 23, 2019, plaintiffs filed their motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement agreement.

On October 4, 2019, the Court granted the motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement agreement. On February 21, 2020, the
Court granted the plaintiff's motion for final approval of the
settlement agreement. On February 28, 2020, the Court issued a
final order and judgment.

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. operates as a semiconductor company
worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Computing and
Graphics; and Enterprise, Embedded and Semi-Custom. Advanced Micro
Devices, Inc. was founded in 1969 and is headquartered in Santa
Clara, California.


ALTRIA GROUP: Faces Walsh Antitrust Suit Over Sale of E-Cigs
------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry Walsh, Allison Harrod, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC., and JUUL
LABS, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-03183 (N.D. Cal., May 8, 2020), is
bought against the Defendants for damages, injunctive relief and
other relief pursuant to federal antitrust laws, state antitrust,
unfair competition, and consumer protection laws.

This class action involves agreements among horizontal competitors
Juul and Altria to eliminate competition by Altria in the market
for closed system electronic cigarettes ("e-cigarettes") in
exchange for a partial ownership interest in JUUL. These agreements
effectuated a horizontal allocation of the market in the sense that
JUUL and Altria agreed that the latter would exit the market
entirely and instead become a minority shareholder in the former.

This conduct constitutes a per se violation of Sections 1 and 3 of
the Sherman Act and constituted an unlawful acquisition in
violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, according to the
complaint. The agreements also provide the basis for the claims
that JUUL monopolized the relevant market of closed system
e-cigarettes sold in the United States and its territories and that
JUUL and Altria conspired to monopolize that market, all in
violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' anticompetitive
conduct, the Plaintiffs allege they were overcharged and sustained
injury to their business and property. The Plaintiffs and members
of the proposed Classes were injured by the elimination of the
Altria Group as a competitor in the closed e-cigarette market, paid
supracompetitive prices for JUUL's e-cigarettes as a result, and
were denied the benefits of competitive innovation that could have
existed had the Altria Group stayed in the market as an independent
force, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs purchased JUUL's closed system e-cigarette products
indirectly from various retail locations during the Class Period.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Merle C. Meyers, Esq.
          Michele Thompson, Esq.
          MEYERS LAW GROUP, P.C.
          44 Montgomery St., Suite 1010
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: (415) 362-7500
          Email: mmeyers@meyerslawgroup.com
                 mthompson@meyerslawgroup.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey C. Zwerling, Esq.
          ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP
          41 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10010
          Phone: (212) 223-3900
          Email: jzwerling@zsz.com

               - and -

          Fred T. Isquith, Esq.
          ISQUITH LAW GROUP PLLC
          222 E 80th Street
          New York, NY 10075
          Phone: (607) 227-6513
          Email: Isquithlaw@gmail.com

               - and -

          Dan Drachler, Esq.
          ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP
          1904 Third Avenue, Suite 1030
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 223-2053
          Email: ddrachler@zsz.com


AMERICA MOVIL: Consumer Class Suits Against Unit Pending in Mexico
------------------------------------------------------------------
America Movil, S.A.B. de C.V. said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company's
subsidiary, Telcel, continues to face class action lawsuits
regarding the brand's quality of service.

Two class action lawsuits have been filed against Telcel by
customers allegedly affected by Telcel's quality of service and
wireless and broadband rates.

At this stage, the Company cannot assess whether these class action
lawsuits could have an adverse effect on the Company's business and
results of operations in the event that they are resolved against
Telcel, due to uncertainty about the factual and legal claims
underlying these proceedings.

America Movil said, "Consequently, the Company has not established
a provision in the accompanying consolidated financial statements
for an eventual loss arising from these proceedings."

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

America Movil, S.A.B. de C.V. provides telecommunications services
in Latin America, the United States, the Caribbean, and Europe. The
company offers wireless and fixed voice services, including
airtime, local, domestic, and international long-distance services;
and network interconnection services. America Movil, S.A.B. de C.V.
was founded in 2000 and is based in Mexico City, Mexico.


AMERICAN FEDERATION: Mattos Appeals D. Md. Ruling to 4th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Gary Mattos, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
issued in their lawsuit styled Gary Mattos v. American Federation
of State, Case No. 1:19-cv-02539-GLR, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland at Baltimore.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint
asks the Court to compel the Defendant to return wrongfully seized
agency fees.

The lawsuit notes that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that unions
violated the constitution when they deducted tens of millions of
dollars from non-member public-sector employees. The Plaintiffs are
non-member employees who had their constitutional rights violated
when the Defendant deducted agency fees from them without their
affirmative consent.

The appellate case is captioned as Gary Mattos v. American
Federation of State, Case No. 20-1531, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

The Opening Brief and Appendix is due on June 16, 2020. The
Response Brief is due on July 16, 2020.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants GARY MATTOS, et al., on behalf of themselves
and all those similarly situated, are represented by:

          Brian K. Kelsey, Esq.
          LIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER
          190 South LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 263-7768
          Facsimile: (312) 263-7702
          Email: bkelsey@libertyjusticecenter.org

                  - and -

          Aaron B. Solem, Esq.
          NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL FOUNDATION
          8001 Braddock Road
          Springfield, VA 22160-0000
          Telephone: (703) 321-8510
          Facsimile: (703) 321-9319
          E-mail: abs@nrtw.org

                  - and -

          Reilly Walsh Stephens, Esq.
          LIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER
          800 John Carlyle Street
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Telephone: (443) 791-6801
          E-mail: rstephens@libertyjusticecenter.org

Defendant-Appellee AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND
MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, COUNCIL 3, is represented by:

          Adam Bellotti, Esq.
          Jacob R. Karabell, Esq.
          BREDHOFF & KAISER, PLLC
          805 15th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005-0000
          Telephone: (202) 842-2600
          Email: abellotti@bredhoff.com
                 jkarabell@bredhoff.com


AQUA METALS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aqua Metals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the defendants' motion
to dismiss the class action suit entitled, In Re: Aqua Metals, Inc.
Securities Litigation Case No 3:17-cv-07142, is pending.

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

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

On July 20, 2018, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the
company's securities between May 19, 2016 and November 9, 2017,
against the company, Stephen Clarke, Thomas Murphy and Selwyn
Mould.

The Amended Complaint alleges the defendants made false and
misleading statements concerning our lead recycling operations in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks to hold the
individual defendants as control persons pursuant to Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act.

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

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

On September 18, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint in its entirety and the plaintiff subsequently
filed its opposition to the motion.

In an Order dated August 14, 2019, the Court granted in part, and
denied in part, the defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court
granted the motion to dismiss the Securities Act Section 11 claim
and the Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim based on
alleged false and misleading statements and gave the plaintiffs
leave to amend to address the deficiencies.

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

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

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

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

The motion is under consideration by the Court.

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

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

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


ASSOCIATED READY: Violates Wage and Hour Laws, Merolillo Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Merolillo, Gary Giddens, Joseph Ruelas, and Davin Vincent,
each as an Individual, and on behalf of the general public for all
those similarly situated v. ASSOCIATED READY MIXED CONCRETE, INC.,
a California Corporation, DOES 1 through 200, inclusive, Case No.
20STCV17673 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 8, 2020), is
brought against the Defendants to seek damages and equitable relief
resulting from their systemic noncompliance with California's wage
and hour laws.

The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs their lawful wages,
including overtime; and failed to pay Prevailing Wages on public
works projects. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs the
proper wage for each hour worked on the public works projects
related to concrete projects, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed on public works projects in
California.

Associated performed general construction work in counties
throughout California, including manufacturing and delivering
concrete.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard E. Donahoo, Esq.
          Sarah L. Kokonas, Esq.
          Judith L. Camilleri, Esq.
          William E. Donahoo, Esq.
          DONAHOO & ASSOCIATES, PC
          440 W. First Street, Suite 101
          Tustin, CA 92780
          Phone (714) 953-1010
          Facsimile (714) 953-1777
          Email: rdonahoo@donahoo.com
                 skokonas@donahoo.com
                 icamilleri@donahoo.com
                 wdonahoo@donahoo.com


AVEO PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Amended Hackel Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
the class action suit initiated by David Hackel remains pending.

On February 25, 2019, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and certain of its present and former officers, Michael
Bailey, Matthew Dallas, and Keith Ehrlich, in the Southern District
of New York for the District of New York, captioned David Hackel v.
AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al, No. 1:19-cv-01722-AT (the "2019
Class Action").  

On April 12, 2019, the court granted the defendants' motion to
transfer the action to the District of Massachusetts (Case No.
1:19-cv-10783-JCB). On May 6, 2019, the court appointed Andrej
Hornak as lead plaintiff and approved Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel
and Andrews DeValerio LLP as liaison counsel. On July 24, 2019, the
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

The amended complaint also names Michael Needle as a defendant. The
amended complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders
who purchased the Company's common stock between May 4, 2017
through January 31, 2019.  

It generally alleges that the Company and its officers violated
Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by failing to disclose and/or
making allegedly false and/or misleading statements about the
estimated dates by which the Company would report the topline
results from the TIVO-3 trial, the preliminary overall survival
results from the TIVO-3 trial, the sufficiency of the overall
survival data from the TIVO-3 trial, the timing of the New Drug
Application (NDA) submission, and the risk of FDA approval.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
and other costs.

On September 27, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On December 4, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an
opposition to the motion to dismiss, and on January 15, 2020, the
defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss.

The Company denies any allegations of wrongdoing and intends to
vigorously defend against this lawsuit.

AVEO said, "However, there is no assurance that the Company will be
successful in its defense or that insurance will be available or
adequate to fund any settlement or judgment or the litigation costs
of the action.  Moreover, the Company is unable to predict the
outcome or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this
time."

AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, develops
and commercializes a portfolio of targeted medicines for oncology
and other areas of unmet medical need. The company was formerly
known as GenPath Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and changed its name to AVEO
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in March 2005. AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was
incorporated in 2001 and is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts.


AZTECAS MUFFLERS: Faces Herrera Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Irving Adrian Herrera, Mario Herrera, and Alexander Garcia, on
behalf of themselves and all other employees similarly situated,
known and unknown v. AZTECAS MUFFLERS AND BRAKE SHOP, INC., an
Illinois corporation, AZTECAS MUFFLERS AND BRAKE SHOP IV INC., an
Illinois corporation, AZTECAS MUFFLERS AND BRAKE SHOP V INC., an
Illinois corporation, AZTECAS MUFFLERS AND BRAKE SHOP VI INC., an
Illinois corporation, AZTECAS MUFFLERS AND BRAKE SHOP VII INC., an
Illinois corporation, AZTECAS MUFFLERS AND BRAKE SHOP VIII INC., an
Illinois corporation, AZTECAS MUFFLERS AND BRAKE SHOP II INC., a
dissolved Illinois corporation, and OSCAR MARTINEZ, individually,
Case No. 1:20-cv-02816 (N.D. Ill., May 9, 2020), is brought under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance
as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiffs time
and one-half compensation for the overtime hours they worked.

The Plaintiffs typically worked about 58 hours per week with
occasional fluctuations. During the course of the Plaintiffs'
employment by the Defendants, the Defendants would at times track
their hours using a computerized system but, at other times, the
Defendants would not track the Plaintiffs' hours at all. The
Defendants failed and refused to pay the Plaintiffs overtime
premiums for the hours they worked in excess of 40 each week, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by one or more of the Defendants from
March 2016 until July 2018.

The Defendants are an Auto Repair Business, who held out to the
general public as a fully integrated business that offered, and
offers, standardized services and pricing to customers at any one
of the ten locations.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul Luka, Esq.
          ALEX MENDOZA LAW, P.C.
          120 S. State Street, Suite 400
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 508-6010
          Email: paul@mendozalaw.net


BANK BRADESCO: Class Suit Over Operation Zealots Closed
-------------------------------------------------------
Bank Bradesco said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the class action suit
related to Operation Zealots or "Operacao Zelotes", has been
closed.

Due to the so-called Operation Zealots or "Operacao Zelotes", which
investigates the alleged improper performance of members of the
Administrative Council of Tax Appeals ("CARF"), a criminal
proceeding against two former members of the company's Diretoria
Executiva was opened in 2016 and received by the 10th Federal Court
of Judicial Section of the Federal District. The investigation
phase of the process was already completed, and Bank Bradesco is
awaiting the decision of the first instance court.

The company's Management conducted a careful internal evaluation of
records and documents related to the matter and found no evidence
of any illegal conduct by its representatives. The company had
provided all relevant information as requested to the competent
authorities and regulatory bodies, both in Brazil and abroad.

As a result of the news about the Operation Zealots, a Class Action
was filed against the company and members of its Diretoria
Executiva before the District Court of New York ("Court"), on June
3, 2016, based on Section 10 (b) and 20 (a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

On July 1, 2019, the company and the Lead Plaintiff entered into an
agreement ("Agreement") to terminate the Class Action, with the
payment of US$14.5 million by the company.

The Agreement was finally approved by the Court on November 18,
2019 and the case was closed in relation to the company and the
former members of its Diretoria Executiva.

Bank Bradesco said, "The Agreement does not represent the
recognition of guilt or admission of liability by us, and we only
entered into it to avoid uncertainties, costs and onus related to
the progression of the Class Action."

Bank Bradesco is a sociedade anonima organized under the laws of
Brazil. The company operates and manages its business through two
segments: (i) the banking segment; and (ii) the insurance, pension
plans and capitalization bond segment. The company's headquarters
are in Cidade de Deus, Vila Yara, and Osasco, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
The company was founded in 1943 as a commercial bank under the name
"Banco Brasileiro de Descontos S.A." In 1948, it began a period of
aggressive expansion, which led to its becoming the largest private
sector (non-government controlled) commercial bank in Brazil by the
end of the 1960s.

BARING BDC: Appeal in Triangle Capital Securities Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barings BDC, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the appeal in the class
action suit entitled, In re Triangle Capital Corp. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 5:18-cv-00010-FL, remains pending
before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

The company and certain of its former executive officers have been
named as defendants in two putative securities class action
lawsuits, each filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (and then transferred to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina)
on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
company's common stock between May 7, 2014 and November 1, 2017.

The first lawsuit was filed on November 21, 2017, and was captioned
Elias Dagher, et al., v. Triangle Capital Corporation, et al., Case
No. 5:18-cv-00015-FL (the "Dagher Action").

The second lawsuit was filed on November 28, 2017, and was
captioned Gary W. Holden, et al., v. Triangle Capital Corporation,
et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-00010-FL (the "Holden Action"). The Dagher
Action and the Holden Action were consolidated and are currently
captioned In re Triangle Capital Corp. Securities Litigation,
Master File No. 5:18-cv-00010-FL.

On April 10, 2018, the plaintiff filed its First Consolidated
Amended Complaint. The complaint alleged certain violations of the
securities laws, including, among other things, that the defendants
made certain materially false and misleading statements and
omissions regarding the Company's business, operations and
prospects between May 7, 2014 and November 1, 2017.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and
costs, among other relief, but did not specify the amount of
damages being sought.

On May 25, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. On March 7, 2019, the court entered an order granting
the defendants' motion to dismiss.

On March 28, 2019, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to
file a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. On September 20,
2019, the court entered an order denying the plaintiff's motion for
leave to file a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint and
dismissing the action with prejudice.

On October 17, 2019, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal seeking
review of the court's September 20, 2019 order. The plaintiff filed
its opening brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit on January 6, 2020.

The defendants filed their response brief on February 28, 2020, and
the plaintiff filed its reply brief on March 27, 2020.

Barings BDC, Inc. is a business development company specializing in
private equity and mezzanine investments. Triangle Capital
Corporation was incorporated on October 10, 2006 and is based in
Raleigh, North Carolina.


BASF METALS: Hollin Appeals Ruling in Antitrust Suit to 2nd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Larry Hollin, et al., filed an appeal from the District
Court Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 28, 2020, and
Judgment dated April 15, 2020, entered in the lawsuit titled Modern
Settings LLC, et al. v. BASF Metals Limited, et al., Case No.
14-cv-9391, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
arises out of the unlawful conspiracy to manipulate and rig the
global benchmarks for physical platinum and palladium prices, as
well as the prices of platinum- and palladium-based financial
derivative products.

The appellate case is captioned as IN RE PLATINUM AND PALLADIUM
ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 20-1458, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Larry Hollin, KPFF Investment, Inc. and White
Oak Fund LP are represented by:

          Merrill G. Davidoff, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Email: mdavidoff@bm.net

                  - and -

          Jay L. Himes, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          Email: jhimes@labaton.com

Defendants-Appellees BASF Metals Limited, et al., are represented
by:

          Michael F. Williams, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 389-5000
          Email: michael.williams@kirkland.com  

                   - and -

          Stephen Ehrenberg, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 558-3269
          Email: ehrenbergs@sullcrom.com

                   - and -

          Damien J. Marshall, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
          55 Hudson Yards
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 446-2300
          Email: dmarshall@bsfllp.com

                   - and -

          Robert G. Houck, Esq.
          CLIFFORD CHANCE US LLP
          31 West 52nd Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 878-3224
          Email: robert.houck@cliffordchance.com

                   - and -

          David J. Arp, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 955-8678
          Email: jarp@gibsondunn.com

                   - and -

          Ethan Litwin, Esq.
          CONSTANTINE CANNON LLP
          335 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 350-2737
          Email: elitwin@constantinecannon.com


BAXTER INT'L: Bid to Dismiss IV Solutions Sales Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the court has granted
the company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the
consolidated putative antitrust class action suit related to IV
solutions sales.

in November 2016, a putative antitrust class action complaint
seeking monetary and injunctive relief was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The complaint alleges a conspiracy among manufacturers of IV
solutions to restrict output and affect pricing in connection with
a shortage of such solutions. Similar parallel actions subsequently
were filed.

In January 2017, a single consolidated complaint covering these
matters was filed in the Northern District of Illinois.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in
February 2017.

The court granted the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint without prejudice in July 2018. The plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint, which the company moved to dismiss on November
9, 2018.

The court granted the company's motion to dismiss the amended
complaint with prejudice on April 3, 2020.

Baxter International Inc., through its subsidiaries, develops and
provides a portfolio of healthcare products. The company operates
through North and South America; Europe, Middle East and Africa;
and Asia-Pacific segments. Baxter International Inc. was founded in
1931 and is headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois.


BAXTER INT'L: Court Appoints Lead Plaintiffs in Silverman Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the Court in the class
action suit entitled, Ethan E. Silverman et al. v. Baxter
International Inc. et al., has appointed Varma Mutual Pension
Insurance Company and Louisiana Municipal Police Employees
Retirement System as lead plaintiffs in the case.

In November 2019, the company and certain of its officers were
named in a class action complaint captioned Ethan E. Silverman et
al. v. Baxter International Inc. et al. that was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.


The plaintiff, who allegedly purchased shares of the company's
common stock during the specified class period, filed this putative
class action on behalf of himself and shareholders who acquired
Baxter common stock between February 21, 2019 and October 23, 2019.
The plaintiff alleges that the company and certain officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly
false and misleading statements and failing to disclose material
facts relating to certain intra-company transactions undertaken for
the purpose of generating foreign exchange gains or avoiding
foreign exchange losses, as well as our internal controls over
financial reporting.

On January 29, 2020, the Court appointed Varma Mutual Pension
Insurance Company and Louisiana Municipal Police Employees
Retirement System as lead plaintiffs in the case.

In addition, the company have received a stockholder request for
inspection of its  books and records in connection with the
announcement made in the company's Form 8-K on October 24, 2019
that it had commenced an internal investigation into certain
intra-company transactions that impacted our previously reported
non-operating foreign exchange gains and losses.

Baxter said, "As initially disclosed on October 24, 2019, we also
voluntarily advised the staff of the SEC of our internal
investigation and we are continuing to cooperate with the staff of
the SEC."

Baxter International Inc., through its subsidiaries, develops and
provides a portfolio of healthcare products. The company operates
through North and South America; Europe, Middle East and Africa;
and Asia-Pacific segments. Baxter International Inc. was founded in
1931 and is headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois.


BED BATH: Faces Vitiello Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------
Bed Bath & Beyond Incorporated said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended February 29, 2020, that the company has
been named as a defendant in a putative securities class action
suit entitled, Vitiello v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-04240-MCA-MAH.

A putative securities class action was filed on April 14, 2020
against the Company and three of its officers and/or directors
(Mark Tritton, Mary Winston (the Company's former Interim Chief
Executive Officer) and Robyn D'Elia) in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey.  

The case, which is captioned Vitiello v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:20-cv-04240-MCA-MAH, asserts claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of
a putative class of purchasers of the Company's securities from
October 2, 2019 through February 11, 2020.  

The Complaint alleges that certain of the Company's disclosures
about financial performance and certain other public statements
during the putative class period were materially false or
misleading.

Bed Bath & Beyond Incorporated is an American chain of domestic
merchandise retail stores. Bed Bath & Beyond operates many stores
in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Bed Bath & Beyond was
founded in 1971. It is currently part of the S&P 500 and Global
1200 Indices. The company is based in Union, New Jersey.


BIG CITY ACCESS: Underpays Construction Workers, Fear Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM FEAR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BIG CITY ACCESS, INC., BIG CITY ACCESS
HOLDINGS, LLC and BARBARA ROBERST, individually, Defendants, Case
No. 4:20-cv-01511 (S.D. Tex., April 29, 2020) is a collective
action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a construction worker from
December 2019 through April 2020.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and those similarly situated
or the Collective Class were non-exempt employees and were paid by
Defendants on an hourly basis. Although Plaintiff and the
Collective class consistently worked over 40 hours per week,
Defendant unlawfully shaved their hours to avoid and/or minimize
payment of overtime compensation. Thus, Defendant willfully failed
to pay Plaintiff and the Collective Class for all overtime hours
worked.

Moreover, Defendant failed to maintain accurate employee pay
records.

Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and expenses.

Barbara Roberts is the President and Director of Big City Access,
Inc.

Big City Access, Inc. and Big city Access Holdings, LLC provide
scaffolding, material hoists, and trash chutes, among other things,
for construction and maintenance projects throughout Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
          MORELAND VERRETT, PC
          2901 Bee Cave Rd., Box L
          Austin, TX 78746
          Tel: (512)782-0567
          Fax: (512)782-0605
          Email: doug@morelandlaw.com


BKV OPERATING: Hilton Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Hilton, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated v.
BKV OPERATING, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00757-MEM (M.D. Pa., May 8,
2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act to recover unpaid overtime wages and
other damages owed to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff regularly works in excess of 40 hours each week, but
the Defendant does not pay him overtime hours worked in excess of
40 hours in a single workweek, according to the complaint. Instead
of paying overtime, the Defendant classified the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated workers as independent contractors and
paid them a day rate with no overtime. The Defendant never paid the
Plaintiff and other works like him a salary.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Drill Site Manager.

BKV is an oil and natural gas exploration and production company
operating throughout the United States, including in
Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory E. Fellerman, Esq.
          Corey S. Suda, Esq.
          FELLERMAN & CIARIMBOLI LAW, PC
          183 Market St., Suite 200
          Kingston, PA 18704
          Phone: 570-718-1444
          Facsimile: 570-718-7255
          Email: gef@fclawpc.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: 713-352-1100
          Facsimile: 713-352-3300
          Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                 adunlap@mybackwages.com
                 tjones@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


BRIGGS & RILEY: Alcazar Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Alcazar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BRIGGS & RILEY TRAVELWARE, LLC, a New York limited
liability company; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No.
3:20-cv-03163 (N.D. Cal., May 8, 2020), is brought to secure
redress against the Defendants for their failure to design,
construct, maintain and operate their Web site to be fully and
equally accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people.

The Defendants' denial of full and equal access to the Web site,
https://www.briggs-riley.com/, and therefore denial of their
products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with their
physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under
the Americans with Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Civil
Rights Act, according to the complaint.  Because the Defendants'
Web site is not fully or equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers in violation of the ADA, the Plaintiff
seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendants'
corporate policies, practices and procedures so that the
Defendants' Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires screen-reading software to read Web site content using his
computer.

The Defendants' Web site provides consumers with access to a wide
variety of high-quality luggage designed around real-world needs,
backpacks, bags, and accessories which are available online and in
retail stores for purchase.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          Thiago Coelho, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989


BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Court Grants Bid for Protection
------------------------------------------------------
Brinker International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 25, 2020, that the court in the class
action suit entitled, In re: Brinker Data Incident
Litigation, Case No. 18-cv-00686-TJC-MCR, has granted the company's
Motion for Protection in its entirety.

On May 12, 2018, the company issued a public statement that malware
had been discovered at certain Chili's restaurants that resulted in
unauthorized access or acquisition of customer payment card data.
The company engaged third-party forensic firms and cooperated with
law enforcement to investigate the matter.

Based on the investigation of the company's third-party forensic
experts, the company believes most Company-owned Chili's
restaurants were impacted by the malware during time frames that
vary by restaurant, but the company believes in each case began no
earlier than March 21, 2018 and ended no later than April 22,
2018.

The company expect to incur legal and professional services
expenses associated with the cyber security incident in future
periods, which could be material. The company will recognize these
expenses as services are received.

Related to this incident, payment card companies and associations
may request the company to reimburse them for unauthorized card
charges and costs to replace cards and may also impose fines or
penalties in connection with the cyber security incident, and
regulatory authorities may also impose fines or other remedies
against the company.

While the company do not acknowledge responsibility to pay any such
amounts imposed by any third parties, the company may become
obligated to pay such amounts or incur significant related
settlement costs. The company have settled claims from two payment
card companies, and the settlement amounts are included in the
costs described in the following paragraph. The company will record
an estimate for any additional losses at the time when it is both
probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss
is reasonably estimable.

To limit the company's exposure to cyber security events, the
company maintains cyber liability insurance coverage. This coverage
and certain other insurance coverage may reduce its exposure for
this incident. The company's cyber liability insurance policy
contains a $2.0 million retention that was fully accrued during
fiscal 2018.

Since the incident, through March 25, 2020, the company had
incurred cumulative costs of $4.4 million related to the cyber
security incident. This includes the $2.0 million retention
recorded in fiscal 2018, $1.7 million in costs that have been
reimbursed by the company's insurance carriers, and $0.2 million of
receivable for costs incurred that the company believes are
reimbursable and probable of recovery under its insurance coverage,
and an additional $0.4 million during fiscal 2019 and $0.1 million
during fiscal 2020 for expenses not believed to be covered by the
company's insurance coverage recorded to Other (gains) and charges
in the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income
(Unaudited).

The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Florida styled In re: Brinker Data Incident Litigation, Case No.
18-cv-00686-TJC-MCR relating to the cyber security incident.

In the Litigation, plaintiffs assert various claims stemming from
the cyber security incident at the Company's Chili's restaurants
involving customer payment card information and seek monetary
damages in excess of $5.0 million, injunctive and declaratory
relief and attorney's fees and costs.

On January 4, 2019, the company filed a Motion to Dismiss all of
plaintiffs' claims asserting that plaintiffs do not have standing
to bring the lawsuit and that plaintiffs have failed to state a
claim on which relief can be granted.

Following completion of briefing by the parties, the court
conducted a hearing on the company's motion on June 24, 2019. On
August 1, 2019, the court granted the company's Motion to Dismiss
for lack of standing as to two plaintiffs and denied the motion as
to the remaining plaintiffs.

On January 28, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part
the remaining portion of the company's Motion to Dismiss, and
ordered the Plaintiffs to file their third amended complaint by
February 28, 2020 and the parties to file a revised case management
report on March 27, 2020. The parties complied with each of these
deadlines.

On March 5, 2020, the court granted the company's Motion for
Protection in its entirety. Discovery remains stayed pending entry
of a new case management and scheduling order.

Brinker said, "We believe we have defenses and intend to continue
defending the Litigation. As such, as of March 25, 2020, we have
concluded that a loss from this matter is not determinable,
therefore, we have not recorded a liability related to the
Litigation. We will continue to evaluate this matter based on new
information as it becomes available."

Brinker International, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, owns,
develops, operates, and franchises casual dining restaurants in the
United States and internationally. As of June 27, 2018, it owned,
operated, or franchised 1,686 restaurants comprising 997
company-owned restaurants and 689 franchised restaurants under the
Chili's Grill & Bar and Maggiano's Little Italy brand names. The
company was founded in 1975 and is based in Dallas, Texas.


CAPITAL ONE: Hagan Sues over Aggressive Collection Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
KATHY J. HAGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL ONE BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No.
6:20-cv-00222 (E.D. Tex., April 29, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff was the sole operator, possessor, and subscriber of the
cellular telephone number ending in 7881, and was financially
responsible for her cellular telephone equipment and services.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff has applied for and was
issued an auto loan from Defendant and defaulted on the terms of
the subject loan in 2016 due to an unanticipated financial
hardship. Consequently, Plaintiff received numerous collection
calls on multiple occasions from Defendant beginning in December
2016 in an attempt to collect the subject debt.

The complaint claims that despite Plaintiff's multiple requests to
Defendant to cease its calls as she was not in a financial position
to make payments, Defendant has continued its barrage of collection
calls.

Plaintiff contends that his daily life and general well-being has
been severely disrupted because of Defendant's harassing phone
calls.

Capital One Bank, N.A. is a debt collector and a nationally
recognized banking institution that issues loans to consumers
nationwide, including auto loans. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
          Joseph S. Davidson, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD
          2500 S Highland Ave., Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Tel: (630)575-8180
          Emails: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
                  jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com


CHURCHILL DOWNS: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Thimmegowda Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Churchill Downs Incorporated  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the defendants in
the class action suit initiated by Manasa Thimmegowda have filed
renewed motions to compel arbitration and the Company filed a
renewed motion to dismiss asserting lack of personal jurisdiction.


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

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

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

On February 20, 2020, while the case was stayed, and before
completing discovery and before resolution of motions to compel
arbitration, plaintiffs filed a motion with the District Court to
certify a class for injunctive relief only and for a preliminary
injunction prohibiting the sale of virtual casino chips or coins or
other virtual tokens or credits from within Washington or to
individuals located in Washington. The District Court denied that
motion without prejudice orally on March 4, 2020.

On April 10, 2020, the defendants filed renewed motions to compel
arbitration and the Company filed a renewed motion to dismiss
asserting lack of personal jurisdiction.

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

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


CHURCHILL DOWNS: Bid to Compel Arbitration Pending
--------------------------------------------------
Churchill Downs Incorporated  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the Company has
joined Big Fish Games in renewing a motion to compel arbitration in
the Washington District Court as to all claims asserted by
plaintiff Suzie Kelly.  Big Fish Games also renewed its motion to
compel arbitration against plaintiff Cheryl Kater in the Washington
District Court.

On April 17, 2015, a purported class action styled Cheryl Kater v.
Churchill Downs Incorporated (the "Kater litigation") was filed in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington (the "Washington District Court") alleging, among other
claims, that the Company's "Big Fish Casino" operated by the
Company's then-wholly owned mobile gaming subsidiary Big Fish
Games, Inc. ("Big Fish Games") violated Washington law, including
the Washington Consumer Protection Act, by facilitating unlawful
gambling through its virtual casino games (namely the slots,
blackjack, poker, and roulette games offered through Big Fish
Casino), and seeking, among other things, return of monies lost,
reasonable attorney's fees, treble damages, and injunctive relief.


On November 19, 2015, the Washington District Court dismissed the
case with prejudice and, on December 7, 2015, the plaintiff's
motion for reconsideration was denied. The plaintiff filed a notice
of appeal on January 5, 2016 to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.

On January 9, 2018, the Company sold Big Fish Games to Aristocrat
Technologies, Inc., a Nevada corporation ("Purchaser"), an
indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Aristocrat Leisure Limited, an
Australian corporation, pursuant to the Stock Purchase Agreement,
dated as of November 29, 2017, by and among the Company, Big Fish
Games and the Purchaser. Pursuant to the terms of the Stock
Purchase Agreement, the Company agreed to indemnify the Purchaser
for the losses and expenses associated with the Kater litigation
for Big Fish Games, which is referred to in the Stock Purchase
Agreement as the "Primary Specified Litigation."

On March 28, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed and remanded the Washington District Court's
dismissal of the complaint against the Company. On June 12, 2018,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the
Company's petition for rehearing en banc filed by the Company on
May 11, 2018. On July 20, 2018, the Company filed a motion to
compel arbitration in the Washington District Court, which was
denied on November 2, 2018.

The complaint was amended on March 20, 2019, to add Big Fish Games
as a party and to assert claims on behalf of an additional
plaintiff, Suzie Kelly.

On May 10, 2019, the Company filed an answer as to the claims
asserted by plaintiff Kater, and joined Big Fish Games in moving to
compel arbitration as to all claims asserted by plaintiff Kelly.
Big Fish Games also moved to compel arbitration against plaintiff
Kater.

On June 13, 2019, defendants moved to stay discovery pending
resolution of the motion to compel arbitration. On August 21, 2019,
the Washington District Court partially granted the motion and
stayed discovery pending a ruling on the motions to compel
arbitration against plaintiffs Kater and Kelly, except as to
discovery requests plaintiff Kater served on the Company before
amending the complaint.

On September 12, 2019, the Washington District Court ordered that
the case would be stayed entirely (except for the aforementioned
discovery requests), pending the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit's ruling on arbitration issues raised in other
cases which may be relevant to the arguments raised in the pending
motions to compel arbitration.

After the case was stayed, a dispute arose regarding communication
between Big Fish Games and its users related to revised terms of
use.

On November 19, 2019, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion
relating to the communications pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(d), and on December 19, 2019, the District Court
approved a revised communication proposed by defendants.

On February 20, 2020, while the case was stayed, and before
completing discovery and before resolution of motions to compel
arbitration, plaintiffs filed a motion with the District Court to
certify a class for injunctive relief only and for a preliminary
injunction prohibiting the sale of virtual casino chips or coins or
other virtual tokens or credits from within Washington or to
individuals located in Washington. The District Court denied that
motion without prejudice orally on March 4, 2020.

On April 10, 2020, the Company joined Big Fish Games in renewing
its motion to compel arbitration in the Washington District Court
as to all claims asserted by plaintiff Kelly, and Big Fish Games
also renewed its motion to compel arbitration against plaintiff
Kater in the Washington District Court on April 10, 2020.

Churchill Downs said, "In accordance with the terms of the Stock
Purchase Agreement, the Company is working closely with the
Purchaser to vigorously defend this matter in both the Washington
District Court and in any further appellate proceedings, and the
Company believes that there are meritorious legal and factual
defenses against the plaintiffs' allegations and requests for
relief."

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


CHURCHILL DOWNS: COVID-19 Pandemic Moves Soileau Fairness Hearing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Churchill Downs Incorporated  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the hearing to
consider fairness of the terms of the settlement agreement in the
class action suit initiated by John L. Soileau was set for April
27, 2020, but has been postponed as a result of court closures due
to the COVID-19 pandemic.

On April 21, 2014, John L. Soileau and other individuals filed a
Petition for Declaratory Judgment, Permanent Injunction, and
Damages-Class Action styled John L. Soileau, et. al. versus
Churchill Downs Louisiana Horseracing, LLC, Churchill Downs
Louisiana Video Poker Company, LLC (Suit No. 14-3873) in the Parish
of Orleans Civil District Court, State of Louisiana (the "District
Court").

The petition defined the "alleged plaintiff class" as quarter horse
owners, trainers and jockeys that have won purses at the "Fair
Grounds Race Course & Slots" facility in New Orleans, Louisiana
since the first effective date of La. R.S. 27:438 and specifically
since 2008.

The petition alleged that Churchill Downs Louisiana Horseracing,
LLC and Churchill Downs Louisiana Video Poker Company, LLC ("Fair
Grounds Defendants") have collected certain monies through video
draw poker devices that constitute monies earned for purse
supplements and all of those supplemental purse monies have been
paid to thoroughbred horsemen during Fair Grounds' live
thoroughbred horse meets. La. R.S. 27:438 requires a portion of
those supplemental purse monies to be paid to quarter-horse
horsemen during Fair Grounds’ live quarter-horse meets.

The petition requested that the District Court declare that Fair
Grounds Defendants violated La. R.S. 27:438, issue a permanent and
mandatory injunction ordering Fair Grounds Defendants to pay all
future supplements due to the plaintiff class pursuant to La. R.S.
27:438, and to pay the plaintiff class such sums as it finds to
reasonably represent the value of the sums due to the plaintiff
class.

On August 14, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amendment to their
petition naming the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective
Association 1993, Inc. ("HBPA") as an additional defendant and
alleging that HBPA is also liable to plaintiffs for the disputed
purse funds.

On October 9, 2014, HBPA and Fair Grounds Defendants filed
exceptions to the suit, including an exception of primary
jurisdiction seeking referral to the Louisiana Racing Commission.
By Judgment dated November 21, 2014, the District Court granted the
exception of primary jurisdiction and referred the matter to the
Louisiana Racing Commission.

On January 26, 2015, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
denied the plaintiffs' request for supervisory review of the
Judgment. On August 24, 2015, the Louisiana Racing Commission ruled
that the plaintiffs did not have standing or a right of action to
pursue the case. The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the
District Court, which affirmed the Louisiana Racing Commission's
ruling. The plaintiffs filed an appeal of the District Court's
decision with the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which
reversed the Louisiana Racing Commission's ruling and remanded the
matter to the Louisiana Racing Commission for further proceedings
on June 13, 2018.

The Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Fair
Grounds Defendants' Motion for Rehearing on July 12, 2018 and the
Louisiana Supreme Court denied the Fair Grounds Defendants' Writ of
Certiorari seeking review of that decision on November 14, 2018.
The parties had previously attempted to mediate the matter in
October 2018, but were unsuccessful.

Thereafter, the parties resumed informal settlement discussions,
and, as a result, the Company established an accrual for an
immaterial amount in the third quarter of 2019.

The parties submitted a settlement agreement to the District Court
on February 14, 2020, following the Louisiana Racing Commission's
approval to transfer the matter to the District Court for approval
and administration of the settlement agreement on February 12,
2020.

At a hearing on February 18, 2020, the District Court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement agreement and set certain
deadlines relating to actions to be taken by class members.

A fairness hearing with the District Court relating to the terms of
the settlement agreement was set for April 27, 2020, but has been
postponed as a result of court closures due to the COVID-19
pandemic.

The settlement agreement requires, among other items, the Fair
Grounds Defendants to (i) pay a certain out-of-pocket amount that
is within the amount for which the company established an accrual
in the third quarter of 2019, and (ii) support legislation that
would allocate a specified amount of video poker purse funds to
quarter horse purses for races at Fair Grounds with maximum annual
payout caps that are not deemed material.

The settlement includes a release of claims against the Fair
Grounds Defendants in connection with the proceeding, although
individual plaintiffs may opt-out.

Churchill Downs said, "If there are opt-out claims in excess of
$50,000, the settlement will be voided, unless the parties agree to
stipulate otherwise. The settlement agreement is subject to certain
conditions, including court approval and the passage of certain
legislation."

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


CINCINNATI INSURANCE: COVID Triggers Coverage, Derek Scott Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Derek Scott Williams PLLC and Derek Scott Williams Real Estate LLC,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. THE
CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-02806 (N.D. Ill.,
May 8, 2020), seeks a declaratory judgment that affirms that the
COVID-19 pandemic and corresponding response by civil authorities
to stop the spread of the outbreak triggers policy coverage.

The lawsuit also seeks affirmation that the COVID-19 pandemic has
caused physical property loss and damage to the insureds' property;
provides coverage for future civil authority orders that result in
future suspensions or curtailments of business operations; and
finds that the Defendant is liable for the losses suffered by
policyholders.

The Defendant and most insurers, who have issued all-risk
commercial property insurance policies with business interruption
coverage, are denying their obligation to pay for business income
losses and other covered expenses incurred by policyholders for the
physical loss and damage to their property from measures put in
place by the governmental entities to stop the spread of COVID-19,
according to the complaint.

The Plaintiffs say they have paid the policy premiums to Cincinnati
specifically to provide for coverage of lost business income and
extra expenses in the event of an involuntary business
interruption. Cincinnati has nevertheless uniformly refused to pay
holders of the above-referenced policies for the interruption of
their business operations due to COVID-19. The Plaintiffs bring
this action on behalf of a proposed class of policyholders, who
paid premiums in exchange for an all-risk commercial property
insurance policy that included lost business income and extra
expense coverage.

The Plaintiffs operates a dental practice whose success depends
upon the ability of patients to visit that facility.

Cincinnati is an insurance company organized under the laws of
Ohio, with its principal place of business in Fairfield, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher B. Sanchez, Esq.
          Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
          Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
          NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10036-8718
          Phone: (917) 438-9189
          Email: csanchez@nussbaumpc.com
                 lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
                 bcohen@nussbaumpc.com

               - and -

          Michael E. Criden, Esq.
          Lindsey C. Grossman, Esq.
          CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
          7301 SW 57th Court, Suite 515
          South Miami, FL 33143
          Phone: (305) 357-9000
          Email: mcriden@cridenlove.com
                 lgrossman@cridenlove.com


CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Homestate Sues Over Refusal to Pay Insureds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Homestate Seafood LLC d/b/a Automatic Seafood & Oysters,
individually and behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE
CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-00649-GMB (N.D.
Ala., May 8, 2020), arises from the Defendant's alleged systematic
and uniform refusal to pay insureds for covered losses.

To protect the restaurant and the income from operation of the
restaurant, Automatic purchased a general liability policy issued
by the Defendant with policy number ECP 052 79 23 (the "Policy").
Under the Policy, Cincinnati is responsible for receiving and
managing claims and loss notices, responding to questions about
insurance and coverage, and receiving process served on
Cincinnati's designated agent, among other things. The Policy is a
bilateral contract: the Plaintiff agreed to pay monthly premiums to
Defendant, in exchange for the Defendant's promises of coverage for
certain losses.

Among other types of coverage, the Policy protects the Plaintiff
against a loss of business income due to a Suspension of the
restaurant's operations. This type of coverage is often referred to
as business interruption coverage. The Plaintiff duly complied with
its obligations under the Policy, and paid the requisite premiums.
Beginning in March 2020, the Plaintiff was forced to suspend
business operations at the restaurant due to risk of infection of
COVID-19 and/or actions of civil authorities prohibiting access to
and occupancy of the restaurant.

This Suspension, which is ongoing, has caused it to suffer
significant losses and incur significant expenses, the Plaintiff
contends. The Plaintiff notes that under the Policy, the Defendant
promised to cover these losses and expenses, and is obligated to
pay for them. But in blatant breach of its contractual obligations,
the Defendant has failed to pay for these losses and expenses, the
Plaintiff asserts. According to published reports, the Defendant
has failed to pay for similar losses and expenses of other insureds
holding policies that are, in all material respects, identical,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a restaurant located in Birmingham, Alabama.

The Defendant engaged in substantial and not isolated activity on a
continuous and systematic basis in the state of Alabama, namely by
issuing and selling insurance policies in Alabama and by
contracting to insure property located in Alabama.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq.
          W. Tucker Brown, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
          2001 Park Place North, Suite 1000
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: (205) 488-1200
          Fax: (800) 922-4851
          Email: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com
                 tbrown@whatleykallas.com

               - and -

          Dennis G. Pantazis, Esq.
          D.G. Pantazis, Jr., Esq.
          WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB
          The Kress Building
          301 19th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: (205) 314-0500
          Fax: (205) 254-1500
          Email: dgp@wigginschilds.com
                 dgpjr@wigginschilds.com


COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Student A Sues Over COVID-19 Tuition Refunds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STUDENT A, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW
YORK, Case No. 1:20-cv-03208 (S.D.N.Y., April 23, 2020), arises
from the Defendant's decision to close campus, constructively evict
students, and transition all classes to an online/remote format as
a result of the Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019.

The lawsuit seeks refunds of the amount of tuition and fees the
Plaintiff and other members of a proposed class are owed on a
pro-rata basis, together with other damages.

According to the complaint, while closing campus and transitioning
to online classes was the right thing for the Defendant to do, this
decision deprived the Plaintiff and the other members of the Class
from recognizing the benefits of in-person instruction, access to
campus facilities, student activities, and other benefits and
services in exchange for which they had already paid fees and
tuition.

The Defendant has either refused to provide reimbursement for the
tuition, fees and other costs that the Defendant is no longer
providing, or has provided inadequate and/or arbitrary
reimbursement that does not fully compensate the Plaintiff and
members of the Class for their loss, the lawsuit adds.

The Defendant is an institution of higher learning located in New
York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Toptani, Esq.
          TOPTANI LAW PLLC
          375 Pearl Street, Suite 1410
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 699-8930
          E-mail: edward@toptanilaw.com

               -and-

          Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
          Roy T. Willey IV, Esq.
          ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC
          32 Ann Street
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Telephone: (843) 614-8888
          E-mail: eric@akimlawfirm.com
                  roy@akimlawfirm.com


COMPANHIA DE SANEAMENTO: Appeal in Brazilian Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Companhia de Saneamento Basico do Estado de Sao Paulo–SABESP said
in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 30, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2019, that the company is currently awaiting a court decision
on the action brought by the plaintiff against the decisions of
inadmissibility.

On December 30, 2003, the Civil Entity Coordination Committee of
Piracicaba filed a civil class action against the company, the
National Water Agency and the State of Sao Paulo Treasury
Department seeking, among other claims relief for: (i) the
termination of use of 31 m3/s of water from one of the
municipality's reservoirs; (ii) the creation of a schedule to
regulate water use and withdrawal from the Piracicaba river basin
by the Cantareira system to eliminate possible damage to
populations downstream; and (iii) the development of an
environmental impact study on the Cantareira system evaluating the
impact of water use and withdrawal on the various basins that
constitute the system.  

In August 2012, this civil public action was decided favorably for
the company in two lower courts, and the plaintiff's appeal to a
higher court seeking special and extraordinary recourse was denied
based on inadmissibility.

The company is currently awaiting a court decision on the action
brought by the plaintiff against the decisions of inadmissibility
cited.

Companhia de Saneamento said, "The amount involved in this
proceeding as of December 31, 2019 is R$26.6 billion. We have
assessed that we do not have a current obligation as a result of a
past event, and accordingly have not made any provisions."

Companhia de Saneamento Basico do Estado de Sao Paulo–SABESP is a
Brazilian water and waste management company owned by São Paulo
state. It provides water and sewage services to residential,
commercial and industrial users in São Paulo and in 363 of the 645
municipalities in São Paulo State, typically under 30-year
concession contracts.


CONCESIONARIA VUELA: Martinez-Sanchez Seeks Air Ticket Refunds
--------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS W. MARTINEZ-SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. CONCESIONARIA VUELA COMPANIA DE AVIACION,
S.A.P.I. DE C.V., and CONTROLADORA VUELA COMPANIA DE AVIACION,
S.A.B. DE C.V. (VOLARIS AVIATION HOLDING COMPANY), foreign
corporations collectively d/b/a "VOLARIS," Case No.
1:20-cv-01966-AMD-SMG (E.D.N.Y., April 29, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' refusal to provide contractually guaranteed full cash
refunds to passengers of flights cancelled due to the COVID-19
pandemic.

The Defendants have reprehensibly extracted maximum capital from
customers, while padding their own balance sheets, the Plaintiff
contends. He adds that the Defendants' innocent customers are now
left holding the bag.

In lieu of contractually guaranteed refunds, the Defendants have
required the Plaintiff and the Class to accept devalued flight
coupons for use on its own airline, which expire exceedingly
quickly and carry substantially less or no value to them during
this uncertain time, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff brings this action for breach of contract and to seek
an order from this Court requiring the Defendants to discontinue
the illegal practice of issuing coupons in lieu of refunds to any
Class Member, who has not requested coupons, and pay damages and/or
restitution to the Plaintiff and the Class.

Volaris is an ultra-low-cost airline flying to Mexico, the United
States and Central America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq.
          David R. Dubin, Esq.
          LIDDLE & DUBIN, P.C.
          975 E. Jefferson Avenue
          Detroit, MI 48207
          Telephone: 313 392-0015
          Facsimile: 313 392-0025
          E-mail: ddubin@ldclassaction.com
                  ncoulson@ldclassaction.com


CORE-MARK INTERNATIONAL: Cunha Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
James E. Cunha, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public v. CORE-MARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
200V366477 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., May 8, 2020), is brought
against the Defendants to recover unpaid wages, restitution and
related relief under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have failed to provide
him with meal periods; failed to provide him with rest periods;
failed to pay him premium wages for missed meal and/or rest
periods; failed to pay him premium wages for missed meal and/or
rest periods at the regular rate pay; failed to pay him at least
minimum wages for all fours worked; failed to pay him overtime
wages at the correct rate; failed to pay him double time wages at
the correct rate; failed to pay him overtime and/or double time
wages by failing to include all applicable remuneration in
calculating the regular rate of pay; failed to pay him all vested
vacation pay; failed to reimburse him for all necessary business
expenses; failed to provide them with the accurate wage statement.

The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt,
hourly employee commercial delivery driver since May 2017.

The Defendant is a Delaware Corporation doing business in the State
of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          William M. Pao, Esq.
          Jose Maria D. Patino, Jr., Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Phone (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile (310) 888-0109
          Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                 william@setarehlaw.com
                 jose@setarehlaw.com


CORREVIO PHARMA: S.D.N.Y. Securities Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------
Correvio Pharma Corp. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a putative securities class action suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

On December 12, 2019, a putative securities class action complaint
was filed against the company and certain of its current and past
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The Court appointed co-lead plaintiffs on February 25, 2020. The
complaint purports to be on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Correvio securities during the period from
October 23, 2018 to December 5, 2019, inclusive, and were damaged
thereby.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company made
materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding
our business, operational and compliance policies.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the company made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that data
supporting the resubmitted New Drug Application (NDA) for BRINAVESS
did not minimize the significant health and safety issues observed
in connection with the drug's original NDA and that the foregoing
substantially diminished the likelihood that the FDA would approve
the resubmitted NDA, which purportedly artificially inflated the
market value of our securities.

An amended complaint was due to be filed on May 1, 2020.

The plaintiffs have not specified an amount of alleged damages in
the action.

Correvio said, "Because this action is in the early stages, the
possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the
litigation cannot be estimated. We believe that the claims asserted
in the complaint are without merit and intend to defend the lawsuit
vigorously."

Correvio Pharma Corp. is a Canada-based specialty pharmaceutical
company. It provides brands that meet the needs of acute care
physicians and patients. It develops, acquires and commercializes
brands for the in-hospital, acute care market segment.


CORT BUSINESS: Nelson Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to C.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as HENRY NELSON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CORT BUSINESS
SERVICES CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No.
20STCV12143 (Filed March 26, 2020), was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
April 29, 2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-04014-AB-MAA to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges in the operative complaint class-wide claims
for failure to pay all straight time wages; failure to pay
overtime; failure to provide meal periods; and failure to authorize
and permit rest periods in violation of the California Labor Code.

Cort Business provides furniture rental services. The Company
offers home and office, trade shows, event, and student furniture
rental services.[BN]

Cort Business is represented by:

          Courtney L. Baird, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          865 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3100
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: 213 689-7400
          Facsimile: 213 689-7401
          E-mail: cbaird@duanemorris.com

               - and -

          Joseph A. Ciucci, Esq.
          Adam C. Keating, Esq.
          Christopher D. Kanne, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          1075 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2000
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3929
          Telephone: 404 253-6988
          Facsimile: 404 393-0744
          E-mail: ciucci@duanemorris.com
                  akeating@duanemorris.com
                  cdkanne@duanemorris.com


CUMBERLAND MUTUAL: N&S Sues Over Denial of COVID-19 Loss Coverage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
N&S RESTAURANT, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. CUMBERLAND MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
1:20-cv-05289-RBK-KMW (D.N.J., April 29, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's denial of its obligation to pay for business income
losses and other covered expenses incurred by policyholders for the
physical loss and damage to the insured property from measures put
in place by the civil authorities in response to the COVID-19
pandemic.

The Defendant has issued to the Plaintiff all-risk commercial
property insurance policies with business interruption coverage,
says the complaint.

The action seeks a declaratory judgment that affirms that the
COVID-19 pandemic and the corresponding response by civil
authorities triggers coverage, has caused physical property loss
and damage to the insured property, provides coverage for future
civil authority orders that result in future suspensions or
curtailments of business operations, and finds that the Defendant
is liable for the losses suffered by policyholders.

On March 11, 2020, World Health Organization Director General
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus declared the COVID-19 outbreak a
worldwide pandemic. On March 16, 2020, the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC), and members of the national
Coronavirus Task Force issued to the American public guidance,
styled as "30 Days to Slow the Spread" for stopping the spread of
COVID-19. Following this advice, many governmental entities entered
civil authority orders suspending or severely curtailing business
operations of non-essential businesses that interact with the
public and provide gathering places for the individuals.

N&S operates the restaurant Cara Mia in Millburn, New Jersey.

The Defendant is a mutual insurance company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI
          OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700

               - and -

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          Stephen A. Weiss, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS
          55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
          Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
          Telephone: (973) 639-9100

               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100

               - 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
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000


DEPT OF EDUC: Barber Seeks to Certify Student Loan Borrowers Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ELIZABETH BARBER, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. ELISABETH DEVOS, in
her official capacity as United States Secretary of Education, and
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-01137 (D.
Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all federal student loan borrowers from whom the
      Department is garnishing wages in violation of the CARES
      Act, P.L. 116-136 (2020)"; and

   2. appointing National Student Legal Defense Network and
      National Consumer Law Center as class counsel.[CC]

The case alleges that the United States Department of Education, by
and through its Secretary, Elisabeth DeVos, has not complied with
the law at a time of national crisis. When enacting the CARES Act,
to provide emergency economic relief during the coronavirus
pandemic.

The United States Department of Education, also referred to as the
ED for Education Department, is a Cabinet-level department of the
United States government.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Zibel, Esq.
          Eric Rothschild, Esq.
          Alexander S. Elson, Esq.
          NATIONAL STUDENT LEGAL DEFENSE NETWORK
          1015 15th Street NW, Suite 600
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 734-7495
          E-mail: dan@defendstudents.org
                  eric@defendstudents.org
                  alex@defendstudents.org

               - and -

          Stuart T. Rossman, Esq.
          Persis Yu, Esq.
          NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER
          7 Winthrop Square, Fourth Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 542-8010
          E-mail: srossman@nclc.org
                  pyu@nclc.org

DISCOVER FINANCIAL: B&R Supermarket Class Action Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Discover Financial Services  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, B&R Supermarket,
Inc., d/b/a Milam's Market, et al. v. Visa, Inc. et al.

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

Plaintiffs assert joint and several liability among the defendants
and seek unspecified damages, including treble damages, attorneys'
fees, costs and injunctive relief.

In May 2017, the Court entered an order transferring the entire
action to a federal court in New York that is presiding over
certain related claims that are pending in the actions consolidated
as MDL 1720.

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

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

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

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

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


EMIRATES: Faces Suarez Suit Over Failure to Provide Full Refunds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sayra Suarez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. EMIRATES, Case No. 1:20-cv-03623-KPF (S.D.N.Y., May 8,
2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to provide full refunds
to customers whose flights were cancelled as a result of the
coronavirus or COVID-19 pandemic.

Given the outbreak of the coronavirus, the Defendant has cancelled
a vast percentage of its international and United States flights.
However, the Defendant has, to date, refused to issue refunds for
flights that the Defendant cancelled, according to the complaint.
Emirates Airlines suspended all flight operates from March 25,
2020. The Plaintiff's tickets were booked through the Web site,
Orbitz.com. The Plaintiff's departing flight was cancelled by
Emirates Airlines due to the coronavirus travel restrictions. Upon
discovering her departing flight was cancelled, the Plaintiff
attempted to request a refund from Emirates Airlines, Orbitz.com,
and her credit card companies.

The Plaintiff says she never received a full refund from Emirates
Airlines. The Plaintiff was only offered a travel voucher by
Orbitz.com, not a cash refund. The Plaintiff argues that the
Defendant was required by the DOT Enforcement Notice to provide her
a prompt refund when Emirates Airlines cancelled her flight.

The Defendant's acts are in violation of the DOT's Enforcement
Notice, which requires airlines to provide "a prompt refund to
passengers when their carrier cancels the passenger's scheduled
flight," says the complaint. Emirates Airlines' consumers have
excoriated Emirates Airlines' refusal or failure to provide its
customers with refunds.

The Plaintiff purchased tickets for herself and two friends for
flights on Emirates Airlines in February 2020.

Emirates Airlines is the national flag carrier of the United Arab
Emirates and the largest airline in the Middle East.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


EMORY UNIVERSITY: DeMasi Seeks Refund Due to COVID-19 Closure
-------------------------------------------------------------
Willa DeMasi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EMORY UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-02002-CAP (N.D. Ga.,
May 8, 2020), alleges that the Plaintiff and other students did not
receive the full value of the services for which they paid for as a
result of the University's closure due to the COVID-19 pandemic,
and are entitled to refunds.

The Plaintiff contends that the students did not receive the
benefits of in-person instruction, have 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.

Despite sending students home and closing its campuses, the
Defendant continues to charge for tuition, fees, and/or room and
board as if nothing has changed, continuing to reap the financial
benefit of millions of dollars from students, according to the
complaint. The Defendant does so despite students' complete
inability to continue school as normal, occupy campus buildings and
dormitories, or avail themselves of school programs and events. So
while students enrolled and paid the Defendant for a comprehensive
academic experience, the Defendant instead offers the Plaintiff
something far less: a limited online experience presented by Google
or Zoom, void of face-to-face faculty and peer interaction,
separated from program resources, and barred from facilities vital
to study. The Plaintiff did not bargain for such an experience.

According to the complaint, while some colleges and universities
have promised appropriate and/or proportional refunds, the
Defendant has only offered wholly inadequate de minimis refunds and
has not acted fairly, equitably, and as required by the law. And,
for some students and families, the Defendant does so based on
outdated financial aid equations and collections, without taking
into account disruptions to family income, a particular concern now
when layoffs and furloughs are at record levels. As a result, the
Defendant's actions have financially damaged the Plaintiff and the
Class Members.

The Plaintiff was enrolled as a full-time student for the Spring
2020 academic term at the Defendant.

Emory University is a private institution of higher learning with
campuses in Atlanta, Georgia; Oxford, Georgia; and other locations
in the metropolitan Atlanta area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          E. Adam Webb, Esq.
          G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq.
          WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
          1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Phone: (770) 444-0773
          Email: Adam@WebbLLC.com
                 Franklin@WebbLLC.com

               - and –

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

               - and –

          Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq.
          Whitney K. Siehl, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr., Suite 2410
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Phone: (708) 628-4949
          Email: dank@hbsslaw.com
                 whitneys@hbsslaw.com

               - and –

          Andrew S. Levetown, Esq.
          IVEY & LEVETOWN LLP
          6411 Ivy Lane, Suite 304
          Greenbelt, MD 20770
          Phone: (703) 618-2264
          Email: asl@iveylevetown.com


EQUITY BANCSHARES: Bid to Dismiss SDNY Securities Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Equity Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company's motion to
dismiss filed in the putative securities class action suit pending
before the Southern District of New York (SDNY), is still pending.

On May 13, 2019, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative securities class action lawsuit in federal court in the
Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of
its executive officers.  

On August 16, 2019, the court appointed lead plaintiffs and on
October 15, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased Company
securities between April 20, 2018, and April 23, 2019.  

Plaintiffs allege that the Company made materially misleading
statements about the Company's financial results, business,
operations and prospects starting on April 20, 2018, that these
statements caused the Company's securities to be overvalued and
that the "truth" came out on January 24, 2019, when the Company
disclosed that a credit relationship was downgraded and further on
April 22, 2019, when the Company disclosed a $14,500 provision for
loan loss against that credit relationship.  

On December 6, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss which
remains pending before the court.  

The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and it
intends to vigorously defend against all claims asserted.  

Equity Bancshares said, "At this time, the Company is unable to
reasonably estimate the outcome of this litigation."

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

Equity Bancshares, Inc., incorporated on August 23, 2002, is a bank
holding company. The Company's principal activity is the ownership
and management of its subsidiary, Equity Bank (the Bank). The Bank
provides a range of financial services primarily to businesses and
business owners, as well as individuals through its network of over
49 branches located in Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas and Oklahoma. The
company is based in Wichita, Kansas.


FACEBOOK INC: Settlement in Principle Reached in Biometrics Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Facebook, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the parties in the
class action suit challenging the use of facial recognition feature
have agreed to a settlement in principle to resolve the lawsuit.
The deal will require a payment of $550 million by the company and
is subject to approval by the court.

On April 1, 2015, a putative class action was filed against the
company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California by Facebook users alleging that the "tag suggestions"
facial recognition feature violates the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act, and seeking statutory damages and
injunctive relief.

On April 16, 2018, the district court certified a class of Illinois
residents, and on May 14, 2018, the district court denied both
parties' motions for summary judgment.

On May 29, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
granted the company's petition for review of the class
certification order and stayed the proceeding.

On August 8, 2019, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the class
certification order.

On December 2, 2019, the company filed a petition with the U.S.
Supreme Court seeking review of the decision of the Ninth Circuit,
which was denied.

On January 15, 2020, the parties agreed to a settlement in
principle to resolve the lawsuit.

Facebook siad, "This settlement amount is reflected in accrued
expenses and other current liabilities on our condensed
consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2020."

Facebook, Inc., incorporated on July 29, 2004, is focused on
building products that enable people to connect and share through
mobile devices, personal computers and other surfaces. The Company
also enables people to discover and learn about what is going on in
the world around them, enables people to share their opinions,
ideas, photos and videos, and other activities with audiences
ranging from their friends to the public, and stay connected by
accessing its products. The Company's products include Facebook,
Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp and Oculus. The company is based in
Menlo Park, California.


FACEBOOK INC: Settlement Reached in Cyber-Attack Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Facebook, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the parties in the
consolidated class action suit related to the third-party
cyber-attack have agreed to a settlement in principle to resolve
the lawsuit.

Beginning on September 28, 2018, multiple putative class actions
were filed in state and federal courts in the United States and
elsewhere against the company alleging violations of consumer
protection laws and other causes of action in connection with a
third-party cyber-attack that exploited a vulnerability in
Facebook's code to steal user access tokens and access certain
profile information from user accounts on Facebook, and seeking
unspecified damages and injunctive relief.

The actions filed in the United States were consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

On November 26, 2019, the district court certified a class for
injunctive relief purposes, but denied certification of a class for
purposes of pursuing damages.

On January 16, 2020, the parties agreed to a settlement in
principle to resolve the lawsuit.

Facebook said, "We believe the remaining lawsuits are without
merit, and we are vigorously defending them. In addition, the
events surrounding this cyber-attack became the subject of Irish
Data Protection Commission (IDPC) and other government inquiries."

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

Facebook, Inc., incorporated on July 29, 2004, is focused on
building products that enable people to connect and share through
mobile devices, personal computers and other surfaces. The Company
also enables people to discover and learn about what is going on in
the world around them, enables people to share their opinions,
ideas, photos and videos, and other activities with audiences
ranging from their friends to the public, and stay connected by
accessing its products. The Company's products include Facebook,
Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp and Oculus. The company is based in
Menlo Park, California.


FACEBOOK INC: Suit Over Platform & User Data Practices Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Facebook, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated class action suit related to its platform
and user data practices.

Beginning on March 20, 2018, multiple putative class actions and
derivative actions were filed in state and federal courts in the
United States and elsewhere against the company and certain of its
directors and officers alleging violations of securities laws,
breach of fiduciary duties, and other causes of action in
connection with its platform and user data practices as well as the
misuse of certain data by a developer that shared such data with
third parties in violation of the company's terms and policies, and
seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief.

Beginning on July 27, 2018, two putative class actions were filed
in federal court in the United States against the company and
certain of its directors and officers alleging violations of
securities laws in connection with the disclosure of the company's
earnings results for the second quarter of 2018 and seeking
unspecified damages.

These two actions subsequently were transferred and consolidated in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
with the putative securities class action described above relating
to the company's platform and user data practices.

On September 25, 2019, the district court granted the company's
motion to dismiss the consolidated putative securities class
action, with leave to amend.

On November 15, 2019, an amended complaint was filed in the
consolidated putative securities class action.

Facebook said, "We believe these lawsuits are without merit, and we
are vigorously defending them. In addition, our platform and user
data practices, as well as the events surrounding the misuse of
certain data by a developer, became the subject of U.S. Federal
Trade Commission (FTC), state attorneys general, and other
government inquiries in the United States, Europe, and other
jurisdictions. In July 2019, we entered into a settlement and
modified consent order to resolve the FTC inquiry, which was
approved by the federal court and took effect in April 2020. Among
other matters, our settlement with the FTC requires us to pay a
penalty of $5.0 billion and to significantly enhance our practices
and processes for privacy compliance and oversight. This penalty is
reflected in accrued expenses and other current liabilities on our
condensed consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2020. We paid
the penalty in April 2020 upon the effectiveness of the modified
consent order."

Facebook, Inc., incorporated on July 29, 2004, is focused on
building products that enable people to connect and share through
mobile devices, personal computers and other surfaces. The Company
also enables people to discover and learn about what is going on in
the world around them, enables people to share their opinions,
ideas, photos and videos, and other activities with audiences
ranging from their friends to the public, and stay connected by
accessing its products. The Company's products include Facebook,
Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp and Oculus. The company is based in
Menlo Park, California.


FEDERAL SIGNAL: Discovery Ongoing in Hearing Loss Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Signal Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in
a class action suit initiated by firefighters who claim that
exposure to the Company's sirens has impaired their hearing and
that the sirens are therefore defective.

The Company has been sued for monetary damages by firefighters who
claim that exposure to the Company's sirens has impaired their
hearing and that the sirens are therefore defective.

There were 33 cases filed during the period of 1999 through 2004,
involving a total of 2,443 plaintiffs, in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois. These cases involved more than 1,800 firefighter
plaintiffs from locations outside of Chicago. In 2009, six
additional cases were filed in Cook County, involving 299
Pennsylvania firefighter plaintiffs. During 2013, another case was
filed in Cook County involving 74 Pennsylvania firefighter
plaintiffs.

The trial of the first 27 of these plaintiffs' claims occurred in
2008, whereby a Cook County jury returned a unanimous verdict in
favor of the Company. An additional 40 Chicago firefighter
plaintiffs were selected for trial in 2009.

Plaintiffs' counsel later moved to reduce the number of plaintiffs
from 40 to nine. The trial for these nine plaintiffs concluded with
a verdict against the Company and for the plaintiffs in varying
amounts totaling $0.4 million.

The Company appealed this verdict. On September 13, 2012, the
Illinois Appellate Court rejected this appeal. The Company
thereafter filed a petition for rehearing with the Illinois
Appellate Court, which was denied on February 7, 2013.

The Company sought further review by filing a petition for leave to
appeal with the Illinois Supreme Court on March 14, 2013. On May
29, 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a summary order
declining to accept review of this case. On July 1, 2013, the
Company satisfied the judgments entered for these plaintiffs, which
resulted in final dismissal of these cases.

A third consolidated trial involving eight Chicago firefighter
plaintiffs occurred during November 2011. The jury returned a
unanimous verdict in favor of the Company at the conclusion of this
trial.

Following this trial, on March 12, 2012 the trial court entered an
order certifying a class of the remaining Chicago Fire Department
firefighter plaintiffs for trial on the sole issue of whether the
Company’s sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous.

The Company petitioned the Illinois Appellate Court for
interlocutory appeal of this ruling. On May 17, 2012, the Illinois
Appellate Court accepted the Company's petition. On June 8, 2012,
plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal, agreeing with the Company
that the trial court had erred in certifying a class action trial
in this matter. Pursuant to plaintiffs' motion, the Illinois
Appellate Court reversed the trial court's certification order.

Thereafter, the trial court scheduled a fourth consolidated trial
involving three firefighter plaintiffs, which began in December
2012. Prior to the start of this trial, the claims of two of the
three firefighter plaintiffs were dismissed. On December 17, 2012,
the jury entered a complete defense verdict for the Company.

Following this defense verdict, plaintiffs again moved to certify a
class of Chicago Fire Department plaintiffs for trial on the sole
issue of whether the Company's sirens were defective and
unreasonably dangerous.

Over the Company's objection, the trial court granted plaintiffs'
motion for class certification on March 11, 2013 and scheduled a
class action trial to begin on June 10, 2013. The Company filed a
petition for review with the Illinois Appellate Court on March 29,
2013 seeking reversal of the class certification order.

On June 25, 2014, a unanimous three-judge panel of the First
District Illinois Appellate Court issued its opinion reversing the
class certification order of the trial court.

Specifically, the Appellate Court determined that the trial court's
ruling failed to satisfy the class-action requirements that the
common issues of the firefighters' claims predominate over the
individual issues and that there is an adequate representative for
the class.

During a status hearing on October 8, 2014, plaintiffs represented
to the Court that they would again seek to certify a class of
firefighters on the issue of whether the Company's sirens were
defective and unreasonably dangerous.

On January 12, 2015, plaintiffs filed motions to amend their
complaints to add class action allegations with respect to Chicago
firefighter plaintiffs, as well as the approximately 1,800
firefighter plaintiffs from locations outside of Chicago. On March
11, 2015, the trial court granted plaintiffs' motions to amend
their complaints.

On April 24, 2015, the cases were transferred to Cook County
chancery court, which will decide all class certification issues.
On March 23, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify as a class
all firefighters from the Chicago Fire Department who have filed
lawsuits in this matter.

The parties have requested discovery from each other related to
this motion.

The Company intends to continue its objections to any attempt at
certification.

Federal Signal Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
designs, manufactures, and supplies a suite of products and
integrated solutions for municipal, governmental, industrial, and
commercial customers in the United States, Canada, Europe, and
internationally. It operates through two segments, Environmental
Solutions Group and Safety and Security Systems Group. Federal
Signal Corporation was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Oak
Brook, Illinois.


FLOOR & DECOR: Still Defends Securities Litigation in Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------
Floor & Decor Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended March 26, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, In re Floor &
Decor Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 1:19-cv-02270-SCJ
(N.D. Ga.).

On May 20, 2019, an alleged stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit, Taylor v. Floor & Decor Holdings,
Inc., et al., No. 1:19-cv-02270-SCJ (N.D. Ga.), in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against
the Company and certain of its officers, directors and
stockholders.

On August 14, 2019, the Court named a lead plaintiff, and the case
was re-captioned In re Floor & Decor Holdings, Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 1:19-cv-02270-SCJ (N.D. Ga.).

The operative complaint alleges certain violations of federal
securities laws based on, among other things, purported materially
false and misleading statements and omissions allegedly made by the
Company between May 23, 2018 and August 1, 2018 and seeks class
certification, unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys’
fees and equitable relief.

The Company denies the material allegations and has moved to
dismiss the lawsuit.

In addition, the Company maintains insurance that may cover any
liability arising out of this litigation up to the policy limits
and subject to meeting certain deductibles and to other terms and
conditions thereof.

Floor & Decor 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 this
litigation."

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

Floor & Decor Holdings, Inc., formerly FDO Holdings, Inc.,
incorporated on October 15, 2010, is a retailer of hard surface
flooring and related accessories. The Company retails its products
such as tile, stone, wood, marble, glass and decoratives. The
company is based in Smyrna, Georgia.


FLORIDA POWER: Sued by Casa La Play Over Street Lighting Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
CASA LA PLAY A CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., individually, and all
similarly situated CLASS MEMBERS v. FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT
COMPANY, Case No. CACE-20-006985 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., April
23, 2020), arises from FPL's action of disconnecting the outdoor
lighting from its power supply every year during turtle nesting
season while continuing to charge its customers full rate.

According to the complaint, outdoor and street lighting throughout
the State of Florida provided by FPL to individuals, companies,
municipalities, government entities, and other customers that are
on or near the beaches are similarly required to be turned off or
significantly dimmed during turtle nesting season, and are also
disconnected or dimmed by FPL during turtle nesting seasons.

The Plaintiff contends that although the outdoor and street
lighting is turned off or dimmed during turtle nesting season, FPL
continues to charge its customers the full rate for these
services.

The Plaintiff and all other customers of FPL that have purchased
outdoor and street lighting services from FPL have been damaged as
a direct and proximate result of the charges by FPL, the Plaintiff
asserts. The Plaintiff seeks damages in excess of $30,000.00,
exclusive of interest, costs, and attorney fees.

FPL, the principal subsidiary of NextEra Energy Inc., is a Juno
Beach, Florida-based power utility company serving roughly 4.9
million accounts and 10 million people in Florida. FPL generates,
transmits, distributes and sells electric energy.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daren Stabinski, Esq.
          DAREN STABINSKI P.A.
          100 N. Federal Hwy., No. 524
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 324-1552
          Facsimile: (954) 245-0739
          E-mail: daren@darenstabinskipa.com
                  dstabinski@gmail.com


FORD MOTOR: Settlement in Takata Airbag Related Suit Effective
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the trial court has
entered a final settlement approval order and the settlement in the
class action suit entitled, In re: Takata Airbag Product Liability
Litigation; Economic Loss Track Cases Against Ford Motor Company,
has become effective.

On July 16, 2018, Ford entered into a settlement agreement related
to a consumer economic loss class action pending before the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  

The first case was originally filed on October 27, 2014, against
Ford, Takata, and several other automotive manufacturers, and was
brought by consumers who own or owned vehicles equipped with Takata
airbag inflators.  

Additional cases were subsequently filed in courts throughout the
United States and consolidated into a multidistrict case before the
Florida court, which also included personal injury claims and
claims by automotive recyclers.  

Ford's July 16, 2018 settlement relates only to the consumer
economic loss matters.  

In these cases, plaintiffs allege that Ford vehicles equipped with
Takata airbags are defective and that Ford did not disclose this
defect to consumers. Plaintiffs allege that they suffered several
forms of economic damages as a result of purchasing vehicles with
defective airbags.  

The settlement is for $299 million, which is subject to certain
discounts, and is subject to court approval.  

On December 20, 2018, the court overruled all objections and
entered a final order approving the settlement.  

Several objectors then filed notices of appeal of the trial court's
order.  

On December 10, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion with the court
indicating they reached an agreement with the objectors to resolve
the dispute. The agreement does not increase the total cost to Ford
of the settlement.  

On January 23, 2020, the court held a hearing on the motion to
approve the agreement, and on January 27, 2020, the court entered
an "Indicative Ruling" indicating it would approve the agreement.


On March 3, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit dismissed the appeal, and on March 9, 2020, the trial court
entered a final approval order and the settlement became
effective.

Ford Motor Company designs, manufactures, markets, and services a
range of Ford cars, trucks, sport utility vehicles, and electrified
vehicles worldwide. It operates through three segments: Automotive,
Mobility, and Ford Credit. Ford Motor Company was founded in 1903
and is based in Dearborn, Michigan.


FORT WORTH, TX: Faces Davenport Civil Rights Suit in N.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Fort Worth,
et al. The case is captioned as Norman Alan Davenport, M.D.; Robert
G. Anderson M.D.; and Mark A. Daniels M.D., on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated v. City of Fort Worth; Betsy Price,
in her official capacity as Mayor of the City of Fort Worth;
Southwest Fort Worth Abortion Services Center; and Whole Woman's
Health of Fort Worth, Case No. 4:20-cv-00379-O (N.D. Ill., April
23, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Reed C. O'Connor.

The lawsuit alleges violation of civil rights-related laws.

Fort Worth is a city in North Central Texas. Barbara Elizabeth
Cornelius "Betsy" Price is an American businesswoman and
politician, who serves as the 44th and current mayor of Fort Worth,
Texas. Southwest Fort Worth Abortion Services Center at 6464 John
Ryan Drive offers surgical and medication abortion services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq.
          MITCHELL LAW
          111 Congress Avenue, Suite 400
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 686-3940
          Facsimile: (512) 686-3941
          E-mail: jonathan@mitchell.law

               - and -

          Charles W. Fillmore, Esq.
          H. Dustin Fillmore, III, Esq.
          THE FILLMORE LAW FIRM LLP
          901 Lake St.
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 332-2351
          Facsimile: (817) 870-1859
          E-mail: chad@fillmorefirm.com
                  dusty@fillmorefirm.com

               - and -

          Martin Whittaker, Esq.
          Thomas Brejcha, Esq.
          THOMAS MORE SOCIETY
          309 W Washington Street, Suite 1250
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 782-1680
          Facsimile: (312) 782-1887
       
The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher B. Mosley, Esq.
          Carl Ray Qualls, III, Esq.
          Gerald Pruitt, Esq.
          Kelly Christine Riba Albin, Esq.
          FORT WORTH CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          200 Texas Street
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 392-7603
          Facsimile: (817) 871-8359
          E-mail: chris.mosley@fortworthtexas.gov
                  trey.qualls@fortworthtexas.gov
                  gerald.pruitt@fortworthtexas.gov
                  kelly.albin@fortworthtexas.gov


FORTRESS SYSTEMS: Fourth Cir. Appeal Filed in Sharkey FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Catherine Sharkey filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Catherine Sharkey v. Fortress Systems
International, Case No. 3:18-cv-00019-FDW-DCK, in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of North Carolina at Charlotte.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
a collective action to facilitate notice under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

In her lawsuit, Ms. Sharkey seeks payment of alleged unpaid regular
and overtime wages owed to her and other similarly situated
misclassified employees due to violations of the FLSA. She seeks
authorization to send initial and subsequent Court-supervised
Notices to all current and former independent contractors, who were
employed by Fortress beginning January 10, 2015, to the present.

The appellate case is captioned as Catherine Sharkey v. Fortress
Systems International, Case No. 20-1533, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant CATHERINE E. SHARKEY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          L. Michelle Gessner, Esq.
          GESSNERLAW, PLLC
          602 East Morehead Street
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 234-7442
          E-mail: michelle@mgessnerlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees FORTRESS SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC., d/b/a
Fortress Mobile, and ZHONG SU, a/k/a Jack Su, individually, are
represented by:

          Frederick Martin Thurman, Jr., Esq.
          SHUMAKER LOOP & KENDRICK, LLP
          101 South Tryon Street
          Charlotte, NC 28280-0002
          Telephone: (704) 375-0057
          E-mail: fthurman@slk-law.com


FREDDIE MAC: 6th Cir. Declines to Hear OPERS Appeal
---------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30,
2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has denied plaintiff's
petition for leave to appeal a decision in the case, Ohio Public
Employees Retirement System vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, et al.

This putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against
Freddie Mac and certain former officers on January 18, 2008 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio purportedly
on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from August
1, 2006 through November 20, 2007.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) later intervened as
Conservator, and the plaintiff amended its complaint on several
occasions. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by making false and
misleading statements concerning our business, risk management, and
the procedures the company put into place to protect the company
from problems in the mortgage industry. The plaintiff seeks
unspecified damages and interest, and reasonable costs and
expenses, including attorney and expert fees.

In October 2013, defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint.
In October 2014, the District Court granted defendants' motions and
dismissed the case in its entirety against all defendants, with
prejudice.

In November 2014, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On July 20, 2016, the Court
of Appeals reversed the District Court's dismissal and remanded the
case to the District Court for further proceedings.

On August 14, 2018, the District Court denied the plaintiff's
motion for class certification. On January 23, 2019, the Court of
Appeals denied plaintiff's petition for leave to appeal that
decision.

Federal Home said, "At present, it is not possible for us to
predict the probable outcome of this lawsuit or any potential
effect on our business, financial condition, liquidity, or results
of operations. In addition, we are unable to reasonably estimate
the possible loss or range of possible loss in the event of an
adverse judgment in the foregoing matter due to the following
factors, among others: pre-trial litigation is inherently
uncertain; while the District Court denied plaintiff's motion for
class certification, this denial may be appealed upon the entry of
final judgment; and the District Court has not yet ruled upon
motions for summary judgment. In particular, absent a final
resolution of whether a class will be certified, the identification
of a class if one is certified, and the identification of the
alleged statement or statements that survive dispositive motions,
we cannot reasonably estimate any possible loss or range of
possible loss."

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

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation is a government-sponsored
enterprise (GSE). The Company is engaged in purchasing residential
mortgage loans originated by lenders. The Company also invests in
mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities. The Company's
segments include Single-family Guarantee, Multifamily, Investments
and All Other. The company is based in McLean, Virginia.

FREDDIE MAC: Preferred Stock Purchase Deal Litig. in Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation  said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
30, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that
discovery is ongoing in the case entitled, In re Fannie Mae/Freddie
Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action
Litigations.

This case is the result of the consolidation of three putative
class action lawsuits: Cacciapelle and Bareiss vs. Federal National
Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), filed on July 29, 2013;
American European Insurance Company vs. Federal National Mortgage
Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and FHFA, filed
on July 30, 2013; and Marneu Holdings, Co. vs. FHFA, Treasury,
Federal National Mortgage Association and Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation, filed on September 18, 2013. (The Marneu case
was also filed as a shareholder derivative lawsuit.)

A consolidated amended complaint was filed in December 2013. In the
consolidated amended complaint, plaintiffs alleged, among other
items, that the August 2012 amendment to the Purchase Agreement
breached Freddie Mac's and Fannie Mae's respective contracts with
the holders of junior preferred stock and common stock and the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in such contracts.


Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages, equitable and injunctive
relief, and costs and expenses, including attorney and expert
fees.

FHFA, joined by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, moved to dismiss the In
re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement
Class Action Litigations case and the other related cases in
January 2014. Treasury filed a motion to dismiss the same day. In
September 2014, the District Court granted the motions and
dismissed the plaintiffs' claims.

All plaintiffs appealed that decision, and on February 21, 2017,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
affirmed in part and remanded in part the decision granting the
motions to dismiss.

The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of all claims except
certain claims seeking monetary damages for breach of contract and
breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing.

In March 2017, certain institutional and class plaintiffs filed
petitions for panel rehearing with respect to certain claims. On
July 17, 2017, the Court of Appeals granted the petitions for
rehearing and issued a modified decision, which permitted the
institutional plaintiffs to pursue the breach of contract and
breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing claims that
had been remanded.

The Court of Appeals also removed language related to the standard
to be applied to the implied duty claims, leaving that issue for
the District Court to determine on remand. On October 16, 2017,
certain institutional and class plaintiffs filed petitions for a
writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court challenging whether
HERA's prohibition on injunctive relief against FHFA bars judicial
review of the net worth sweep dividend provisions of the August
2012 amendment to the Purchase Agreement, as well as whether HERA
bars shareholders from pursuing derivative litigation where they
allege the conservator faces a conflict of interest. The Supreme
Court denied the petitions on February 20, 2018.

On November 1, 2017, certain institutional and class plaintiffs and
plaintiffs in another case in which Freddie Mac was not originally
a defendant, Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. FHFA, Treasury, and Federal
National Mortgage Association, filed proposed amended complaints in
the District Court. Each of the proposed amended complaints names
Freddie Mac as a defendant for breach of contract and breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims as well as for new
claims alleging breach of fiduciary duty and breach of Virginia
corporate law.

On January 10, 2018, FHFA, Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae moved to
dismiss the amended complaints. On September 28, 2018, the District
Court dismissed all of the claims except those alleging breach of
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Discovery is ongoing.

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

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation is a government-sponsored
enterprise (GSE). The Company is engaged in purchasing residential
mortgage loans originated by lenders. The Company also invests in
mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities. The Company's
segments include Single-family Guarantee, Multifamily, Investments
and All Other. The company is based in McLean, Virginia.


FTS INTERNATIONAL: Glock Suit Proceeds to Mediation
---------------------------------------------------
FTS International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that a Petition for Writ of
Mandamus in the class action suit initiated by Carol Glock remains
pending.

Mediation was scheduled to start April 29, 2020.

On February 22, 2019, Carol Glock filed a purported securities
class action in the 160th Civil District Court of Dallas County,
Texas (Cause No. DC-19-02668) against the Company, certain of its
officers, directors and stockholders, and certain of the
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering of common
stock ("IPO").

The petition is brought on behalf of an alleged class of persons or
entities who purchased the company's common stock in or allegedly
traceable to its IPO, and purports to allege claims arising under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

The petition generally alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws relating to the disclosure in the registration
statement and prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the company's IPO.

The petition seeks, among other relief, class certification,
damages in an amount in excess of $1.0 million, and reasonable
costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.

The Company has insurance coverage on this matter and has hired
counsel to vigorously defend the case, but several of the Company's
co-defendants have tendered requests for indemnification that are
not covered by the Company's insurance.

The Company has agreed to indemnify the IPO underwriter
co-defendants. The Company is otherwise analyzing these
indemnification requests.

Defendants' Special Exceptions to the petition requesting dismissal
if the defects cannot be cured were overruled on November 22, 2019,
but Defendants are appealing this ruling through a Petition for
Writ of Mandamus which was filed on February 12, 2020.

FTS said, "While the outcome of this case is uncertain, we do not
expect the ultimate resolution of this case to have a material
adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements."

FTS International, Inc. provides hydraulic fracturing services in
North America. Its services enhance hydrocarbon flow from oil and
natural gas wells drilled by exploration and production companies
(E&P), in shale and other unconventional resource formations. FTS
International, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in
Fort Worth, Texas.



GENERAL ELECTRIC: Appeal in Varga Putative Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the appeal from the
court order dismissing the Varga putative class suit remains
pending.

In December 2018, a putative class action (the Varga case) was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New
York naming GE and a former GE executive officer as defendants in
connection with the oversight of the GE RSP.

It alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary duties under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by failing
to advise GE RSP participants that GE Capital insurance
subsidiaries were allegedly under-reserved and continued to retain
a GE stock fund as an investment option in the GE RSP.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a class of GE
RSP participants and beneficiaries from January 1, 2010 through
January 19, 2018 or later.

In March 2020 the court granted GE's motion to dismiss the case,
and in April 2020 the plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Second
Circuit.

General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company
worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil &
Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments.
The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss a
consolidated class action suit is pending.

In August 2019, a putative class action (the Tri-State case) was
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery naming as defendants GE and
the former Board of Directors of Baker Hughes Incorporated (BHI).

It alleges fraud, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty,
and aiding and abetting breaches of duty of disclosure by GE based
on allegations regarding financial statements that GE provided the
former BHI board, management and shareholders in connection with
BHI's merger with GE's Oil and Gas Business in July 2017.

The plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of BHI shareholders during
the period between October 7, 2016 and July 5, 2017.

In October 2019, the City of Providence filed a complaint
containing allegations substantially similar to those in the
Tri-State complaint.

The cases were consolidated in November 2019, and in December 2019,
the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint which is
similar to the prior complaints but does not include fraud claims
against GE.

In February 2020, GE and the other defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the amended consolidated complaint.

General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company
worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil &
Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments.
The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.


HARTFORD CASUALTY: Dr. Jeffrey Sues Over Refusal to Pay Insureds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Jeffrey Milton, DDS, Inc., d/b/a Olentangy Pediatric Dentistry,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-00640-JBA (D.
Conn., May 8, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its
refusal to pay its insureds under its Business Income, Civil
Authority, and Extra Expense coverages for losses suffered due to
COVID-19.

To protect its businesses in the event that they suddenly had to
suspend operations for reasons outside of its control, the
Plaintiff purchased insurance coverage from Hartford Casualty,
including property coverage, as set forth in Hartford Casualty's
Special Property Coverage Form (Form SS 00 07 07 05). Hartford
Casualty's Special Property Coverage Form provides various "Time
Element Coverages," including "Business Income" coverage, "Civil
Authority" coverage, and "Extra Expense" coverage.

The Special Property Coverage Form's "Business Income" coverage
promises to pay for loss due to the necessary suspension of
operations following physical loss of or damage to the insured
premises. The Special Property Coverage Form's "Extra Expense"
coverage promises to pay the expense incurred to minimize the
suspension of business and to continue operations. The Plaintiff's
Hartford Casualty's insurance policy also includes Hartford
Casualty's "Limited Fungi, Bacteria or Virus Coverage" endorsement,
which applies to the Specialty Property Coverage Form.

The Plaintiff was forced to suspend or reduce business at Olentangy
Pediatric Dentistry due to COVID-19 and the resultant closure
orders issued by civil authorities in Ohio. The Plaintiff alleges
that Hartford Casualty denied his claim for loss under his Hartford
Casualty policy. Indeed, Hartford Casualty has, on a widescale and
uniform basis, refused to pay its insureds under its Business
Income, Civil Authority, and Extra Expense coverages for losses
suffered due to COVID-19, any orders by civil authorities that have
required the necessary suspension of business, and any efforts to
prevent further property damage or to minimize the suspension of
business and continue operations, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff provides specialized dental care for infants,
children, and adolescents.

Hartford Casualty is an insurance company organized under the laws
of Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kathleen L. Nastri, Esq.
          KOSKOFF KOSKOFF & BIEDER PC
          350 Fairfield Avenue, Suite 501
          Bridgeport, CT 06604
          Phone: 203-336-4421
          Email: knastri@koskoff.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
          Mark Hamill, Esq.
          Laura E. Reasons, 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
                 dferri@dicellolevitt.com
                 mhamill@dicellolevitt.com
                 lreasons@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Kenneth P. Abbarno, Esq.
          Mark A. DiCello, Esq.
          Mark Abramowitz, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          7556 Mentor Avenue
          Mentor, OH 44060
          Phone: 440-953-8888
          Email: kabbarno@dicellolevitt.com
                 madicello@dicellolevitt.com
                 mabramowitz@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Mark Lanier, Esq.
          Alex Brown, Esq.
          Skip McBride, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM
          10940 W. Sam Houston Pkwy North, Suite 100
          Houston, TX 77064
          Phone: (713) 659-5200
          Email: WML@lanierlawfirm.com
                 alex.brown@lanierlawfirm.com
                 skip.mcbride@lanierlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Timothy W. Burns, Esq.
          Jeff J. Bowen, Esq.
          Jesse J. Bair, Esq.
          Freya K. Bowen, Esq.
          BURNS BOWEN BAIR LLP
          One South Pinckney Street, Suite 930
          Madison, WI 53703
          Phone: 608-286-2302
          Email: tburns@bbblawllp.com
                 jbowen@bbblawllp.com
                 jbair@bbblawllp.com
                 fbowen@bbblawllp.com

               - and -

          Douglas Daniels, Esq.
          DANIELS & TREDENNICK
          6363 Woodway, Suite 700
          Houston, TX 77057
          Phone: 713-917-0024
          Email: douglas.daniels@dtlawyers.com


ILLINOIS: Faces Lewis Suit Alleging Violation of Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marcus Lewis, Kelly King, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GOVERNOR JAY ROBERT PRITZKER, WALMART
CORPORATION, MIGUEL ARTWELL (Store Manager), WALGREEN CORPORATION,
TIMOTHY GREEN (Store Manager), T. MONEY (Security Guard), DOLLAR
GENERAL CORPORATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-02836 (N.D. Ill., May 8,
2020), is brought against the Defendants alleging violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations.

The Plaintiffs bring this action arising from the Defendants'
failure to grant access to facilities that are fully accessible to,
and independently usable by, those that have respiratory ailments
during the Coronavirus Pandemic in Chicago, Illinois. Specifically,
the Defendants' retail stores are not fully accessible to, and
independently usable by, respiratory impaired people that cannot
wear face coverings or masks and do not meet the express
requirements of the ADA, that are calculated to make retail stores
accessible to respiratory impaired individuals, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs have severe respiratory ailments being chronic
asthmatic individuals.

Governer Jay Robert Pritzker is the Governor of the State of
Illinois.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.[BN]


INDIANA: Tully Sues Election Comm. Over Violation of Civil Rights
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paul Okeson, et al.
The case is captioned as BARBARA TULLY, KATHARINE BLACK, SHELLY
BROWN, DAVID CARTER, REBECCA GAINES, JANICE JOHNSON, ELIZABETH
KMIECIAK, CHAQUITTA MCCLEARY, KATHERINE PAOLACCI, DAVID SLIVKA,
DOMINIC TUMMINELLO, and INDIANA VOTE BY MAIL, INC., individually,
and on behalf of those similarly situated v. PAUL OKESON; S.
ANTHONY LONG; SUZANNAH WILSON OVERHOLT; ZACHARY E. KLUTZ, in their
official capacity as members of the Indiana Election Commission,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01271-JPH-DLP (S.D. Ind., April 29, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge James Patrick Hanlon.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark W. Sniderman, Esq.
          FINDLING PARK CONYERS WOODY & SNIDERMAN, PC
          151 N. Delaware St., Suite 1520
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 361-4700
          Facsimile: (317) 231-1106
          E-mail: msniderman@findlingpark.com

               - and -

          William R. Groth, Esq.
          MACEY SWANSON LLP
          445 North Pennsylvania Street, Suite 401
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 637-2345
          Facsimile: (317) 637-2369
          E-mail: wgroth@fdgtlaborlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Courtney Lyn Abshire, Esq.
          Jefferson S. Garn, Esq.
          INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
          Indiana Government Center South, 5th Floor
          302 West Washington St.
          Indianapolis, IN 46204-2770
          Telephone: (317) 234-7019
          E-mail: courtney.abshire@atg.in.gov
                  Jefferson.Garn@atg.in.gov


INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Dismissal of LIBOR Suit Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the plaintiffs in
the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR)-related consolidated
class action litigation have taken an appeal from the district
court's decision granting the company's motion to dismiss.

On January 15, 2019 and January 31, 2019, two virtually identical
purported class action complaints were filed by, respectively,
Putnam Bank, a savings bank based in Putnam, Connecticut, and two
municipal pension funds affiliated with the City of Livonia,
Michigan in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against ICE and several of its subsidiaries, including ICE
Benchmark Administration Limited ("IBA") (the "ICE Defendants"), as
well as 18 multinational banks and various of their respective
subsidiaries and affiliates (the "Panel Bank Defendants").

On March 4, 2019, a virtually identical complaint was filed on
behalf of four retirement and benefit funds affiliated with the
Hawaii Sheet Metal Workers Union.

IBA is the administrator for various regulated benchmarks,
including the ICE LIBOR benchmark that is calculated daily based
upon the submissions from a reference panel (which includes the
Panel Bank Defendants). On July 1, 2019, the various plaintiffs
referenced above filed a consolidated amended complaint against the
ICE and Panel Bank Defendants.

The plaintiffs seek to litigate on behalf of a purported class of
all U.S.-based persons or entities who transacted with a Panel Bank
Defendant by receiving a payment on an interest rate indexed to a
one-month or three-month USD LIBOR-benchmarked rate during the
period from February 1, 2014 to the present.

The plaintiffs allege that the ICE and Panel Bank Defendants
engaged in a conspiracy to set the LIBOR benchmark at artificially
low levels, with an alleged purpose and effect of depressing
payments by the Panel Bank Defendants to members of the purported
class.

As with the individual complaints, the consolidated amended
complaint asserts a claim for violations of the Sherman and Clayton
Antitrust Acts and seeks unspecified treble damages and other
relief.

The ICE and Panel Bank Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint on August 30, 2019. The district
court heard oral arguments on the motions on January 30, 2020, and
on March 26, 2020 the court issued a decision and order granting
the ICE and Panel Bank Defendants' motions to dismiss for failure
to state a claim.

Among other things, the court found that the amended complaint ". .
. is made up of almost entirely conclusory allegations and is
essentially devoid of any evidence, direct or circumstantial, to
support the conclusion that Defendants colluded with one another."


On April 24, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
district court's decision.

ICE intends to oppose the appeal and to continue to vigorously
defend the matter.

Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. operates regulated exchanges,
clearing houses, and listings venues for commodity, financial,
fixed income, and equity markets in the United States, the United
Kingdom, European Union, Asia, Israel, and Canada. Intercontinental
Exchange, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Atlanta,
Georgia.


INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Putnam Appeals Order in Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Putnam Bank, et al., filed an appeal from the District
Court's Decision and Order dated March 26, 2020, and Judgment dated
March 20, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled PUTNAM BANK, on
Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated v.
INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE, INC., et al., Case No. 19-cv-439, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class
action lawsuit was filed against InterContinental Exchange, Inc.,
and several entities concerns financial benchmark ICE LIBOR (TM)
("ICE LIBOR"), which, from February 1, 2014, through the present,
has been "the world's most widely used benchmark for short term
bank borrowing rates," and which, since that date, has been
collusively set at artificially low levels by Defendants, to the
detriment of investors in financial instruments indexed to the
benchmark, such as Plaintiff and members of the Class.

According to the complaint, the Defendants combined and conspired
to, and did, unreasonably restrain trade by fixing, rigging,
depressing, and otherwise manipulating USD ICE LIBOR and financial
instruments indexed to USD ICE LIBOR, in violation of the Sherman
Antitrust Act. The Defendants engaged in a horizontal price-fixing
conspiracy. The Plaintiff and members of the Class have been
injured in their business and property by reason of Defendants'
violation of the Sherman Act, the lawsuit says.

The other Defendants are INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE HOLDINGS, INC.,
ICE BENCHMARK ADMINISTRATION LIMITED (f/k/a NYSE EURONEXT RATE
ADMINISTRATION LIMITED), ICE DATA SERVICES, INC., ICE PRICING AND
REFERENCE DATA LLC, BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, BANK OF AMERICA
N.A., MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC., CITIGROUP INC.,
CITIBANK, N.A., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., JPMORGAN CHASE &
CO., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC,
BARCLAYS PLC, BARCLAYS BANK PLC, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., BNP PARIBAS
SA, BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES CORP., CREDIT AGRICOLE S.A., CREDIT
AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK; CREDIT AGRICOLE SECURITIES
(USA) INC., CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, CREDIT SUISSE
SECURITIES (USA) LLC, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES
INC., HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK PLC, HSBC BANK USA, N.A., HSBC
SECURITIES (USA) INC., LLOYDS BANK PLC, LLOYDS SECURITIES INC.,
MUFG BANK, LTD., THE BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI UFJ LTD., MITSUBISHI
UFJ FINANCIAL GROUP INC., MUFG SECURITIES AMERICAS INC., THE
NORINCHUKIN BANK, COÖPERATIEVE RABOBANK U.A., ROYAL BANK OF
CANADA, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC,
ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PLC, NATWEST
MARKETS SECURITIES INC. (f//k/a RBS SECURITIES, INC.), SOCIETE
GENERALE S.A., SG AMERICAS SECURITIES, LLC, SUMITOMO MITSUI BANKING
CORPORATION, SUMITOMO MITSUI FINANCIAL GROUP INC., SUMITOMO MITSUI
BANKING CORPORATION EUROPE LTD., SMBC CAPITAL MARKETS, INC., UBS
GROUP AG, UBS AG, and UBS SECURITIES LLC.

The appellate case is captioned as IN RE ICE LIBOR ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, Case No. 20-1492, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Putnam Bank, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, et al., are represented by:

          Thomas J. Undlin, Esq.
          ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI LLP
          800 LaSalle Avenue
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 349-8706
          E-mail: tundlin@robinskaplan.com

Defendants-Appellees Intercontinental Exchange, Inc., et al., are
represented by:

          Adam Selim Hakki, Esq.
          SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
          599 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 848-4924
          Email: ahakki@shearman.com

                    - and -

          Arthur Joseph Burke, Esq.
          DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
          450 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 450-4000
          Email: arthur.burke@davispolk.com

                    - and -

          Roger A. Cooper, Esq.
          CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP
          1 Liberty Plaza
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 225-2000
          Email: racooper@cgsh.com

                    - and -

          Paul C. Gluckow, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 455-2000
          Email: pgluckow@stblaw.com

                    - and -

          Jason Robert Vitullo, Esq.
          PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP
          1133 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 336-2189
          Email: jvitullo@pbwt.com

                    - and -

          Joseph E. Neuhaus, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 558-4240
          Email: neuhausj@sullcrom.com

                    - and -

          Adam Mintz, Esq.
          CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP
          80 Pine Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 701-3981
          Email: amintz@cahill.com

                    - and -

          Brad S. Karp, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 373-3000
          Email: bkarp@paulweiss.com

                    - and -

          Damien J. Marshall, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
          55 Hudson Yards
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 446-2300
          Email: dmarshall@bsfllp.com

                    - and -

          Benjamin Fleming, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          390 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 918-3000
          Email: benjamin.fleming@hoganlovells.com

                    - and -

          Christopher Michael Viapiano, Esq.
          Elizabeth Cassady, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
          1700 New York Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 956-6985
          Email: VIAPIANOC@SULLCROM.COM

                    - and -

          Alan M. Unger, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          787 7th Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 839-5300
          Email: aunger@sidley.com

                    - and -

          David R. Gelfand, Esq.
          MILBANK LLP
          55 Hudson Yards
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 530-5520
          Email: dgelfand@milbank.com

                    - and -

          Douglas Kent Yatter, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          885 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 906-1200
          Email: douglas.yatter@lw.com

                    - and -

          David Sapir Lesser, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          7 World Trade Center
          250 Greenwich Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 230-8851
          Email: david.lesser@wilmerhale.com

                    - and -

          Steven Wolowitz, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          1221 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 506-2500
          Email: swolowitz@mayerbrown.com

                    - and -

          Kenneth I. Schacter, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          101 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10178
          Telephone: (212) 309-6865
          Email: kenneth.schacter@morganlewis.com

                    - and -

          Eric Jonathan Stock, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 351-2301
          Email: estock@gibsondunn.com


JANUS HENDERSON: Y-GAR Capital Class Suit Concluded
---------------------------------------------------
Janus Henderson Group plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the class action suit
entitled, Y-GAR Capital LLC v. Credit Suisse Group AG, et al., has
been concluded.

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

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

On April 17, 2018, a second lawsuit was filed against Janus Indices
and Credit Suisse in the United States District Court of the
Northern District of Alabama by certain investors in XIV (Halbert
v. Credit Suisse AG and Janus Indices).

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

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

The Janus Henderson and Credit Suisse defendants moved to dismiss
the Set Capital amended complaint, and on September 25, 2019, the
court dismissed all claims against all defendants. The court denied
the plaintiffs' request for an opportunity to further amend their
complaint, and therefore dismissed the case in its entirety.
Plaintiffs have filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.

The defendants in Halbert -- Credit Suisse and Janus Indices --
jointly moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On August 22, 2019,
the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion
to dismiss the claims.

The court dismissed all claims against Janus Indices -- including
all federal securities claims -- other than a claim for negligent
misrepresentation. On September 26, 2019, Janus Indices filed its
answer to the complaint.

As of March 31, 2020, the case remains in the discovery phase.    

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

The allegations in Y-GAR generally asserted that the disclosures
relating to XIV were false and misleading. On March 29, 2019, the
plaintiff withdrew the suit from the EDNY and re-filed it in the
SDNY. The Janus Henderson and Credit Suisse defendants each moved
to dismiss the claims against them.

On January 2, 2020, the court dismissed all claims against all
defendants. On February 3, 2020, the plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
however, the plaintiff withdrew the appeal on April 14, 2020.
Accordingly, the Y-GAR matter has been concluded.

Janus Henderson said, "We believe the remaining claims in these
exchange-traded note lawsuits are without merit and are vigorously
defending the actions. As of March 31, 2020, we cannot reasonably
estimate possible losses from the remaining claims in the
exchange-traded note lawsuits."

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


JERSEY CITY, NJ: O'Garro Sues in D.N.J. Alleging Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of New Jersey.
The case is captioned as ATHENA O'GARRO, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. CITY OF NEW JERSEY, a public
entity and STEVEN FULOP in his official capacity as Mayor, Case No.
2:20-cv-05282-KM-JBC (D.N.J., April 29, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Kevin McNulty.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

New Jersey is a northeastern U.S. state with some 130 miles of
Atlantic coast.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lee Albert, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Avenue, Suite 530
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: lalbert@glancylaw.com


JM SMUCKER: Ashton Sues Over False Advertising of Folgers Coffee
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shelly Ashton and Jay Schoener, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE J.M. SMUCKER CO., a corporation;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 5:20-cv-00992 (C.D.
Cal., May 8, 2020), is brought against the Defendants based on
their false and deceptive advertising and labeling of their Folgers
ground coffee products, in violation of California's Consumers
Legal Remedies Act, California's False Advertising Law,
California's Unfair Competition Law.

The Plaintiffs also assert claims for breach of express and implied
warranty, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, unjust
enrichment, and for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have grossly exaggerated
the number of cups of coffee that the Folgers ground coffee
products can make in order to induce consumer purchases and to
charge more for these products. The Defendants have sold Folgers
ground coffee products to consumers based on the representation
that they contain enough ground coffee to make up to a specific
number of servings (e.g., "240 6 fl oz cups"). However, pursuant to
the Defendants' own definitions and instructions, the Folgers
ground coffee products do not contain nearly enough ground coffee
to make the number of servings represented.

The Plaintiffs assert that they purchased the Defendants' Folgers
ground coffee products because they reasonably believed–-based on
the Defendants' representations--that these products contained
enough coffee to make the specified number of servings. Had the
Plaintiffs known the truth (i.e., that the Folgers ground coffee
products do not contain enough coffee to make the specified number
of servings), they would have paid less for them, or would not have
purchased them at all. As a result, the Plaintiffs have been
deceived and have suffered economic injury, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs purchased the Folgers Classic Roast.

The Defendants are one of the world's biggest packaged goods
companies and own the Folgers brand.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
          Joshua Nassir, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: (424) 256-2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
          Email: bheikali@faruqilaw.com
                 jnassir@faruqilaw.com

               - and –

          Aubry Wand, Esq.
          THE WAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          400 Corporate Pointe, Suite 300
          Culver City, CA 90230
          Phone: (310) 590-4503
          Facsimile: (310) 590-4596
          Email: awand@wandlawfirm.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Appeal in TRACLEER(R) Antitrust Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the appeal made by the
plaintiffs in the class action suit related to TRACLEER(R) is still
pending.

In October 2018, two separate putative class actions were filed
against Actelion Pharmaceutical Ltd., Actelion Pharmaceuticals US,
Inc., and Actelion Clinical Research, Inc. (collectively Actelion)
in United States District Court for the District of Maryland and
United States District Court for the District of Columbia.  

The complaints allege that Actelion violated state and federal
antitrust and unfair competition laws by allegedly refusing to
supply generic pharmaceutical manufacturers with samples of
TRACLEER(R).  

TRACLEER(R) is subject to a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation
Strategy, which imposes restrictions on distribution of the
product.  

In January 2019, the plaintiffs dismissed the District of Columbia
case and filed a consolidated complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland.  

In October 2019, the Court granted Actelion's motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

Plaintiffs have appealed the decision.

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

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bid to Dismiss Plan Participants' Suit Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
the class action suit initiated by participants in the Johnson &
Johnson Savings Plan has been granted.

In January 2019, two Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 (ERISA) class action lawsuits were filed by participants in
the Johnson & Johnson Savings Plan against Johnson & Johnson, its
Pension and Benefits Committee, and certain named officers in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
alleging that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by
offering Johnson & Johnson stock as a Johnson & Johnson Savings
Plan investment option when it was imprudent to do so because of
failures to disclose alleged asbestos contamination in body powders
containing talc, primarily JOHNSON'S(R) Baby Powder.

Plaintiffs are seeking damages and injunctive relief.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

In April 2020, the Court granted the motion to dismiss but granted
leave to amend.

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Suit Over HIV Therapy Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company and
Janssen R&D Ireland continues to defend a class action suit related
to the development and marketing of combination antiretroviral
therapies (cART) to treat HIV.

In May 2019, a class action antitrust complaint was filed against
Janssen R&D Ireland (Janssen) and Johnson & Johnson in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.

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

The complaint also alleges that Gilead entered into similar
agreements with Bristol-Myers-Squibb and Japan Tobacco.

In March 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motions to dismiss.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in April 2020.

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Continues to Defend Contaminated Talc Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a securities class action suit related to alleged
asbestos contamination in body powders containing talc, primarily
JOHNSON'S(R) Baby Powder.

In February 2018, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against Johnson & Johnson and certain named officers in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that
Johnson & Johnson violated the federal securities laws by failing
to disclose alleged asbestos contamination in body powders
containing talc, primarily JOHNSON'S(R) Baby Powder, and that
purchasers of Johnson & Johnson's shares suffered losses as a
result.

Plaintiffs are seeking damages. In April 2019, the Company moved to
dismiss the complaint and briefing on the motion was complete as of
August 2019. In December 2019, the Court denied, in part, the
motion to dismiss.

In March 2020, Defendants answered the complaint.

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Continues to Defend INVOKANA(R) Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend class action suits related to sales of INVOKANA(R).

Claims for personal injury have been made against a number of
Johnson & Johnson companies, including Janssen Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. and Johnson & Johnson, arising out of the use of INVOKANA(R),
a prescription medication indicated to improve glycemic control in
adults with Type 2 diabetes.

Lawsuits filed in federal courts in the United States have been
organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey. Cases have also been
filed in state courts.

Class action lawsuits have been filed in Canada.

Product liability lawsuits continue to be filed, and the Company
continues to receive information with respect to potential costs
and the anticipated number of cases.

The Company has settled or otherwise resolved many of the cases and
claims in the United States and the costs associated with these
settlements are reflected in the Company's accruals.

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

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Remicade Antitrust Litigation Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, In re Remicade Antitrust
Litigation.

Beginning in September 2017, multiple purported class actions of
direct and indirect purchasers were filed against Johnson & Johnson
and Janssen Biotech, Inc. (collectively, Janssen) alleging that
Janssen's REMICADE(R) contracting strategies violated federal and
state antitrust and consumer laws and seeking damages and
injunctive relief.

In November 2017, the cases were consolidated for pre-trial
purposes in United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania as In re Remicade Antitrust Litigation. Motions to
dismiss were denied in both the direct and indirect purchaser
cases.

A motion to compel arbitration of the direct purchaser case was
denied by the district court. The United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit reversed the district court's ruling.

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Says Settlement in XARELTO(R) Suit Funded
------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the settlement in the
XARELTO(R) related class suit became final in December 2019, and
the settlement was funded in January 2020.

Claims for personal injury arising out of the use of XARELTO(R), an
oral anticoagulant, have been made against Janssen Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. (JPI); Johnson & Johnson (J&J); and JPI's collaboration
partner for XARELTO(R), Bayer AG and certain of its affiliates.

Cases filed in federal courts in the United States have been
organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

In addition, cases have been filed in state courts across the
United States.

Many of these cases have been consolidated into a state mass tort
litigation in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and in a coordinated
proceeding in Los Angeles, California.

Class action lawsuits also have been filed in Canada. In March
2019, JPI and J&J announced an agreement in principle to the settle
the XARELTO(R) cases in the United States; the settlement agreement
was executed in May 2019, the settlement became final in December
2019, and the settlement was funded in January 2020.

This resolved the majority of cases pending in the United States.

The Company has established accruals for its costs associated with
the United States settlement program and XARELTO(R) related product
liability litigation.

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Suit Over Baby Powder Products Ongoing in Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit in Illinois over the health risks
posed by its talcum-powder based products.

In May 2014, two purported class actions were filed in federal
court, one in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California and one in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois, against Johnson & Johnson
and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. (now known as
Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.) (JJCI) alleging violations of
state consumer fraud statutes based on nondisclosure of alleged
health risks associated with talc contained in JOHNSON'S® Baby
Powder and JOHNSON'S(R) Shower to Shower (a product no longer sold
by JJCI).

Both cases seek injunctive relief and monetary damages; neither
includes a claim for personal injuries.

In October 2016, both cases were transferred to the United States
District Court for the District Court of New Jersey as part of a
newly created federal multi-district litigation.

In July 2017, the district court granted Johnson & Johnson's and
JJCI's motion to dismiss one of the cases.

In September 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit affirmed this dismissal. In September 2017, the plaintiff
in the second case voluntarily dismissed the complaint.

In March 2018, the plaintiff in the second case refiled in Illinois
State Court.

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

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: XARELTO Sales Class Suit in Louisiana Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana related to its improper marketing and
promotion of XARELTO(R).

In August 2015, two third-party payors filed a purported class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana against Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Janssen
Ortho LLC, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ortho-McNeil-Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson (as well as certain
Bayer entities), alleging that the defendants improperly marketed
and promoted XARELTO(R) as safer and more effective than less
expensive alternative medications while failing to fully disclose
its risks.

The complaint seeks damages.

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

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: ZYTIGA(R) Antitrust Class Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that Janssen Biotech, Inc.,
a wholly-owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, continues to defend
a class action suit initiated by Blue Cross & Blue Shield of
Louisiana and HMO Louisiana, Inc., related to ZYTIGA(R)

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

Several additional complaints were filed thereafter in Virginia and
New Jersey.

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

The Virginia cases have been transferred to the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey and consolidated with
the New Jersey case for pretrial purposes.

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

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


KENON HOLDINGS: Appeal in Suit Against ZIM Pending
--------------------------------------------------
Kenon Holdings Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the appeal in the
putative class action suit filed against ZIM Integrated Shipping
Services, Ltd.'s ("ZIM") wholly-owned agency in Israel, is
pending.

During the third quarter of 2019, an application for a class action
against ZIM Integrated Shipping Services, Ltd.'s ("ZIM")
wholly-owned agency in Israel, along with other third-party
shipping agencies that was submitted in January 2016, was denied by
the District Court.

The applicant alleged, among other things, that the agency has, in
breach of applicable port regulations, charged its customers higher
rates for services rendered than are allowed and charged for
services which are not included in the list of services detailed in
the regulations.

In November 2019, an appeal was submitted by the applicant to the
Supreme Court.

Kenon Holdings Ltd., through its subsidiaries, owns, develops, and
operates power generation and distribution facilities primarily in
Latin America, the Caribbean, and Israel. It also designs,
manufactures, distributes, and services passenger vehicles through
a network of independent authorized retail dealers in the People's
Republic of China. In addition, it develops and owns a proprietary
natural gas-to-liquid technology process. The Company is based in
Singapore.


KINGDOM TRUST: McNally Class Suit Initiated in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Kingdom Trust
Company. The case is captioned as Daniel McNally, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Kingdom Trust
Company, a South Dakota corporation, Case No. 8:20-cv-00830-DOC-MRW
(C.D. Cal., April 29, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge David O. Carter. The lawsuit
demands $5 million in damages.

Kingdom Trust operates as a custodian and a non-depository trust
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Scott Edmiston, Esq.
          JONATHAN W. EVANS AND ASSOCIATES
          12711 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 440
          Studio City, CA 91604
          Telephone: (818) 760-9880
          Facsimile: (818) 760-9881
          E-mail: msedmiston@gmail.com

               - and -

          Alan L. Rosca, Esq.
          GOLDMAN SCARLATO AND PENNY PC
          23250 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 100
          Beachwood, OH 44122
          Telephone: (484) 342-0700
          Facsimile: (484) 580-8747
          E-mail: rosca@lawgsp.com


KOREA ELECTRIC: Electricity Tariff Related Suits Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Korea Electric Power Corporation said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company is
subject to 14 lawsuits related to electricity tariffs, brought by
approximately 10,000 plaintiffs with an aggregate claim amount of
Won 5.8 billion.

During the period from 2014 to 2019, certain residential customers
filed class action lawsuits against the company based on the claim
that electricity tariffs, determined under the progressive rate
structure, were excessive.

As of December 31, 2019, the company was subject to 14 such
lawsuits brought by approximately 10,000 plaintiffs with an
aggregate claim amount of Won 5.8 billion.

Of these 14 lawsuits, seven cases are currently pending in the
third round of proceedings (for which the company won all of the
first and second rounds of proceedings, except for one case) and
three cases are currently pending in the second round of
proceedings (for which the company won all of the first rounds of
proceedings). Four cases are currently pending in the first round
of proceedings.

Korea Electric Power Corporation, an integrated electric utility
company, generates, transmits, and distributes electricity in Korea
and internationally.  The Company operates through Transmission and
Distribution, Nuclear Power Generation, Thermal Power Generation,
and Others segments.  Korea Electric Power Corporation was founded
in 1961 and is headquartered in Naju, South Korea.


KROY LLC: Braman Sues in N.D. Ohio Over Underpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tristan Braman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. KROY LLC, d/b/a Buckeye Business Products, Inc., Case
No. 1:20-cv-01012 (N.D. Ohio, May 8, 2020), is brought to challenge
policies and practices of the Defendant in underpaying overtime
compensation, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well
as the Ohio wage-and-hour laws.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours
in a single workweek, entitling him to overtime compensation under
the FLSA and the Ohio wage-and-hour statute. The Defendant
unlawfully excluded the non-discretionary bonus payments in
determining the Plaintiff's "regular rates" for purposes of
overtime compensation. The Defendant, thereby, miscalculated and
underpaid the overtime compensation it paid to employees, who
earned one or more of the available non-discretionary bonus
payments.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as an hourly non-exempt
employee in Cleveland, Ohio.

The Defendant is a foreign limited liability company organized
under the rules of the state of Nevada, maintaining a principal
place of business in Cleveland, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Lalak, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          614 W. Superior Ave., Suite 1148
          Cleveland, OH 44113-2300
          Phone: (216) 230-2955
          Email: clalak@ohlaborlaw.com


LIBERTY OILFIELD: Wards Seeks OT Pay for Equipment Operators
------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD WARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LIBERTY OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC and LIBERTY
OILFIELD SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-00531 (W.D.
Tex., April 29, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought
against Defendants for their alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Acts.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an hourly-paid Equipment
Operator from November 2017 until April 2020.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other Equipment Operators
regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Although
Defendants paid them 1.5 times their base hourly rate for each hour
they worked over 40 in a workweek, Defendants failed to include
nondiscretionary bonuses when calculating their overtime rate of
pay.

The complaint claims that Defendant classified Plaintiff and other
Equipment Operators as noon-exempt from the overtime requirements
of the FLSA.

Plaintiff seeks overtime premium for all hours worked in excess of
40 hours in a workweek, liquidated damages, and reasonable
attorney's fees and cost.

Liberty Oilfield Services, LLC and Liberty Oilfield Services, Inc.
operate as joint enterprise oil and natural gas companies with
locations across the U.S. including several in Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MICROSOFT CORP: Claims Administration Process to Begin
------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that claims administration
process will commence once each court approves the form of notice
to the class in the related antitrust and unfair competition class
action lawsuits before the courts in British Columbia, Ontario, and
Quebec, Canada.

Antitrust and unfair competition class action lawsuits were filed
against the company in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec,
Canada.

All three have been certified on behalf of Canadian indirect
purchasers who acquired licenses for Microsoft operating system
software and/or productivity application software between 1998 and
2010.

The trial of the British Columbia action commenced in May 2016.

Following a mediation, the parties agreed to a global settlement of
all three Canadian actions, and submitted the proposed settlement
agreement to the courts in all three jurisdictions for approval.

The final settlement has been approved by the courts in British
Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec, and the claims administration
process will commence once each court approves the form of notice
to the class.

Microsoft Corporation develops, licenses, and supports software,
services, devices, and solutions worldwide. The company was founded
in 1975 and is headquartered in Redmond, Washington.


MICROSOFT CORP: Denial of Class Cert. in "Moussouris" Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed the denial of class
certification in Moussouris v. Microsoft.

Current and former female Microsoft employees in certain
engineering and information technology roles brought this class
action in federal court in Seattle in 2015, alleging systemic
gender discrimination in pay and promotions.

The plaintiffs moved to certify the class in October 2017.
Microsoft filed an opposition in January 2018, attaching an expert
report showing no statistically significant disparity in pay and
promotions between similarly situated men and women.

In June 2018, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

In December 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the denial of class certification.

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

Microsoft Corporation develops, licenses, and supports software,
services, devices, and solutions worldwide. The company was founded
in 1975 and is headquartered in Redmond, Washington.


MIDLAND FUNDING: Faces Peterson FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Funding  LLC,
et al. The case is captioned as Jeffrey Peterson, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Midland Funding LLC;
Midland Credit Management, Inc.; and Encore Capital Group, Inc.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-02503 (N.D. Ill., April 23, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Mary M. Rowland.

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

Midland Funding is in the business of buying unpaid debt.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael William Drew, Esq.
          NEIGHBORHOOD LEGAL, LLC
          20 N. Clark, Ste. 3300
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 967-7220
          E-mail: mwd@neighborhood-legal.com


MILLMAN SURVEYING: Misclassifies Project Managers, Hackathorn Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM HACKATHORN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MILLMAN SURVEYING, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:20-cv-00922 (N.D. Ohio, April 29, 2020) is a collective action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from approximately June 2016 to
the present as an "independent contractor" Project Manager to
prepare American Land Title Association / National Society of
Professional Surveyors land title survey maps.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other members of the FLSA
Collective typically worked full time for Defendant and frequently
worked more than 40 hours per workweek. But, because Defendant
misclassified them as "independent contractor", Defendant willfully
and deliberately failed to compensate them overtime at the rate of
at least one and one-half times their regular rates for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.

Millman Surveying, Inc. provides full-scale land services for
commercial real estate and individuals. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
          Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
          Kevin M. McDermott, Esq.
          SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
          The Caxton Building
          812 Huron Rd. E., Suite 490
          Cleveland, OH 44115
          Tel: (216)912-2221
          Fax: (216)350-6313
          Emails: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
                  rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
                  kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com


NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Zagoria Seeks to Recover Tuition and Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Zagoria, On Behalf of Himself And All Others Similarly
Situated v. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-03610 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 8, 2020), is brought for breach of contract, unjust enrichment,
and for recovery of money for students enrolled at NYU, who did not
enroll at its online degree programs.

NYU has shut down its campus facilities, discontinued all on-campus
in-classroom instruction of any courses at any of NYU's campuses
and schools, and instead moved all instruction to remote online
media. While these actions are attributable to the COVID 19
pandemic and the shelter-in-place order in effect in the State of
New York, NYU has continued holding the Plaintiff and all students
liable for the full pre-shutdown tuition and fee obligations,
according to the complaint. This, despite the fact that NYU is
unable to provide, and is not providing, the services or facilities
that the students bargained for and are being billed for as part of
their tuition and fees--fees and tuition costs that easily amount
to thousands of dollars per student.

While NYU may not bear culpability for the campus closures or the
inability to provide any classroom instruction, neither do the
enrolled students, the Plaintiff contends. Yet, he avers, while NYU
has used the current COVID 19 shutdown circumstances to excuse
NYU's duty to fully perform the obligations of its bargain with its
students, NYU continues to demand that all students fully perform
their contractual bargain to pay in full all tuition and fees
without any reduction for NYU's lack of full performance.

The Plaintiff contends that NYU has breached its contractual duties
by ceasing all in-classroom instruction at all campuses and
shutting down campus facilities while continuing to assess and
collect full tuition and fee payment from him and the class members
as if full performance had been rendered to them. Undoubtedly,
however, the performance now being provided by NYU and NYU's campus
facilities are of a different nature and of lesser value than what
was bargained for at the time of the Plaintiff's and the class
members' enrollment, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident of New York and attends NYU.

New York University is a non-profit entity organized under the laws
of the State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Azra Mehdi, Esq.
          THE MEHDI FIRM, P.C.
          347 5th Avenue, Suite 1402
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (415) 293-8039
          Email: azram@themehdifirm.com

               - and -

          Roy A. Katriel, Esq.
          THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM, P.C.
          2262 Carmel Valley Road, Suite 201
          Del Mar, CA 92014
          Phone: (619) 363-3333
          Email: rak@katriellaw.com

               - and -

          Ralph B. Kalfayan, Esq.
          Veneeta Jaswal, Esq.
          THE KALFAYAN LAW FIRM, APC
          2262 Carmel Valley Road, Suite 200
          Del Mar, CA 92014
          Phone: (619) 232-0331
          Facsimile: (619) 232-4019
          Email: ralph@rbk-law.com
                 veneeta@rbk-law.com


NIELSEN HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss PERS Mississippi Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nielsen Holdings plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the the motion to
dismiss the complaint in the consolidated class action suit led by
Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi remains
pending.

In August 2018, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the Southern District of New York, naming as defendants
Nielsen, former Chief Executive Officer Dwight Mitchell Barns, and
former Chief Financial Officer Jamere Jackson.

Another lawsuit, which alleged similar facts but also named other
Nielsen officers, was filed in the Northern District of Illinois in
September 2018 and transferred to the Southern District of New York
in December 2018.

The actions were consolidated on April 22, 2019, and the Public
Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi was appointed lead
plaintiff for the putative class.

The operative complaint was filed on September 27, 2019, and
asserts violations of certain provisions of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, based on allegedly false and materially
misleading statements relating to the outlook of Nielsen's Buy (now
"Connect") segment, Nielsen's preparedness for changes in global
data privacy laws and Nielsen's reliance on third-party data.

Nielsen moved to dismiss the operative complaint on November 26,
2019. Briefing of Nielsen's motion concluded on February 26, 2020.


In addition, in January 2019, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was
filed in New York Supreme Court against a number of Nielsen's
current and former officers and directors.

The derivative lawsuit alleges that the named officers and
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company in
connection with factual assertions substantially similar to those
in the putative class action complaint.

The derivative lawsuit further alleges that certain officers and
directors engaged in trading Nielsen stock based on material,
nonpublic information.

By agreement dated June 26, 2019, the derivative lawsuit has been
stayed pending resolution of Nielsen's motion to dismiss the
aforementioned securities litigation.

Nielsen intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously.

Nielsen said, "Based on currently available information, Nielsen
believes that the Company has meritorious defenses to these actions
and that their resolution is not likely to have a material adverse
effect on Nielsen's business, financial position, or results of
operations."

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

Nielsen Holdings plc, together with its subsidiaries, operates as
an information and measurement company. It operates through Buy and
Watch segments. Nielsen Holdings plc was founded in 1923 and is
headquartered in Oxford, the United Kingdom.


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Denial of Class Certification Upheld
------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia has upheld the District
Court's decision denying class certification in the fuel
surcharge-related litigation.

In 2007, various antitrust class actions filed against the company
and other Class I railroads in various Federal district courts
regarding fuel surcharges were consolidated in the District of
Columbia by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. In
2012, the court certified the case as a class action.

The defendant railroads appealed this certification, and the Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated the District
Court's decision and remanded the case for further consideration.

On October 10, 2017, the District Court denied class certification.
The decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals on August 16, 2019.


Since that decision, various individual cases have been filed in
multiple jurisdictions.

Norfolk said, "We believe the allegations in the complaints are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend the cases. We do not
believe the outcome of these proceedings will have a material
effect on our financial position, results of operations, or
liquidity."

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

Norfolk Southern Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
engages in the rail transportation of raw materials, intermediate
products, and finished goods. Norfolk Southern Corporation was
founded in 1883 and is based in Norfolk, Virginia.

OPEN TEXT: Bid to Dismiss Suit Against Carbonite Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Open Text Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss a
consolidated class action suit related to Carbonite, Inc.'s Server
Backup VM Edition remains pending.

On August 1, 2019, prior to the company's acquisition of Carbonite,
a purported stockholder of Carbonite filed a putative class action
complaint against Carbonite, its former Chief Executive Officer,
Mohamad S. Ali, and its former Chief Financial Officer, Anthony
Folger, in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts captioned Ruben A. Luna, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. Carbonite, Inc., Mohamad S.
Ali, and Anthony Folger (No. 1:19-cv-11662-LTS).

The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint generally alleges that the defendants made materially
false and misleading statements in connection with Carbonite's
Server Backup VM Edition, and seeks, among other things, the
designation of the action as a class action, an award of
unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including
counsel fees and expert fees, and other relief as the court deems
appropriate.

On August 23, 2019, a nearly identical complaint was filed in the
same court captioned William Feng, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Carbonite, Inc., Mohamad S. Ali,
and Anthony Folger (No. 1:19- cv-11808-LTS) (together with the Luna
Complaint, the "Securities Actions").

On November 21, 2019, the court consolidated the Securities
Actions, appointed a lead plaintiff, and designated a lead counsel.


On January 15, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended complaint generally making the same allegations and seeking
the same relief as the complaint filed on August 1, 2019.

The defendants moved to dismiss the Securities Actions on March 10,
2020. The lead counsel's opposition is currently due May 4, 2020.

Open Text said, "In light of, among other things, the early stage
of the litigation, we are unable to predict the outcome of this
action and are unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of
loss, if any, that could result from this proceeding."

Open Text Corporation provides a suite of software products and
services that assist organizations in finding, utilizing, and
sharing business information from various devices. The Company was
founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Waterloo, Canada.


P&N CUISINE: de Jesus Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Ayala de Jesus and Fredy Salustio Flores, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. P&N CUISINE INC.
(D/B/A THAI SELECT), and NIMNUAL LIKITUARIN, Case No. 1:20-cv-03619
(S.D.N.Y., May 8, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for
unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

The lawsuit also alleges violations of the N.Y. Labor Law, and the
"spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York
Commissioner of Labor.

The Plaintiffs have worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours
per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that they have worked, according
to the complaint. Rather, the Defendants have failed to maintain
accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the
Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the
straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium.
Further, the Defendants have failed to pay the Plaintiffs the
required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which they have had
to work over 10 hours a day. Furthermore, the Defendants have
repeatedly failed to pay the Plaintiffs wages on a timely basis.

The Plaintiffs have been employed as delivery workers and food
preparers at the Defendants' restaurant.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a Thai Restaurant, located
at 472 9th Ave., in New York City, under the name "Thai
Select."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


PACESETTER PERSONNEL: Conditional Class Certification Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as SHANE VILLARINO, LAURA J.
JOHNSON, JEFFERY MONDY, and JEROME GUNN, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. PACESETTER PERSONNEL SERVICE,
INC., a Texas profit corporation; PACESETTER PERSONNEL SERVICE OF
FLORIDA, INC., a Florida profit corporation; FLORIDA STAFFING
SERVICE, INC., a Florida profit corporation; and, TAMPA SERVICE
COMPANY, INC., a Florida profit corporation, each d/b/a:
PACESETTER; PACESETTER PERSONNEL; PACESETTER PERSONNEL SERVICE;
PACESETTER PERSONNEL SERVICES; PACESETTER PERSONNEL SERVICES, LLC;
PPS; and/or FW SERVICES, Case No. 0:20-cv-60192-AHS (S.D. Fla.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the Asserted Class defined as:

      "all similarly situated current and former employees of
      Defendants who worked during any workweeks between April
      30, 2017 and the present of their right to opt in to this
      lawsuit";

   2. requiring the Defendant to produce in an electronic or
      computer-readable format the full name, address(es), email
      address(es) and Social Security numbers for each of the
      class members;

   3. authorizing notice with a form of consent to join to the
      class members; and

   4. requiring posting of the notice at all of Defendants'
      locations where the similarly situated employees are
      employed.

According to the Plaintiffs' complaint, 121 similarly situated
current and former employees of the Defendants have already filed
their Notices of Consent to Join with the Court, prior to issuance
of notice. Along with the other evidence of record -- namely 11
declarations from the Plaintiffs who worked at multiple locations
for Defendants, the Consents to Join on file, and excerpts from the
Defendants' own website -- the Plaintiffs easily satisfy their low
burden.

Pacesetter provides employment services.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Classes are:

          Dion J. Cassata, Esq.
          CASSATA LAW, PLLC
          Boca Crown Centre
          7999 North Federal Highway, Suite 202
          Boca Raton, FL 33487
          Telephone: (954) 364-7803
          E-mail: dion@cassatalaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          8151 Peters Road, 4th Floor
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) WORKERS
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
          E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com

POPE RESOURCES: Faces Rayonier Merger-Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------
Pope Resources Ltd. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated April 29, 2020, that the
company has been named as a defendant in several suits related to
its merger with Rayonier Inc.

On January 14, 2020, Pope Resources, a Delaware limited
partnership, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, as
amended by Amendment No. 1, dated as of April 1, 2020 (as amended
and as may be further amended from time to time, the "Merger
Agreement") by and among Rayonier Inc. ("Rayonier"), Rayonier,
L.P., ("Opco"), Rayonier Operating Company LLC ("ROC"), Rayonier
Operating Company Holdings, LLC, Pacific GP Merger Sub I, LLC
("Merger Sub 1"), Pacific GP Merger Sub II, LLC ("Merger Sub 2"),
Pacific LP Merger Sub III, LLC ("Merger Sub 3"), Pope, Pope MGP,
Inc. ("MGP") and Pope EGP, Inc ("EGP").

Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub 3 will merge with and
into Pope, with Pope surviving such merger as an indirect wholly
owned subsidiary of Opco (such transaction, the "Merger").

In connection with the proposed Merger, on April 6, 2020 Rayonier,
Opco and Pope filed a proxy statement/prospectus (the "Proxy
Statement/Prospectus"), which Proxy Statement/Prospectus was mailed
on or about April 6, 2020 to Pope unitholders of record as of March
30, 2020.

Four lawsuits challenging disclosures made in the Proxy
Statement/Prospectus have been filed as of the date of this Current
Report on Form 8-K.

On March 19, 2020, a purported Pope unitholder filed a lawsuit
against Pope and its board of directors alleging that, among other
things, the Proxy Statement/Prospectus contained materially
incomplete and misleading information in violation of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.


The plaintiff seeks, among other things, to enjoin the proposed
Merger, an award of rescissory damages and plaintiffs' costs,
including attorneys' fees.

This lawsuit is captioned Stein v. Pope Resources, et al., No.
1:20-CV-00387, and is pending in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware.

On March 26, 2020, a purported Pope unitholder filed a putative
class action purportedly on behalf of the unitholders of Pope
against Pope, its board of directors, Rayonier, ROC, Merger Sub 1,
Merger Sub 2, Merger Sub 3, MGP and EGP alleging that, among other
things, the Proxy Statement/Prospectus contained materially
incomplete and misleading information in violation of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The plaintiff seeks, among other things, to enjoin the proposed
Merger, an award of rescissory damages and plaintiffs' costs,
including attorneys' fees.

This lawsuit is captioned Thompson v. Pope Resources, et al., No.
1:20-CV-00432, and is also pending in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware.

On April 14, 2020, a purported Pope unitholder filed a putative
class action purportedly on behalf of the unitholders of Pope
against Pope, its board of directors and Rayonier alleging, among
other things, that members of the Pope board of directors breached
their duty of loyalty under the Pope limited partnership agreement
and Delaware law in connection with entering into the Merger
Agreement, that Rayonier aided and abetted such breach and that the
Proxy Statement/Prospectus misrepresents or omits material
information.

The plaintiff seeks, among other things, to enjoin the proposed
Merger, an award of compensatory and/or rescissory damages and
plaintiffs' costs, including attorneys' fees.

This lawsuit is captioned Laidlaw v. Pope Resources, et al., No.
20-2-00755-18, and is pending in the Superior Court of the State of
Washington in and for Kitsap County.

On April 17, 2020, another purported Pope unitholder filed a
lawsuit against Pope and its board of directors alleging that,
among other things, the Proxy Statement/Prospectus contained false
and misleading information in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act.

The plaintiff seeks, among other things, to enjoin the proposed
Merger, an award of rescissory damages and plaintiff's costs,
including attorneys' fees.

This lawsuit is captioned Arzonetti v. Pope Resources, et al., No.
1:20-cv-03102, and is pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

Pope believes that the claims asserted in the complaints are
without merit and supplemental disclosures are not required or
necessary under applicable laws.

However, in order to avoid the risk of the lawsuits delaying or
otherwise adversely affecting the Merger and to minimize the costs,
risks and uncertainties inherent in defending the lawsuits, and
without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, Pope is voluntarily
supplementing the Proxy Statement/Prospectus. Each of the
plaintiffs has agreed that, following the filing of this Current
Report on Form 8-K, they will dismiss their respective actions in
their entirety, with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs.

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

Pope Resources Ltd. Partnership The Company operates in three
primary business segments: Fee Timber, Timberland Management &
Consulting, and Real Estate.  Fee Timber segment includes
timberlands owned directly by the Partnership and operations of two
private equity funds. Timberland Management is engaged in
organizing and managing private equity timber funds using capital
invested by third parties and the Partnership. Real Estate
activities primarily take the form of securing permits,
entitlements, and, in some cases, installing infrastructure for raw
land development and then realizing that land's value by selling
larger parcels to buyers who will take the land further up the
value chain by either selling homes to retail buyers or lotsm to
developers of commercial property.


PRIME NOW: Mabanta Labor Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MARIO MABANTA v. PRIME NOW
LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; AMAZON.COM, INC., a
Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
CGC-20-583296 (Filed Feb. 27, 2020), was removed from the Superior
Court in and for the County of San Francisco to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on April 23, 2020.

The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-02813-DMR to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that the "Defendants do not follow California
law" by creating a work structure in which he and the putative
class are required to report of work remotely two days a week,
often for several hours, without compensation.

The Plaintiff brought this putative class action of on behalf of
all persons, who worked as Prime Now Associates in the State of
California.

Prime Now offers household items and essentials.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Heather L. Richardson, Esq.
          Katherine V.A. Smith, Esq.
          Lily Bu, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: 213 229 7000
          Facsimile: 213 229 7520
          E-mail: hrichardson@gibsondunn.com
                  ksmith@gibsondunn.com
                  lbu@gibsondunn.com


QS NEXT: Rodriguez Sues Over Insufficient Financial Disclosures
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel J. Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. QS Next Chapter LLC f/k/a Express Interlock LLC d/b/a
QuickStart Ignition Interlock, Case No. 2:20-cv-00897-DJH (D.
Ariz., May 8, 2020), is brought against the Defendant under the
Consumer Leasing Act and its implementing regulations.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the CLA and
Regulation M by providing woefully insufficient financial
disclosures in its ignition interlock lease agreements. By virtue
of these insufficient disclosures, the Plaintiff and other ignition
interlock lessees signed equipment lease agreements with the
Defendant without understanding their true financial commitments--a
concern the CLA specifically aims to prevent.

The Defendant's lease agreements with the Plaintiff and the
putative class members are defective for the same reasons: they
fail to give clear and sufficient financial disclosures required by
the CLA and Regulation M, in a manner that satisfies the statute
and its regulations, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person, who resided in Maricopa County,
Arizona.

The Defendant is a limited liability company registered in Maricopa
County, Arizona.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          7601 N. Federal Hwy., Suite A-230
          Boca Raton, FL 33487
          Phone: 561-826-5477
          Email: jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com


QUALCOMM INC: 9th Cir. Appeal in California Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 29, 2020, that an appeal from a ruling
in the consolidated class action suit is still pending.

Since January 18, 2017, a number of consumer class action
complaints have been filed against the company in the United States
District Courts for the Southern and Northern Districts of
California, each on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of
cellular phones and other cellular devices.

Currently, 22 such cases remained outstanding.

In April 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred the cases that had been filed in the Southern District
of California to the Northern District of California.

On May 15, 2017, the court entered an order appointing the
plaintiffs' co-lead counsel. On July 11, 2017, the plaintiffs filed
a consolidated amended complaint alleging that the company violated
California and federal antitrust and unfair competition laws by,
among other things, refusing to license standard-essential patents
to the company's competitors, conditioning the supply of certain of
the company's baseband chipsets on the purchaser first agreeing to
license the company's entire patent portfolio, entering into
exclusive deals with companies, including Apple Inc., and charging
unreasonably high royalties that do not comply with the company's
commitments to standard setting organizations.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and disgorgement and/or
restitution, as well as an order that the company be enjoined from
further unlawful conduct.

On August 11, 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. On November 10, 2017, the court
denied the company's motion, except to the extent that certain
claims seek damages under the Sherman Antitrust Act.

On July 5, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, and the court granted that motion on September 27,
2018. On January 23, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) granted the company permission to
appeal the court's class certification order. On January 24, 2019,
the court stayed the case pending the company's appeal.

On December 2, 2019, a hearing on the company's appeal of the class
certification order was held before the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth
Circuit has not yet ruled on the company's appeal.

QUALCOMM said, "We believe the plaintiffs' claims are without
merit."

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

QUALCOMM Incorporated designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
digital communication products worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Qualcomm CDMA Technologies (QCT); Qualcomm Technology
Licensing (QTL); and Qualcomm Strategic Initiatives (QSI). QUALCOMM
Incorporated was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.


QUALCOMM INC: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 29, 2020, that the company's motion
for judgment on the pleadings in the consolidated class action suit
remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.

On January 23, 2017 and January 26, 2017, securities class action
complaints were filed by purported QUALCOMM stockholders in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California against QUALCOMM and certain of its current and former
officers and directors.

The complaints alleged, among other things, that the company
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making false and
misleading statements and omissions of material fact in connection
with certain allegations that the company is or was engaged in
anticompetitive conduct.

The complaints sought unspecified damages, interest, fees and
costs.

On May 4, 2017, the court consolidated the two actions and
appointed lead plaintiffs.

On July 3, 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint asserting the same basic theories of liability and
requesting the same basic relief.

On September 1, 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. On March 18, 2019, the court denied
the company's motion to dismiss the complaint.

On January 15, 2020, the company filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings. The court has not yet ruled on the company's motion.

QUALCOMM said, "We believe the plaintiffs' claims are without
merit.

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

QUALCOMM Incorporated designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
digital communication products worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Qualcomm CDMA Technologies (QCT); Qualcomm Technology
Licensing (QTL); and Qualcomm Strategic Initiatives (QSI). QUALCOMM
Incorporated was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.


QUALCOMM INC: Broadcom Merger-Related Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 29, 2020, that the court in the class
action suit entitled, In re Qualcomm/Broadcom Merger Securities
Litigation, has granted the company's motion to dismiss with leave
to amend.

On June 8, 2018 and June 26, 2018, securities class action
complaints were filed by purported QUALCOMM stockholders in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California against the company and two of its current officers.

The complaints alleged, among other things, that the company
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by failing to disclose
that the company had submitted a notice to the Committee on Foreign
Investment in the United States (CFIUS) in January 2018.

The complaints sought unspecified damages, interest, fees and
costs.

On January 22, 2019, the court appointed the lead plaintiff in the
action. On March 18, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint asserting the same basic theories of liability and
requesting the same basic relief.

On May 10, 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint, and on March 10, 2020, the court granted
the company's motion. The plaintiffs were given until May 11, 2020
to file an amended complaint.

QUALCOMM said,"We believe the plaintiffs' claims are without
merit."

QUALCOMM Incorporated designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
digital communication products worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Qualcomm CDMA Technologies (QCT); Qualcomm Technology
Licensing (QTL); and Qualcomm Strategic Initiatives (QSI). QUALCOMM
Incorporated was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.


QUALCOMM INC: Canadian Consumer Class Suits Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 29, 2020, that the company continues
to defend consumer class action lawsuits in Canada.

Since November 9, 2017, eight consumer class action complaints have
been filed against the company in Canada (in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice, the Supreme Court of British Columbia and the
Quebec Superior Court), each on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of cellular phones and other cellular devices, alleging
various violations of Canadian competition and consumer protection
laws.

The claims are similar to those in the U.S. consumer class action
complaint.

The complaints seek unspecified damages.

One of the complaints in the Supreme Court of British Columbia has
since been discontinued by the plaintiffs.

The company has not yet answered the complaints. The company
expects the Ontario and British Columbia complaints will be
consolidated into one proceeding in British Columbia with a class
certification hearing no earlier than late 2020.

Once the certification hearing is scheduled, the company expects
the court to set a timetable for the exchange of evidence and
briefing.

As to the complaint filed in Quebec, on April 15, 2019, the Quebec
Superior Court held a class certification hearing, and on April 30,
2019, the court issued an order certifying a class.

QUALCOMM said, "We are awaiting the court to set a timetable for
pre-trial steps, including discovery, as well as the exchange of
expert evidence. We do not expect the trial to occur before 2022.
We believe the plaintiffs' claims are without merit."

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

QUALCOMM Incorporated designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
digital communication products worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Qualcomm CDMA Technologies (QCT); Qualcomm Technology
Licensing (QTL); and Qualcomm Strategic Initiatives (QSI). QUALCOMM
Incorporated was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.


SC JOHNSON: Moran Sues Over Unlawful Marketing of Windex Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Moran, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC. a Wisconsin corporation, Case
No. 4:20-cv-03184 (N.D. Cal., May 8, 2020), seeks injunctive relief
to stop the Defendant's unlawful labeling and marketing of its
Windex products.

The purported "Non-Toxic" products at issue are Windex Original
Non-Toxic Formula, Windex Vinegar Non-Toxic Formula, Windex
Ammonia-Free Non-Toxic Formula, and Windex Multi-Surface Non-Toxic
Formula (collectively, the "Products"). Contrary to their labeling,
the purportedly non-toxic cleaning Products contain ingredients
that are harmful to humans, animals, and/or the environment, the
Plaintiff alleges.

Windex's "Non-Toxic" formula is toxic to humans, animals, and the
environment, according to the complaint. The Defendant exposes
consumers to harmful ingredients hidden in its Windex products by
fraudulently advertising them as non-toxic. The products are, in
fact, toxic because they contain ingredients that have been linked
to organ system toxicity, endocrine disruption, immunotoxicity,
lung irritation, loss of sight, and shock. In fact, Defendant even
admits many of the ingredients in the products are known human skin
allergens. Through its unlawful conduct, Defendant obtains an
unfair competitive advantage in the household cleaning market and
unfairly profits from consumers' desire for products that are not
harmful to humans, animals, and the environment.

Through falsely, misleadingly, and deceptively labeling the
Products, the Defendant sought to take advantage of consumers'
desire for non-toxic cleaning products that are safe for humans,
animals, and the environment, while reaping the financial benefits
of using less desirable and harmful ingredients in the Products,
the Plaintiff contends. The Defendant has done so at the expense of
unwitting consumers, as well as Defendant's lawfully acting
competitors, over whom Defendant maintains an unfair competitive
advantage. The Defendant has reaped many millions of dollars
through this fraudulent scheme based on a calculated business
decision to put profits over people, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the Windex Original Non-Toxic Formula at a
grocery store in Pleasanton, California.

The Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises, labels, and sells
the Products throughout California and the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Christopher D. Moon, Esq.
          Kevin O. Moon, Esq.
          MOON LAW APC
          600 West Broadway, Suite 700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone:  (619) 915-9432
          Fax: (650) 618-0478
          Email: chris@moonlawapc.com
                 kevin@moonlawapc.com


SCORES HOLDING: Case Conference Moved to May 28 Due to COVID-19
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scores Holding Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the court
conference in the class action suit entitled, Luisa Santos de
Oliveira v. Scores Holding Company, Inc.; Club Azure, LLC; Robert
Gans; Mark S. Yackow; Howard Rosenbluth, Docket No.
1:18-cv-06769-GBD, was recently adjourned from March 26, 2020 to
May 28, 2020 because of COVID 19.

On October 8, 2018, the Company was served with a Summons and
Complaint in the action entitled Luisa Santos de Oliveira v. Scores
Holding Company, Inc.; Club Azure, LLC; Robert Gans; Mark S.
Yackow; Howard Rosenbluth, Docket No. 1:18-cv-06769-GBD, in the
United States District Court of the Southern District. Plaintiff
claims that the Defendants violated the minimum wage and overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); violated the
New York Minimum Wage Act and the overtime provisions of the New
York State Labor Law ("NYLL"); violated the Spread of Hours Wage
Order of the New York Commissioner of Labor; violated the Notice
and Recordkeeping requirements of the NYLL; violated the wage
statement provisions of the NYLL; recovery of equipment costs in
violation of the FLSA and NYLL; and unlawful deductions from tips
in violation of the NYLL.

Plaintiff brought this action as a class action and seeks
certification of this action as a collective action on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated employees and former
employees of Defendants.

The parties are still in the discovery phase of the litigation. A
court conference was recently adjourned from March 26, 2020 to May
28, 2020 because of COVID 19.

The Company has submitted an Answer to Plaintiff's claims and the
case is currently in the discovery phase. The Company, along with
the Co-defendants, intends to vigorously defend itself against the
claims asserted against it in this lawsuit.

Scores said, "The likelihood of an unfavorable outcome is remote
because the Company's records show, inter alia, that the Plaintiff
never worked more than 25 hours per week."

Scores Holding Company, Inc. is an adult entertainment company. The
company is engaged in the business of licensing the Scores brand
name and other intellectual property to gentlemen's nightclubs with
adult entertainment in the United States. The company was formerly
known as Adonis Energy, Inc. and in adopted its current name in
July 2002. The company is based in New York.


SCRATCH FINANCIAL: Faces AMC TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
Animal Medical Center of Orland Park, Inc., and all others
similarly situated v. SCRATCH FINANCIAL, INC. d/b/a SCRATCHPAY and
JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:20-cv-02803 (N.D. Ill., May 8, 2020), is
brought to secure redress for the actions of the Defendants in
sending or causing the sending of unsolicited advertisements to
telephone facsimile machines in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

On September 26, 2018, and on October 25, 2018, Animal Medical
Center of Orland Park, Inc., received unsolicited fax
advertisements on its facsimile machine. The facsimiles were sent
by the Defendants and encourage the recipient to sign up for
Scratchpay and offer financial services provided by Scratchpay to
persons that contract for veterinary services from the recipient.

The Defendants either negligently or willfully violated the rights
of Plaintiff and other recipients in sending the faxes, according
to the complaint. The Plaintiff had no prior relationship with the
Defendants and had not authorized the sending of fax
advertisements.

Animal Medical Center of Orland Park, Inc., is an Illinois
corporation with offices in Orland Park, Illinois.

Scratch Financial, Inc., doing business as Scratchpay, offers
financing to persons seeking veterinary treatment for animals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 739-4200
          Fax: (312) 419-0379

               - and -

          Frank F. Owen, Esq.
          FRANK F. OWEN & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          1091 Ibis Avenue
          Miami Springs, FL 33166
          Phone: (305) 984-8915
          Email: FFO@CastlePalms.com


SEAWORLD PARKS: Faces Kouball Suit Over Unlawfully Charged Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Kouball, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly
situated v. SEAWORLD PARKS & ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Case No.
3:20-cv-00870-H-BGS (S.D. Cal., May 8, 2020), seeks relief on
behalf of all of the Defendant's customers nationwide that have
paid or were charged fees while its amusement parks and water parks
were closed.

The Plaintiff alleges violations of the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law, and
asserts claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

The Defendant has made the unconscionable decision to keep charging
its thousands of customers monthly membership fees while closing
its amusement parks as the novel coronavirus, COVID-19, rages
throughout the world and the United States economy has gone into a
deep recession, according to the complaint. To sign up for the
Defendant's annual membership program, customers often provide the
Defendant with their credit card or debit card information. The
Defendant then automatically charges its customers' credit or debit
cards as payments are due on a monthly basis.

In March 2020, the Defendant closed all of its amusement parks and
water parks due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, unlike most of
its competitors, the Defendant continued charging its customers
monthly membership fees--at full price, the Plaintiff alleges. She
adds that the Defendant is able to unilaterally charge its
customers monthly fees without their consent, as it is in
possession of its members' debit and credit card information.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has made the deliberate
decision to bilk its customers out of a monthly membership fee
while its members do not have access to the Defendant's amusement
parks and water parks. The sole reason the Defendant's customers
pay monthly membership fees is to have access to the Defendant's
amusement parks and water parks. Now, the Defendant is charging is
customers full price while denying customers access to its
amusement parks and water parks.

Ms. Kouball purchased a total of four annual passes to attend the
Defendant's amusement park located in San Diego, California.

The Defendant is the operator of several amusement parks and water
parks throughout the United States, operating in locations such as
San Diego, California Orlando, Florida, and San Antonio,
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
          Lilach Halperin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Phone: (619) 696-9006
          Fax: (619) 564-6665
          Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com
                 mike@consumersadvocates.com
                 lilach@consumersadvocates.com


SENTINEL INSURANCE: Faces One40 Suit Over Refusal to Pay Insureds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
One40 Beauty Lounge LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., Case No.
3:20-cv-00643-KAD (D. Conn., May 8, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant for its refusal to pay its insureds under its Business
Income, Civil Authority, and Extra Expense coverages for losses
suffered due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

To protect its business in the event that it suddenly had to
suspend operations for reasons outside of its control, the
Plaintiff purchased insurance coverage from Sentinel, including
property coverage, as set forth in Sentinel's Special Property
Coverage Form (Form SS 00 07 07 05). Sentinel's Special Property
Coverage Form provides various "Time Element Coverages," including
"Business Income" coverage, "Civil Authority" coverage, and "Extra
Expense" coverage.

The Special Property Coverage Form's "Civil Authority" coverage
promises to pay for loss caused by the action of a civil authority
that prohibits access to the insured premises because of damage to
property in the immediate area of the insured premises. The Special
Property Coverage Form's "Extra Expense" coverage promises to pay
the expense incurred to minimize the suspension of business and to
continue operations. The Plaintiff's Sentinel insurance policy also
incorporates Sentinel's "Limited Fungi, Bacteria or Virus Coverage"
endorsement (the "Virus Coverage Endorsement"), which applies to
the Specialty Property Coverage Form.

The Plaintiff was forced to suspend or reduce business at One40 due
to COVID-19 and the resultant closure orders issued by civil
authorities in Nevada. The Plaintiff alleges that Sentinel has, on
a widescale and uniform basis, refused to pay its insureds under
its Business Income, Civil Authority, and Extra Expense coverages
for losses suffered due to COVID-19, any orders by civil
authorities that have required the necessary suspension of
business, and any efforts to prevent further property damage or to
minimize the suspension of business and continue operations.
Indeed, the Plaintiff was told by its insurance agent that Sentinel
would not pay under its policy for the losses the Plaintiff
suffered due to COVID-19 and the resultant civil authority orders,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has offered an array of personal care and beauty
services to its community.

Sentinel is an insurance company organized under the laws of
Connecticut, with its principal place of business in Hartford,
Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kathleen L. Nastri, Esq.
          KOSKOFF KOSKOFF & BIEDER PC
          350 Fairfield Avenue, Suite 501
          Bridgeport, CT 06604
          Phone: 203-336-4421
          Email: knastri@koskoff.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
          Mark Hamill, Esq.
          Laura E. Reasons, 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
                 dferri@dicellolevitt.com
                 mhamill@dicellolevitt.com
                 lreasons@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Kenneth P. Abbarno, Esq.
          Mark A. DiCello, Esq.
          Mark Abramowitz, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          7556 Mentor Avenue
          Mentor, OH 44060
          Phone: 440-953-8888
          Email: kabbarno@dicellolevitt.com
                 madicello@dicellolevitt.com
                 mabramowitz@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Mark Lanier, Esq.
          Alex Brown, Esq.
          Skip McBride, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM
          10940 W. Sam Houston Pkwy. North, Suite 100
          Houston, TX 77064
          Phone: (713) 659-5200
          Email: WML@lanierlawfirm.com
                 alex.brown@lanierlawfirm.com
                 skip.mcbride@lanierlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Timothy W. Burns, Esq.
          Jeff J. Bowen, Esq.
          Jesse J. Bair, Esq.
          Freya K. Bowen, Esq.
          BURNS BOWEN BAIR LLP
          One South Pinckney Street, Suite 930
          Madison, WI 53703
          Phone: 608-286-2302
          Email: tburns@bbblawllp.com
                 jbowen@bbblawllp.com
                 jbair@bbblawllp.com
                 fbowen@bbblawllp.com

               - and -

          Douglas Daniels, Esq.
          DANIELS & TREDENNICK
          6363 Woodway, Suite 700
          Houston, TX 77057
          Phone: 713-917-0024
          Email: douglas.daniels@dtlawyers.com


SERVING IMMIGRANTS: Cugat Seeks Unpaid OT Wages for Paralegals
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ANA M. CUGAT, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. SERVING IMMIGRANTS INC and MAGDALENA CUPRYS,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1;20-cv-21786-XXXX (S.D. Fla.,
April 29, 2020) arises from Defendants' alleged willful violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a paralegal from
approximately September 19, 2019 through November 26, 2019.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff was a non-exempt, full-time,
hourly employee working more than 40 hours in a week period. But,
Defendant paid Plaintiff 40 regular hours only despite working more
than 40 hours. Allegedly, Defendant willfully failed to pay
Plaintiff overtime hours at the rate of time and one-half her
regular rate for every hour that she worked in excess of 40.

Moreover, Plaintiff tendered her resignation on or about November
26, 2019 to pursue better employment opportunities. However,
Defendants made a partial payment only and never paid the remaining
working hours of Plaintiff, thereby failing to pay Plaintiff at
least minimum wages for every hour worked.

Magdalena Cuprys Esq. was and is now the owner, partner, officer
and practicing lawyer of Defendant Corporation Serving Immigrants.

Serving Immigrants Inc provides paralegal services to Dade County.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Tel: (305)446-1500
          Fax: (305)446-1502
          Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


SETERUS INC: Barilla Suit Seeks to Certify FDCPA Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as NICOLE BARILLA, CHARLES
MCDONALD, LOIS M. KERR, on Behalf of Themselves and Others
Similarly Situated v. SETERUS, INC., and NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC
(as successor in interest to Seterus, Inc.), Case No.
2:19-cv-00046-SPC-NPM (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for
an order certifying a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Class
defined as:

   "all consumers throughout this district whose servicing
   rights were acquired by Seterus while their loan was in a
   state of default and who were sent a letter from Seterus
   substantially similar or materially identical to the Final
   Letter delivered  to the Plaintiffs."

The case challenges Seterus' systematic use of unlawful and unfair
debt collection practices to collect upon residential consumer
mortgage loans.

Seterus operates as a loan servicing company. It operates as a
subsidiary of International Business Machines Incorporated.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott C. Harris, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP
          900 W. Morgan St.
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5003
          Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
          E-mail: scott@whitfieldbryson.com

               - and -

          Edward H. Maginnis., Esq.
          MAGINNIS LAW, PLLC
          4801 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 310
          Raleigh, NC 27612
          Telephone: 919-526-0450
          Facsimile: 919-882-8763
          E-mail: emaginnis@maginnislaw.com

               - and -

          Joel Ewusiak, Esq.
          EWUSIAK LAW, P.A.
          6601 Memorial Highway, Suite 311
          Tampa, FL 33615
          Telephone: 727 286 3559
          Facsimile: 727 286 3219
          E-mail: joel@ewusiaklaw.com

SOCIETY INSURANCE: Faces Biscuit Suit Over Denial of Coverage
-------------------------------------------------------------
BISCUIT CAFE, INC., d/b/a Buttermilk Geneva, BUTTERMILK NAPERVILLE,
INC., d/b/a Buttermilk, BM VERNON, INC., d/b/a Buttermilk, HOBSON
FINANCIAL GROUP OF ILLINOIS, INC., d/b/a Hollywood Boulevard
Cinema, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. SOCIETY INSURANCE, INC., a Wisconsin corporation, Case No.
1:20-cv-02514 (N.D. Ill., April 23, 2020), arises from alleged
wrongful denial of the Plaintiffs' claims for business income and
extra expense coverage resulting from losses sustained due to the
ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

To protect their businesses in situations like these, the
Plaintiffs obtained identical business interruption insurance
policies from Defendant. However, in blatant breach of the
insurance obligations that the Defendant voluntarily undertook in
exchange for the Plaintiffs' premium payments, the Defendant has
issued blanket denials to the Plaintiffs for any business income
losses or other covered expenses related to COVID-19 or the Closure
Orders, without first conducting a meaningful coverage
investigation, the complaint says.

The Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment establishing that the
COVID-19 pandemic and corresponding response by civil authorities
trigger coverage under the Special Property Coverage Form.

Buttermilk Geneva and Buttermilk Naperville have operated
restaurants located in Geneva, Illinois, and Naperville, Illinois,
since 2015 and 2018, respectively. Hollywood Boulevard Cinema has
operated a movie theater and full-service restaurant in Woodridge,
Illinois, since 2014.

The Defendant is an insurance company engaged in the business of
selling insurance contracts.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Theo Benjamin, Esq.
          Lily Hough, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312 589 6370
          Facsimile: 312 589 6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  tbenjamin@edelson.com
                  lhough@edelson.com

               - and -

          David Fish, Esq.
          John Kunze, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: 630 355 7590
          Facsimile: 630 778 0400
          E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
                  jkunze@fishlawfirm.com


SOUTHERN POWER: Discovery Deadlines in MCERS Vacated Due to COVID
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Power Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that in light of the
COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia has vacated all existing discovery deadlines in
the class action suit initiated by Monroe County Employees'
Retirement System until at least June 15, 2020.

In January 2017, a securities class action complaint was filed
against Southern Company, certain of its officers, and certain
former Mississippi Power officers in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia by Monroe County Employees'
Retirement System on behalf of all persons who purchased shares of
Southern Company's common stock between April 25, 2012 and October
29, 2013.

The complaint alleges that Southern Company, certain of its
officers, and certain former Mississippi Power officers made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Kemper
County energy facility in violation of certain provisions under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and
litigation costs and attorneys' fees. In 2017, the plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint that provided additional detail about their
claims, increased the purported class period by one day, and added
certain other former Mississippi Power officers as defendants.

Also in 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' amended complaint with prejudice, to which the
plaintiffs filed an opposition.

In 2018, the court issued an order dismissing certain claims
against certain officers of Southern Company and Mississippi Power
and dismissing the allegations related to a number of the
statements that plaintiffs challenged as being false or misleading.
In 2018, the court denied the defendants' motion for
reconsideration and also denied a motion to certify the issue for
interlocutory appeal.

In the third quarter 2019, the court certified the plaintiffs'
proposed class and the defendants filed a petition for
interlocutory appeal of the class certification order with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

In December 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia entered an order staying all deadlines in the case
pending mediation.
The stay automatically expired on March 31, 2020; however, in light
of the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia vacated all existing discovery deadlines until
at least June 15, 2020.

Southern Power Company, a public utility company, develops,
acquires, constructs, owns, and manages generation assets,including
renewable energy projects. The company was founded in 2001 and is
based in Atlanta, Georgia. Southern Power Company is a subsidiary
of The Southern Company.


STATE FARM: King Seeks to Certify Class of Plan Beneficiaries
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as BOB KING, individually and on
behalf of a class v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY, and STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANIES HEALTH REIMBURSEMENT
ARRANGEMENT PLAN FOR UNITED STATES ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS, Case No.
1:19-cv-01120-JES-TSH (C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

       "all participants and beneficiaries of the State Farm
       Insurance Companies Health Reimbursement Arrangement Plan
       for United States Eligible Individuals who presented
       claims for services covered, and either received those
       services in January of 2019 or began a course of
       treatment in January of 2019, which claims were not
       paid";

   2. appointing Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC
       counsel for the class; and

   3. appointing Bob King as the representative of the class.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan G. Lesser, Esq.
          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          Tara L. Goodwin, Esq.
          Bryan G. Lesser, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER
          & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312)739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379 (FAX)
          E-mail courtecl@edcombs.com
                 dedelman@edcombs.com
                 ccombs@edcombs.com
                 tgoodwin@edcombs.com
                 blesser@edcombs.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joseph J Torres, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          353 N Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312-840-8685
          E-mail: JTorres@Jenner.com

               - and -

          Sara Kim, Esq.
          WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP
          300 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 5000
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312-728-9034
          Facsimile: 312-728-9199
          E-mail: skim@willkie.com

STEVENS INSTITUTE: Mitelberg Sues Over Failure to Refund Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ilya Mitelberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, Case No. 2:20-cv-05748
(D.N.J., May 8, 2020), seeks refund of the tuition and fees paid
for the Spring 2020 academic semester at Stevens, which closed its
doors due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all people, who paid tuition
and fees for the Spring 2020 academic semester at Stevens, and who,
because of the Defendant's response to the Novel Coronavirus
Disease 2019 ("COVID-19") 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 12, 2020, Stevens announced via letter from Christophe
Pierre (Provost) that classes would continue to be taught
completely online until at least April 5. Finally, on March 17,
2020, Mr. Pierre announced that classes would continue in online
format through the end of the Spring 2020 Semester. Thus, Stevens
has not held any in-person classes since March 11, 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 the Plaintiff and the putative
class contracted and paid for, according to the complaint. The
online learning options being offered to Stevens 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 the Plaintiff and
the putative class members contracted and paid for.

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 did not have a
choice in cancelling in-person classes, it nevertheless has
improperly retained funds for services it is not providing, the
Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff is the parent of an undergraduate student at
Stevens.

Stevens is one of this country's oldest technological universities
with an enrollment of over 6,000 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


STUBHUB INC: Menzel Sues Over Failure to Provide Ticket Refund
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Scott Menzel, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. STUBHUB, INC., Case No. CGC-20-584382 (Cal.
Super., San Francisco Cty., May 8, 2020), is brought on behalf of
all persons residing in California, who purchase from the Defendant
tickets to an event that has been canceled, postponed, or
rescheduled, and to whom the Defendant did not offer to provide a
refund equal to the value of the ticket and all applicable fees.

The Plaintiff purchased tickets from StubHub due in no small part
to StubHub's FanProtect Guarantee, which promised ticket purchasers
a full refund if an event was canceled, or postponed and not
rescheduled, according to the complaint. The FanProtect Guarantee
led consumers like the Plaintiff to believe that StubHub would
refund their purchase if the show truly did not go on.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic and corresponding cancelations
and postponements of public gatherings, StubHub unilaterally and
without notice revoked its FanProtect Guarantee, in contravention
of California law, and began to offer mere credits towards future
purchases regardless of whether consumers purchased tickets before
StubHub announces the change, the Plaintiff asserts. StubHub's
misconduct effectively requires the Plaintiff to provide StubHub
long-term, interest free loans, and is unfair, unlawful, and
unconscionable, and intended to justly enrich StubHub at the
expense of its customers, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased from StubHub tickets for the Anaheim Ducks
v. Montreal Canadiens NHL game.

StubHub describes itself as "the world's largest ticket marketplace
with tickers availed for over 10 million live sports, music and
theatre events in more than 40 countries."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619/762-1910
          Fax: 619/756-6991
          Email: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
          Nikolas J. Hagman, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          150 S. Wacker, Suite 3000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 782-4880
          Email: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com
                 nhagman@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -

          Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          250 N. Monroe St.
          Media, PA 19063
          Phone: 215-864-2800
          Email: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -

          Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
          Joseph B. Kenny, Esq.
          SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
          1109 Lancaster Avenue
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Phone: (610) 200-0581
          Email: jgs@sstriallawyers.com
                 jbk@sstriallawyers.com

               - and -

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 750-1265
          Email: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com


SVB FINANCIAL: Fails to Pay PPP Loan Agents, Brunner Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brunner Accounting Group, a California sole proprietorship,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
businesses and individuals v. SVB FINANCIAL GROUP; SILICON VALLEY
BANK; BLUEVINE CAPITAL INC.; JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., JPMORGAN CHASE
BANK, N.A.; BANK OF AMERICA CO., BANK OF AMERICA N.A.; ROYAL BANK
OF CANADA, CITY NATIONAL BANK; SQUARE, INC.; and; DOE LENDERS 1 to
4,975, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-04235 (C.D. Cal., May 8, 2020),
is brought to stop the Defendants' unlawful conduct in failing to
pay the Plaintiff and other loan agents their compensation.

On March 25, 2020, in response to the economic damage caused by the
COVID-19 crisis, the United States Senate passed the Coronavirus
Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, the CARES Act. As part of
the CARES Act, the Federal Government created a $349 billion loan
program, referred to as the "Paycheck Protection Program" ("PPP").
The PPP provides small businesses with loans to be originated from
February 15, 2020, through June 30, 2020. The Treasury's PPP
Information Sheet Lenders (the "PPP ISL"), consistent with the SBA
PPP Final Rule (collectively, the "SBA Regulations"), provides that
Lenders will be compensated for processing fees based on the
balance of the financing at the time of final disbursement.

The Defendants served as the intermediary between small businesses
and federal funds. The Plaintiff served as the Agent for the small
businesses applying for the PPP loans to be lent by the Defendants
and backed by the full faith and credit of the Federal Government.
The Defendants received approval from the SBA and funded loans for
numerous businesses. However, the Defendants failed to pay the
required compensation to the Plaintiff (the "Agents"), that
facilitated the loan process between Lenders and applicants as
required by the SBA Regulations, the Plaintiff alleges.

The Defendants have either failed and refused to pay, or are
willing to pay only a partial percentage of the monies owed to the
Plaintiff, according to the complaint. The Defendants did not
comply with the SBA Regulations in distributing PPP funds. Instead,
Defendants either retained all of the Agent Fees or informed Agents
that they would be paid only a small percentage of the mandated
Agent Fees. As a result of the Defendants' unlawful actions, the
Plaintiff and others suffered financial harm by being deprived of
the statutorily mandated compensation for the professional services
they provided in connection with assisting their clients in
applying for and obtaining PPP loans.

Brunner Accounting Group is a sole proprietorship, organized and
authorized to do business, and doing business, in the State of
California since January 2019.

SVB Financial is a bank and financial holding company and
headquartered in Santa Clara, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael E. Adler, Esq.
          GRAYLAW GROUP, INC.
          26500 Agoura Road, #102-127
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Phone: (818) 532-2833
          Facsimile: (818) 532-2834
          Email: meadler@graylawinc.com

               - and –

          Harmeet K. Dhillon, Esq.
          Nitoj P. Singh, Esq.
          DHILLON LAW GROUP INC.
          177 Post Street, Suite 700
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: (415) 433-1700
          Facsimile: (415) 520-6593
          Email: harmeet@dhillonlaw.com
                 nsingn@dhillionlaw.com


TANDEM DIABETES: Faces 4 Class Suits Over January Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tandem Diabetes Care said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company has been
named as a defendant in four class action lawsuits related to the
data breach the company experienced in January 2020.  

Since April 1, 2020 the company have been named as a defendant in
four class action lawsuits. Each one was brought in response to a
data breach the company experienced in January 2020.

Collectively, these lawsuits seek statutory, compensatory, actual,
and punitive damages; declaratory and injunctive relief;
disgorgement; restitution; and attorney fees, costs, and expenses
from the company.

The four pending lawsuits are as follows:

     * On April 1, 2020, C.H., individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. was filed
against the company in the Southern District of the United States
District Court.

The complaint alleges negligence and violations of the California
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA).

     * On April 8, 2020, Joseph Deluna, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. was
filed against the company in the Central District of the United
States District Court.

The complaint alleges negligence and violations of the CMIA and the
Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA).

     * On April 16, 2020, Jose Lopez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. was
filed against the company in the Southern District of the United
States District Court.

The complaint alleges negligence and violations of the Federal
Trade Commission Act (FTCA), the California Confidentiality of
Medical Information Act (CMIA), California's Unfair Competition
Law, California's Consumer Record Act, and the California Consumer
Privacy Act.

This complaint also alleges that the security incident created a
breach of contract and a breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing.

     * On April 16, 2020, Samantha Henrichsen, and her minor son,
A.R., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. was filed against the company in the
Southern District of the United States District Court.

The complaint alleges negligence and violations of the CMIA, the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and
the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. This complaint
also alleges that the security incident created a breach of
contract.

Tandem said, "Although we intend to vigorously defend against these
claims, there is no guarantee that we will prevail. Accordingly, we
are unable to determine the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits or
determine the amount and range of potential loss associated with
the lawsuits."

Tandem Diabetes Care is a public US medical device manufacturer
based in San Diego, CA. The company develops medical technologies
for the treatment of diabetes and specifically insulin infusion
therapy.


TENARIS SA: Bid to Dismiss Securities Litigation in EDNY Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenaris S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Tenaris
S.A. Securities Litigation, is pending.

Following the Company's November 27, 2018 announcement that its
Chairman and chief executive officer Paolo Rocca had been included
in an Argentine court investigation known as the Notebooks Case (a
decision subsequently reversed by a higher court), two putative
class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York.

On April 29, 2019, the court consolidated the complaints into a
single case, captioned "In re Tenaris S.A. Securities Litigation",
and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.

On July 19, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Tenaris securities during
the putative class period of May 1, 2014 through December 5, 2018.


The individual defendants named in the complaint are Tenaris's
Chairman and chief executive officer and Tenaris's former chief
financial officer.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, the Company and
the individual defendants inflated the Tenaris share price by
failing to disclose that sale proceeds received by Ternium (in
which Tenaris held an 11.46% stake) when Sidor was expropriated by
Venezuela were received or expedited as a result of allegedly
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.

Tenaris 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."

Tenaris S.A., through its subsidiaries, produces and sells seamless
and welded steel tubular products; and provides related services
for the oil and gas industry, and other industrial applications.
The company operates in North America, South America, Europe, the
Middle East and Africa, and the Asia Pacific. Tenaris S.A. was
founded in 2001 and is headquartered in Luxembourg City,
Luxembourg. Tenaris S.A. is a subsidiary of Techint Holdings S.a
r.l.


TESLA INC: Appeal in Investor Suit Over Model 3 Production Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tesla Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that an appeal remains pending in the class
action suit before the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California related to the company's production of Model
3 cars.

On October 10, 2017, a purported stockholder class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against Tesla, two of its current officers, and a former officer.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws and
seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf
of a purported class of purchasers of Tesla securities from May 4,
2016 to October 6, 2017. The lawsuit claims that Tesla supposedly
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's preparedness to produce Model 3 vehicles.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 23, 2018, and
defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 25, 2018. The court
granted defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend.  

Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on September 28, 2018, and
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
February 15, 2019. The hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on
March 22, 2019, and on March 25, 2019, the Court ruled in favor of
defendants and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.  

On April 8, 2019, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and on July
17, 2019 filed their opening brief. The company filed its
opposition on September 16, 2019. A hearing on the appeal before
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was set for April
30, 2020.

Tesla said, "We continue to believe that the claims are without
merit and intend to defend against this lawsuit vigorously. We are
unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any,
associated with this lawsuit.

On October 26, 2018, in a similar action, a purported stockholder
class action was filed in the Superior Court of California in Santa
Clara County against Tesla, Elon Musk and seven initial purchasers
in an offering of debt securities by Tesla in August 2017.

The complaint alleges misrepresentations made by Tesla regarding
the number of Model 3 vehicles Tesla expected to produce by the end
of 2017 in connection with such offering and seeks unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of Tesla securities in such offering. Tesla
thereafter removed the case to federal court.  

On January 22, 2019, plaintiff abandoned its effort to proceed in
state court, instead filing an amended complaint against Tesla,
Elon Musk and seven initial purchasers in the debt offering before
the same judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California who is hearing the above-referenced earlier filed
federal case.  

On February 5, 2019, the Court stayed this new case pending a
ruling on the motion to dismiss the complaint in such earlier filed
federal case.  

After such earlier filed federal case was dismissed, defendants
filed a motion on July 2, 2019 to dismiss this case as well. This
case is now stayed pending a ruling from the appellate court on
such earlier filed federal case with an agreement that if
defendants prevail on appeal in such case, this case will be
dismissed.

Tesla said, "We believe that the claims are without merit and
intend to defend against this lawsuit vigorously. We are unable to
estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated
with this lawsuit."

Tesla Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells high-performance
electric vehicles and electric vehicle powertrain components. The
Company owns its sales and service network and sells electric
powertrain components to other automobile manufacturers. Tesla
serves customers worldwide. The company is based in Palo Alto,
California.


TESLA INC: Must Defend Against Suit Over Elon Musk Tweets
---------------------------------------------------------
Tesla Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that the defendants' motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action suit relate to Elon Musk's August 7, 2018
Twitter post that he was considering taking Tesla private, has been
denied.

Between August 10, 2018 and September 6, 2018, nine purported
stockholder class actions were filed against Tesla and Elon Musk in
connection with Elon Musk's August 7, 2018 Twitter post that he was
considering taking Tesla private.

All of the suits are now pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California. Although the complaints vary in
certain respects, they each purport to assert claims for violations
of federal securities laws related to Mr. Musk's statement and seek
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of Tesla's securities.

Plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint on January 16, 2019
and added as defendants the members of Tesla's board of directors.


The now-consolidated purported stockholder class action was stayed
while the issue of selection of lead counsel was briefed and argued
before the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit ruled regarding lead
counsel.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on November 22,
2019.  The hearing on the motion was held on March 6, 2020.  

On April 15, 2020, the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss.
We believe that the claims have no merit and intend to defend
against them vigorously.

Tesla said, "We are unable to estimate the potential loss, or range
of loss, associated with these claims."

Tesla Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells high-performance
electric vehicles and electric vehicle powertrain components. The
Company owns its sales and service network and sells electric
powertrain components to other automobile manufacturers. Tesla
serves customers worldwide. The company is based in Palo Alto,
California.


TESLA INC: Trial in Suit Over 2018 Bonuses Set for June 2021
------------------------------------------------------------
Tesla Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that trial in the lawsuit related to a 2018
CEO Performance Award is set for June 2021.

On June 4, 2018, a purported Tesla stockholder filed a putative
class and derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery
against Elon Musk and the members of Tesla's board of directors as
then constituted, alleging corporate waste, unjust enrichment, and
that such board members breached their fiduciary duties by
approving the stock-based compensation plan.

The complaint seeks, among other things, monetary damages and
rescission or reformation of the stock-based compensation plan. On
August 31, 2018, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint; plaintiff filed its opposition brief on November 1, 2018
and defendants filed a reply brief on December 13, 2018.  

The hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on May 9, 2019. On
September 20, 2019, the Court granted the motion to dismiss as to
the corporate waste claim but denied the motion as to the breach of
fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims.

The company answer was filed on December 3, 2019, and trial is set
for June 2021.

Tesla said, "We believe the claims asserted in this lawsuit are
without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously."

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

Tesla Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells high-performance
electric vehicles and electric vehicle powertrain components. The
Company owns its sales and service network and sells electric
powertrain components to other automobile manufacturers. Tesla
serves customers worldwide. The company is based in Palo Alto,
California.


TESORO HIGH: Hall Appeals Judgment in Land-Lease Suit to 8th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Tex G. Hall, et al., filed an appeal from the District
Court's Order and Judgment both entered on April 6, 2020, in their
lawsuit styled Tex Hall, et al. v. Tesoro High Plains Pipeline Co.,
et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00217-DMT, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of North Dakota, Western.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
arises from allegations that over 450 tribal members and 64 acres
of allotted lands are affected by the Defendants' pipeline.

The Defendants' pipeline was installed on the Fort Berthold
Reservation in 1953, pursuant to a 20-year easement dated September
18, 1953. A new easement was issued on June 18, 1973 for another
twenty-year period. The Amended Complaint also alleges a third
20-year easement was issued on February 7, 1995, with an effective
date of June 18, 1993. It is alleged the Defendants continue to
operate a pipeline on the affected lands despite no existing
easement.

The appellate case is captioned as Tex Hall, et al. v. Tesoro High
Plains Pipeline Co., et al., Case No. 20-1935, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Appendix is due on June 16, 2020;

   -- Brief of Appellants, All other similarly situated Allottees
      Melanie Brugh-Johnson, Vernita Finley and Tex G. Hall, is
      due on June 16, 2020; and

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      appellant.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Tex G. Hall, Individually on behalf of The
Fort Berthold Allottee Land and Mineral Owners Association, et al.,
are represented by:

          Ashleigh B. Ensrud, Esq.
          Debra Lynn Hoffarth, Esq.
          Scott M. Knudsvig, Esq.
          Matthew H. Olson, Esq.
          Reed Soderstrom, Esq.
          PRINGLE & HERIGSTAD
          2525 Elk Drive, P.O. Box 1000
          Minot, ND 58702-1000
          Telephone: (701) 852-0381
          Email: aensrud@pringlend.com
                 debhoffarth@pringlend.com
                 sknudsvig@pringlend.com
                 molson@srt.com
                 rsoderstrom@pringlend.com

Defendants-Appellees Tesoro High Plains Pipeline Company, LLC, et
al., are represented by:

          Robert D. Comer, Esq.
          NORTON & ROSE
          1225 17th Street, Suite 3050
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 801-2700
          Email: bob.comer@nortonrosefulbright.com

                   - and -

          Matthew Alexander Dekovich, Esq.
          NORTON & ROSE
          1301 McKinney, Suite 5100
          Houston, TX 77010-0000
          Telephone: (713) 651-5151
          Email: mdekovich@fulbright.com

                   - and -

          Jeffrey A. Webb, Esq.
          NORTON & ROSE
          111 W. Houston Street
          San Antonio, TX 78205
          Telephone: (210) 224-5575
          Email: jeff.webb@nortonrosefulbright.com


TIKTOK INC: DM Sues Over Unauthorized Use of Biometric Info
-----------------------------------------------------------
D.M. and A.M., minors, by and through their guardian Porchia
Heidelberg, A.O, a minor, by and through his guardian Jasmin
Beverley, and M.P., a minor, by and through her guardian Requeenis
Gilder, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. TIKTOK, INC., A CORPORATION, AND BYTEDANCE, INC., A CORPORATION,
Case No. 3:20-cv-03185 (N.D. Cal., May 8, 2020), is brought to stop
the Defendants' continued violations of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act, and to recover statutory damages for their
unauthorized collection, capture, receipt, storage and/or use of
biometric information belonging to Illinois TikTok app users.

The TikTok app uses proprietary facial recognition software to
superimpose animated and other facial filters, and in the process
acquires the unique biometric identifiers (also known as facial
geometry) of minor children residents of the State of Illinois,
according to the complaint. TikTok also uses artificial
intelligence to evaluate the quality of every video uploaded and to
determine the age of the user uploading the video, before running
this algorithm, TikTok surreptitiously scans a user's facial
geometry.

The Defendants actively concealed these biometric surveillance
practices, failing to inform TikTok users or their parents or legal
guardians that their biometric data would be captured, collected,
stored and used, according to the complaint. These practices invade
the privacy rights of users and violate the BIPA. The BIPA was
designed and enacted to protect Illinois residents from the
collection, storage and use of their biometric data without their
informed consent, and otherwise ensure that Illinois residents keep
control of their personal biometric information.

The Plaintiffs are minor residents of Illinois whose biometric data
was scanned and taken by TikTok.

TikTok, a smartphone app, describes itself as the "leading
destination for short-form mobile video."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          Jordan Elias, Esq.
          Adam E. Polk, Esq.
          GIRARD SHARP LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          Email: dgirard@girardsharp.com
                 jelias@girardsharp.com
                 apolk@girardsharp.com

               - and -

          Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
          Beena M. McDonald, Esq.
          CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Phone: (610) 642-8500
          Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
          Email: bfj@chimicles.com
                 bmm@chimicles.com


TIKTOK INC: ER Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometric Data
--------------------------------------------------------------
E.R., a Minor, through her Guardian, L.H., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. TIKTOK, INC. and
BYTEDANCE, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-02810 (N.D. Ill., May 8, 2020),
is brought against the Defendants for alleged violation of the
Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act.

The BIPA prohibits, among other things, private entities from
collecting, capturing, obtaining, disclosing, redisclosing,
disseminating or profiting from the biometric identifiers or
information of an individual without providing written notice and
without obtaining a written release from the impacted individual or
his authorized representative.

The Defendants, through the popular app used to create short dance,
lip-sync, comedy and talent videos, collected, captured, obtained,
stored and, disclosed and otherwise disseminated Illinois resident
minor TikTok users' facial geometric scans, according to the
complaint.

The Defendants engaged in this conduct: (a) without adequately
informing the impacted individuals, including Plaintiff and members
of the proposed class, that their biometric identifiers were being
collected, captured, obtained, disclosed, redisclosed or otherwise
disseminated; (b) without informing the impacted individuals in
writing of the purpose of the collection, capture, obtainment,
disclosure, redisclosure and dissemination of the biometric
identifiers and information; and (c) without seeking and obtaining
written releases from such impacted individuals or their authorized
representatives, says the complaint.

Plaintiff E.R., a minor, was and remains an Illinois resident, as
well as the Plaintiff's Guardian, L.H.

TikTok is a video-sharing social networking service used to create
short videos, favored by children and teens.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          Kyle Shamberg, Esq.
          Nicholas R. Lange, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 750-1265
          Email: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com
                 kshamberg@carlsonlynch.com
                 nlange@carlsonlynch.com


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Consolidated Isolde Class Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the court in the
consolidated class action suit entitled, Richard J. Isolde,
Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated v.
Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E. Perry,
Case No. (3:15-CV-2093), has granted final approval of the
settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.

On January 11, 2016, the previously reported cases styled Thomas
Nemky, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated
v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E.
Perry, Case No. (2:15-CV-00732) ("Nemky") and Richard J. Isolde,
Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated v.
Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E. Perry,
Case No. (3:15-CV-2093) ("Isolde"), were consolidated in the
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, with all future
filings to be filed in the Isolde case.

On May 11, 2016, the Lead Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated
Complaint alleging defendants Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R.
Wallace, James E. Perry, and Gregory B. Mitchell violated Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and defendants Mr. Wallace and Mr. Perry
violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making materially false and misleading statements and/or by failing
to disclose material facts about Trinity's ET Plus and the FCA case
styled Joshua Harman, on behalf of the United States of America,
Plaintiff/Relator v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:12-cv-00089-JRG (E.D. Tex.). The parties reached an agreement to
settle all claims in this case without any admission of liability
or fault for $7.5 million, and on September 23, 2019, entered into
a Stipulation of Settlement.

Defendants have denied and continue to deny specifically each and
all of the claims and contentions alleged by Lead Plaintiffs in
this case.

The settlement was subject to final court approval.

On September 24, 2019, Lead Plaintiffs filed with the Court an
Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and
Approval of Notice to the Class.

On November 12, 2019, the Court entered an Order Preliminarily
Approving Settlement and Providing for Notice, and on March 31,
2020, the Court granted final approval of the settlement and
dismissed the case with prejudice.

Trinity Industries, Inc. provides rail transportation products and
services in North America. It operates through three segments:
Railcar Leasing and Management Services Group, Rail Products Group,
and All Other. Trinity Industries, Inc. was founded in 1933 and is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: October 26 Trial Set for Guardrail Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that a trial date has been
scheduled for October 26, 2020, in the lawsuit titled, Jackson
County, Missouri, individually and on behalf of a class of others
similarly situated vs. Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity Highway
Products, LLC, Case No. 1516-CV23684 (Circuit Court of Jackson
County, Missouri), filed November 5, 2015.

The case is being brought by plaintiff for and on behalf of itself
and all Missouri counties with a population of 10,000 or more
persons, including the City of St. Louis, and the State of
Missouri's transportation authority.

The plaintiff alleges that the Company and Trinity Highway Products
did not disclose design changes to the ET Plus and these allegedly
undisclosed design changes made the ET Plus allegedly defective,
unsafe, and unreasonably dangerous. The plaintiff alleges product
liability negligence, product liability strict liability, and
negligently supplying dangerous instrumentality for supplier's
business purposes.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs, and in the alternative plaintiff seeks a declaratory
judgment that the ET Plus is defective, the Company's conduct was
unlawful, and class-wide costs and expenses associated with
removing and replacing the ET Plus throughout Missouri.

On December 6, 2017, the Court granted plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification, certifying a class of Missouri counties with
populations of 10,000 or more persons, including the City of St.
Louis and the State of Missouri's transportation authority that
have or had ET Plus guardrail end terminals with 4-inch wide guide
channels installed on roadways they own or maintain.

A trial date has been scheduled in this case for October 26, 2020.

The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend all allegations.

Trinity said, "While the financial impacts of these state, county,
and municipal actions are currently unknown, they could be
material."

Trinity Industries, Inc. provides rail transportation products and
services in North America. It operates through three segments:
Railcar Leasing and Management Services Group, Rail Products Group,
and All Other. Trinity Industries, Inc. was founded in 1933 and is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


UNIFUND CCR: Valentine Sues in New Jersey Over Violation of FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unifund CCR, LLC, et
al. The case is captioned as CASSANDRA A. VALENTINE, on behalf of
herself and those similarly situated v. UNIFUND CCR, LLC;
DISTRESSED ASSET PORTFOLIO III, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Case
No. 2:20-cv-05024-JMV-JAD (D.N.J., April 23, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John Michael Vazquez.

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

Unifund is a collection agency located in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Ave., Ste. 701
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273-7117
          Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


UNITED STATES: Does Sue Over Rights Deprivation Under CARES Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Does, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his individual and official capacity as
President of the United States; MITCH MCCONNELL, in his individual
and official capacity as a Senator and Sponsor of S. 3548 CARES
Act; NANCY PELOSI, in her individual and official capacity as
Speaker for the U.S. House of Representatives; CHARLES SCHUMER, in
his individual and official capacity as a Senator and U.S. Senate
Minority Leader; STEVEN MNUCHIN, in his individual and official
capacity as the Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Treasury; CHARLES RETTIG, in his individual and official capacity
as U.S. Commissioner of Internal Revenue; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
TREASURY; the U.S. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; and the UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA, Case No. 2:20-cv-00704-JPS (E.D. Wis., May 8, 2020),
arises from the Defendants' unconstitutional deprivation of the
rights, privileges, benefits and/or protections provided to United
States Citizens, via the enactment and subsequent enforcement of
the S. 3548-Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act.

The civil rights action challenges the CARES Act on constitutional
grounds. The Plaintiffs allege that the CARES Act denies tax-paying
U.S. citizens their rights, privileges, benefits and/or protections
embodied in the CARES Act which, as part of its provisions, amends
Subchapter B of chapter 65 of subtitle F of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, by adding a new section 6428, entitled "2020 Recovery
Rebates For Individuals."

Sec. 6428 authorizes the Internal Revenue Service to disburse
$1,200.00 to each "eligible individual" earning up to $75,000 in
adjusted gross income who have a Social Security number, and an
additional $500.00 for each child under the age of 17 ("the
Stimulus Check"). Sec. 6428, through a combination of provisions,
excludes otherwise qualified individuals from receiving the CARES
Act Stimulus Checks solely because their spouses lack social
security numbers.

The Plaintiffs are U.S. citizens, who earn less than $75,000 in
adjusted gross income, whose children are also U.S. citizens, and
are excluded from the government's $2 trillion coronavirus
financial relief package because they file their taxes jointly with
their spouses (collectively referred to as a "Mixed-status
Family"), immigrants who do not have a Social Security number. The
Plaintiffs are married to immigrants, who pay taxes and file tax
returns with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number. The
Mixed status Family files joint tax returns and neither are in the
military.

According to the complaint, as a result of Sec. 6428, although both
the Plaintiffs and Doe A's child are U.S. citizens, and the
Plaintiffs would otherwise have received Stimulus Checks under Sec.
6428, the Plaintiffs did not receive Stimulus Checks because their
spouses lack a social security number. But for their spouses
lacking a social security number, the Plaintiffs Does would have
received Stimulus Checks for themselves and Plaintiff Doe A's child
under the CARES Act. Had the Plaintiffs not been married to
immigrants with Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers, the
Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Doe A's child would have otherwise
qualified for a Stimulus Check.

Plaintiffs JANE DOES are 2 U.S. citizens, who have social security
numbers and their spouses do not have social security numbers. The
Plaintiff Jane Doe A has a child, while the Plaintiff Jane Doe B
has no children.

DONALD J. TRUMP, is President of the United States, who signed the
CARES Act into law on March 27, 2020.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas J. Nitschke, Esq.
          Lana B. Nassar, Esq.
          Heather L. Blaise, Esq.
          Elisabeth A. Gavin, Esq.
          BLAISE & NITSCHKE, P.C.
          123 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 250
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 448-6602
          Fax: (312) 803-194
          Email: tjnitschke@blaisenitschkelaw.com
                 lnassar@blaisenitschkelaw.com

               - and -

          Vivian Khalaf, Esq.
          Omar Abuzir, Esq.
          KHALAF & ABUZIR, LLC
          20 N. Clark, Suite 720
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (708)-233-1122
          Fax: (708)-233-1161
          Email: vkhalaf@immigrationjd.com


UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: Hickey Seeks Refund of Tuition and Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Claire Hickey and Akira Kirkpatrick, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH, Case No.
2:20-cv-00690-WSS (W.D. Pa., May 8, 2020), seeks the University's
disgorgement and return of the pro-rated portion of the tuition and
mandatory fees, proportionate to the amount of time that remained
in the Spring Semester 2020 when the University closed and switched
to online distance learning or, in the case of housing and dining,
for any members of the Class that moved out of University housing
after April 3, 2020, a prorated portion of the housing and dining
fee for the days left in the semester after they moved out.

The University's failure to provide the services for which tuition
and the Mandatory Fees were intended to cover since approximately
March 23, 2020, is a breach of the contracts between the University
and the Plaintiffs and the members of the Class, and is unjust,
according to the complaint. The University only provided prorated
refunds to students for housing and dining, who vacated their
campus housing on or before April 3, 2020. Those students, who did
not move out of University housing until after April 3, should also
be entitled to a prorated refund, the Plaintiffs aver.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and the members of the
Class have paid for tuition for a first-rate education and
educational experience, with all the appurtenant benefits offered
by a first-rate university, and were provided a materially
deficient and insufficient alternative, which alternative
constitutes a breach of the contracts entered into by the
Plaintiffs and the Class with the University. As to Mandatory Fees,
the Plaintiffs and the Class have paid fees for services and
facilities which are simply not being provided; this failure also
constitutes a breach of the contracts entered into by the
Plaintiffs and the Class with the University.

The Plaintiffs paid to attend the Spring 2020 semester at the
University's Pittsburgh Campus as full-time undergraduate
students.

The University of Pittsburgh, is a state-related but private
research university in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, that was founded
as the Pittsburgh Academy in 1787.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jeffrey A. Klafter, Esq.
          Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
          KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Phone: (914) 934-9200
          Fax: (914) 934-9220
          Email: jak@klafterolsen.com
                 seth@klafterolsen.com


UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC: Saroya Seeks of Refunds Tuition & Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Viney Saroya, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC, Case No. 5:20-cv-03196 (N.D.
Cal., May 10, 2020), seeks refund of the tuition and fees paid for
the Spring 2020 academic semester at the University, which closed
its doors due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all people who paid tuition and
fees for the Spring 2020 academic semester at UOP, and who, because
of the Defendant's response to the Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019
("COVID-19") 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 11, 2020, the Defendant, via UOP Interim President Maria
Pallavicini, announced that, because of the global COVID-19
pandemic, spring break (which began on March 9, 2020) would be
extended through March 20, 2020, and that beginning March 23, 2020,
all classes would be held remotely. Thus, UOP has not held any
in-person classes since March 6, 2020. Classes that have continued
have only been offered in an online format, with no in-person
instruction.

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. Saroya and the putative class
contracted and paid for, according to the complaint. The online
learning options being offered to UOP 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 the Plaintiff and
the putative class members contracted and paid for.

Nonetheless, UOP has not refunded any tuition or fees for the
Spring 2020 semester, the Plaintiff asserts. 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 did not have a choice in
cancelling in-person classes, it nevertheless has improperly
retained funds for services it is not providing, he adds.

The Plaintiff is an undergraduate student at UOP's Stockton campus
pursuing a Bachelor's Degree in business and economics.

UOP is a private university, with a total enrollment of over 6,000
students across eleven schools and colleges with campuses located
in Sacramento, San Francisco, and Stockton, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Phone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          Email: ltfisher@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


WILLIS TOWERS: 5th Cir. Denies Second Petition for Rehearing
------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
30, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has denied the second
petition for rehearing filed by the plaintiff-appellants in the
lawsuits related to the collapse of The Stanford Financial Group.

The Company has been named as a defendant in 15 similar lawsuits
relating to the collapse of The Stanford Financial Group
('Stanford'), for which Willis of Colorado, Inc. acted as broker of
record on certain lines of insurance.

The complaints in these actions generally allege that the
defendants actively and materially aided Stanford's alleged fraud
by providing Stanford with certain letters regarding coverage that
they knew would be used to help retain or attract actual or
prospective Stanford client investors.

The complaints further allege that these letters, which contain
statements about Stanford and the insurance policies that the
defendants placed for Stanford, contained untruths and omitted
material facts and were drafted in this manner to help Stanford
promote and sell its allegedly fraudulent certificates of deposit.

The 15 actions are as follows:

     * Troice, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
3:9-CV-1274-N, was filed on July 2, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings
plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and a Willis associate, among others.


On April 1, 2011, plaintiffs filed the operative Third Amended
Class Action Complaint individually and on behalf of a putative,
worldwide class of Stanford investors, adding Willis Limited as a
defendant and alleging claims under Texas statutory and common law
and seeking damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages and
costs.

On May 2, 2011, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Third
Amended Class Action Complaint, arguing, inter alia, that the
plaintiffs' claims are precluded by the Securities Litigation
Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ('SLUSA').

On May 10, 2011, the court presiding over the Stanford-related
actions in the Northern District of Texas entered an order
providing that it would consider the applicability of SLUSA to the
Stanford-related actions based on the decision in a separate
Stanford action not involving a Willis entity, Roland v. Green,
Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-0224-N ('Roland'). On August 31, 2011, the
court issued its decision in Roland, dismissing that action with
prejudice under SLUSA.

On October 27, 2011, the court in Troice entered an order (i)
dismissing with prejudice those claims asserted in the Third
Amended Class Action Complaint on a class basis on the grounds set
forth in the Roland decision discussed above and (ii) dismissing
without prejudice those claims asserted in the Third Amended Class
Action Complaint on an individual basis. Also on October 27, 2011,
the court entered a final judgment in the action.

On October 28, 2011, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a notice of
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Subsequently, Troice, Roland and a third action captioned Troice,
et al. v. Proskauer Rose LLP, Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-01600-N,
which also was dismissed on the grounds set forth in the Roland
decision and on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, were consolidated for purposes of briefing and oral
argument.

Following the completion of briefing and oral argument, on March
19, 2012, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded the actions. On
April 2, 2012, the defendants-appellees filed petitions for
rehearing en banc. On April 19, 2012, the petitions for rehearing
en banc were denied. On July 18, 2012, defendants-appellees filed a
petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme
Court regarding the Fifth Circuit's reversal in Troice.

On January 18, 2013, the Supreme Court granted the company's
petition. Opening briefs were filed on May 3, 2013 and the Supreme
Court heard oral argument on October 7, 2013. On February 26, 2014,
the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's decision.

On March 19, 2014, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a Motion to Defer
Resolution of Motions to Dismiss, to Compel Rule 26(f) Conference
and For Entry of Scheduling Order.

On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and the Janvey, et al. v.
Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al. action discussed below stipulated
to the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes
under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March
28, 2014, the Court 'so ordered' that stipulation and, thus,
consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule
42(a).

On September 16, 2014, the court (a) denied the plaintiffs' request
to defer resolution of the defendants' motions to dismiss, but
granted the plaintiffs' request to enter a scheduling order; (b)
requested the submission of supplemental briefing by all parties on
the defendants' motions to dismiss, which the parties submitted on
September 30, 2014; and (c) entered an order setting a schedule for
briefing and discovery regarding plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, which schedule, among other things, provided for the
submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification
(following the completion of briefing and discovery) on April 20,
2015.

On December 15, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motions to dismiss. On January 30, 2015, the
defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc answered the Third
Amended Class Action Complaint.

On April 20, 2015, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification, the defendants filed their opposition to plaintiffs'
motion, and the plaintiffs filed their reply in further support of
the motion. Pursuant to an agreed stipulation also filed with the
court on April 20, 2015, the defendants on June 4, 2015 filed
sur-replies in further opposition to the motion. The Court has not
yet scheduled a hearing on the motion.

On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. On
November 17, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc withdrew the motion.

On March 31, 2016, the parties in the Troice and Janvey actions
entered into a settlement in principle.

     * Ranni v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9-22085,
was filed on July 17, 2009 against Willis Group Holdings plc and
Willis of Colorado, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan
and other South American Stanford investors and alleges claims
under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder) and Florida statutory and common law and
seeks damages in an amount to be determined at trial. On October 6,
2009, Ranni was transferred, for consolidation or coordination with
other Stanford-related actions (including Troice), to the Northern
District of Texas by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (the 'JPML').

The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Ranni.

On August 26, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of the action without prejudice.

     * Canabal, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 3:9-CV-1474-D, was filed on August 6, 2009 against Willis Group
Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis
associate named as a defendant in Troice, among others, also in the
Northern District of Texas.

The complaint was filed individually and on behalf of a putative
class of Venezuelan Stanford investors, alleged claims under Texas
statutory and common law and sought damages in excess of $1
billion, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

On December 18, 2009, the parties in Troice and Canabal stipulated
to the consolidation of those actions (under the Troice civil
action number), and, on December 31, 2009, the plaintiffs in
Canabal filed a notice of dismissal, dismissing the action without
prejudice.

     * Rupert, et al. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2009C115137, was
filed on September 14, 2009 on behalf of 97 Stanford investors
against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the
same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court (Bexar
County).

The complaint alleges claims under the Securities Act of 1933,
Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks
special, consequential and treble damages of more than $300
million, attorneys' fees and costs.

On October 20, 2009, certain defendants, including Willis of
Colorado, Inc., (i) removed Rupert to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the
pendency of this related action and (iii) moved to stay the action
pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be
transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or
coordination with the other Stanford-related actions.

On April 1, 2010, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the
transfer of Rupert to the Northern District of Texas. On January
24, 2012, the court remanded Rupert to Texas state court (Bexar
County), but stayed the action until further order of the court. On
August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay,
which motion was denied by the court on September 16, 2014.

On October 10, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the court's denial of
their motion to lift the stay to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit. On January 5, 2015, the Fifth Circuit consolidated
the appeal with the appeal in the Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et
al. action discussed below, and the consolidated appeal, was fully
briefed as of March 24, 2015.

Oral argument on the consolidated appeal was held on September 2,
2015. On September 16, 2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The
defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Rupert.

     * Casanova, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 3:10-CV-1862-O, was filed on September 16, 2010 on behalf of
seven Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis
Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate,
among others, also in the Northern District of Texas.

The complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law
and seeks actual damages in excess of $5 million, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.

On February 13, 2015, the parties filed an Agreed Motion for
Partial Dismissal pursuant to which they agreed to the dismissal of
certain claims pursuant to the motion to dismiss decisions in the
Troice action and the Janvey action.

Also on February 13, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group
Holdings plc answered the complaint in the Casanova action.

On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs
have not opposed the motion.

     * Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2011CI2585,
was filed on March 11, 2011 on behalf of two Stanford investors,
individually and as representatives of certain trusts, against
Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of
Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas
state court (Bexar County).

The complaint alleges claims under Texas and Colorado statutory law
and Texas common law and seeks special, consequential and treble
damages of more than $37 million and attorneys' fees and costs.

On April 11, 2011, certain defendants, including Willis of
Colorado, Inc., (i) removed Rishmague to the Western District of
Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related
action and (iii) moved to stay the action pending a determination
by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern
District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other
Stanford-related actions.

On August 8, 2011, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the
transfer of Rishmague to the Northern District of Texas, where it
is currently pending. On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs joined
with the plaintiffs in the Rupert action in their motion to lift
the court's stay of the Rupert action.

On September 9, 2014, the court remanded Rishmague to Texas state
court (Bexar County), but stayed the action until further order of
the court and denied the plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay.

On October 10, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the court's denial of
their motion to lift the stay to the Fifth Circuit.

On January 5, 2015, the Fifth Circuit consolidated the appeal with
the appeal in the Rupert action, and the consolidated appeal was
fully briefed as of March 24, 2015. Oral argument on the
consolidated appeal was held on September 2, 2015. On September 16,
2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The defendants have not yet
responded to the complaint in Rishmague.

     * MacArthur v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2013-07840, was filed
on February 8, 2013 on behalf of two Stanford investors against
Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of
Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas
state court (Harris County).

The complaint alleges claims under Texas and Colorado statutory law
and Texas common law and seeks actual, special, consequential and
treble damages of approximately $4 million and attorneys' fees and
costs.

On March 29, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas,
Inc. (i) removed MacArthur to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas and (ii) notified the JPML of the
pendency of this related action.

On April 2, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas,
Inc. filed a motion in the Southern District of Texas to stay the
action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should
be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation
or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions.

Also on April 2, 2013, the court presiding over MacArthur in the
Southern District of Texas transferred the action to the Northern
District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other
Stanford-related actions.

On September 29, 2014, the parties stipulated to the remand (to
Texas state court (Harris County)) and stay of MacArthur until
further order of the court (in accordance with the court's
September 9, 2014 decision in Rishmague), which stipulation was 'so
ordered' by the court on October 14, 2014. The defendants have not
yet responded to the complaint in MacArthur.

     * Florida suits: On February 14, 2013, five lawsuits were
filed against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited and Willis
of Colorado, Inc. in Florida state court (Miami-Dade County),
alleging violations of Florida common law.

       The five suits are: (1) Barbar, et al. v. Willis Group
Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05666CA27,
filed on behalf of 35 Stanford investors seeking compensatory
damages in excess of $30 million; (2) de Gadala-Maria, et al. v.
Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No.
13-05669CA30, filed on behalf of 64 Stanford investors seeking
compensatory damages in excess of $83.5 million; (3) Ranni, et ano.
v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No.
13-05673CA06, filed on behalf of two Stanford investors seeking
compensatory damages in excess of $3 million; (4) Tisminesky, et
al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case
No. 13-05676CA09, filed on behalf of 11 Stanford investors seeking
compensatory damages in excess of $6.5 million; and (5) Zacarias,
et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al.,
Case No. 13-05678CA11, filed on behalf of 10 Stanford investors
seeking compensatory damages in excess of $12.5 million.

On June 3, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. removed all five cases to
the Southern District of Florida and, on June 4, 2013, notified the
JPML of the pendency of these related actions. On June 10, 2013,
the court in Tisminesky issued an order sua sponte staying and
administratively closing that action pending a determination by the
JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern
District of Texas for consolidation and coordination with the other
Stanford-related actions.

On June 11, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. moved to stay the other
four actions pending the JPML's transfer decision. On June 20,
2013, the JPML issued a conditional transfer order for the transfer
of the five actions to the Northern District of Texas, the
transmittal of which was stayed for seven days to allow for any
opposition to be filed.

On June 28, 2013, with no opposition having been filed, the JPML
lifted the stay, enabling the transfer to go forward.

On September 30, 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to
remand in Zacarias, and, on October 3, 2014, the court denied the
plaintiffs' motions to remand in Tisminesky and de Gadala Maria. On
December 3, 2014 and March 3, 2015, the court granted the
plaintiffs' motions to remand in Barbar and Ranni, respectively,
remanded both actions to Florida state court (Miami-Dade County)
and stayed both actions until further order of the court.

On January 2, 2015 and April 1, 2015, the plaintiffs in Barbar and
Ranni, respectively, appealed the court's December 3, 2014 and
March 3, 2015 decisions to the Fifth Circuit. On April 22, 2015 and
July 22, 2015, respectively, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the Barbar
and Ranni appeals sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction. The
defendants have not yet responded to the complaints in Ranni or
Barbar.

On April 1, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc
filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky and
de Gadala-Maria. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed
motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky and de
Gadala-Maria for lack of personal jurisdiction.

On July 15, 2015, the court dismissed the complaint in Zacarias in
its entirety with leave to replead within 21 days. On July 21,
2015, the court dismissed the complaints in Tisminesky and de
Gadala-Maria in their entirety with leave to replead within 21
days.

On August 6, 2015, the plaintiffs in Zacarias, Tisminesky and de
Gadala-Maria filed amended complaints (in which, among other
things, Willis Group Holdings plc was no longer named as a
defendant).

On September 11, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaints. The motions await disposition by the court.

     * Janvey, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:13-CV-03980-D, was filed on October 1, 2013 also in the Northern
District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis
Limited, Willis North America Inc., Willis of Colorado, Inc. and
the same Willis associate.

The complaint was filed (i) by Ralph S. Janvey, in his capacity as
Court-Appointed Receiver for the Stanford Receivership Estate, and
the Official Stanford Investors Committee (the 'OSIC') against all
defendants and (ii) on behalf of a putative, worldwide class of
Stanford investors against Willis North America Inc. Plaintiffs
Janvey and the OSIC allege claims under Texas common law and the
court's Amended Order Appointing Receiver, and the putative class
plaintiffs allege claims under Texas statutory and common law.

Plaintiffs seek actual damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive
damages and costs.

As alleged by the Stanford Receiver, the total amount of collective
losses allegedly sustained by all investors in Stanford
certificates of deposit is approximately $4.6 billion.

On November 15, 2013, plaintiffs in Janvey filed the operative
First Amended Complaint, which added certain defendants
unaffiliated with Willis. On February 28, 2014, the defendants
filed motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, which
motions, other than with respect to Willis Group Holding plc’s
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, were granted
in part and denied in part by the court on December 5, 2014.

On December 22, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend the court's
December 5 order to certify an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth
Circuit, and, on December 23, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend
and, to the extent necessary, reconsider the court's December 5
order. On January 16, 2015, the defendants answered the First
Amended Complaint.

On January 28, 2015, the court denied Willis's motion to amend the
court's December 5 order to certify an interlocutory appeal to the
Fifth Circuit. On February 4, 2015, the court granted Willis's
motion to amend and, to the extent necessary, reconsider the
December 5 order.

As discussed above, on March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and
Janvey stipulated to the consolidation of the two actions for
pre-trial purposes under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. On March 28, 2014, the Court 'so ordered' that
stipulation and, thus, consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial
purposes under Rule 42(a).

On January 26, 2015, the court entered an order setting a schedule
for briefing and discovery regarding the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, which schedule, among other things, provided
for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery)
on July 20, 2015.

By letter dated March 4, 2015, the parties requested that the court
consolidate the scheduling orders entered in Troice and Janvey to
provide for a class certification submission date of April 20, 2015
in both cases. On March 6, 2015, the court entered an order
consolidating the scheduling orders in Troice and Janvey, providing
for a class certification submission date of April 20, 2015 in both
cases, and vacating the July 20, 2015 class certification
submission date in the original Janvey scheduling order.

On November 17, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc withdrew its motion
to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

On March 31, 2016, the parties in the Troice and Janvey actions
entered into a settlement in principle that is described in more
detail below.

     * Martin v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No.
201652115, was filed on August 5, 2016, on behalf of one Stanford
investor against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis
of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate in Texas state
court (Harris County).

The complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law
and seeks actual damages of less than $100,000, exemplary damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.

On September 12, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
which added five more Stanford investors as plaintiffs and seeks
damages in excess of $1 million.

The defendants have not yet responded to the amended complaint in
Martin.

     * Abel, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
3:16-cv-2601, was filed on September 12, 2016, on behalf of more
than 300 Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc,
Willis Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis
associate, also in the Northern District of Texas.

The complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law
and seeks actual damages in excess of $135 million, exemplary
damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

On November 10, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
which, among other things, added several more Stanford investors as
plaintiffs.

The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Abel.

The plaintiffs in Janvey and Troice and the other actions above
seek overlapping damages, representing either the entirety or a
portion of the total alleged collective losses incurred by
investors in Stanford certificates of deposit, notwithstanding the
fact that Legacy Willis acted as broker of record for only a
portion of time that Stanford issued certificates of deposit.

In the fourth quarter of 2015, the Company recognized a $70 million
litigation provision for loss contingencies relating to the
Stanford matters based on its ongoing review of a variety of
factors as required by accounting standards.

On March 31, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement in
principle for $120 million relating to this litigation, and
increased its provisions by $50 million during that quarter.

The settlement is contingent on a number of conditions, including
court approval of the settlement and a bar order prohibiting any
continued or future litigation against Willis related to Stanford,
which may not be given. Therefore, the ultimate resolution of these
matters may differ from the amount provided for. The Company
continues to dispute the allegations and, to the extent litigation
proceeds, to defend the lawsuits vigorously.

Settlement  

On March 31, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement in
principle, as reflected in a Settlement Term Sheet, relating to the
Stanford litigation matter. The Company agreed to the Settlement
Term Sheet to eliminate the distraction, burden, expense and
uncertainty of further litigation.

In particular, the settlement and the related bar orders, if upheld
through any appeals, would enable the Company (a newly-combined
firm) to conduct itself with the bar orders' protection from the
continued overhang of matters alleged to have occurred
approximately a decade ago.

Further, the Settlement Term Sheet provided that the parties
understood and agreed that there is no admission of liability or
wrongdoing by the Company.

The Company expressly denies any liability or wrongdoing with
respect to the matters alleged in the Stanford litigation.

On or about August 31, 2016, the parties to the settlement signed a
formal Settlement Agreement memorializing the terms of the
settlement as originally set forth in the Settlement Term Sheet.

The parties to the Settlement Agreement are Ralph S. Janvey (in his
capacity as the Court-appointed receiver (the 'Receiver') for The
Stanford Financial Group and its affiliated entities in
receivership (collectively, 'Stanford')), the Official Stanford
Investors Committee, Samuel Troice, Martha Diaz, Paula
Gilly-Flores, Punga Punga Financial, Ltd., Manuel Canabal, Daniel
Gomez Ferreiro and Promotora Villa Marina, C.A. (collectively,
'Plaintiffs'), on the one hand, and Willis Towers Watson Public
Limited Company (formerly Willis Group Holdings Public Limited
Company), Willis Limited, Willis North America Inc., Willis of
Colorado, Inc. and the Willis associate referenced above
(collectively, 'Defendants'), on the other hand.

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the parties agreed to
settle and dismiss the Janvey and Troice actions (collectively, the
'Actions') and all current or future claims arising from or related
to Stanford in exchange for a one-time cash payment to the Receiver
by the Company of $120 million to be distributed to all Stanford
investors who have claims recognized by the Receiver pursuant to
the distribution plan in place at the time the payment is made.

The Settlement Agreement also provides the parties' agreement to
seek the Court's entry of bar orders prohibiting any continued or
future litigation against the Defendants and their related parties
of claims relating to Stanford, whether asserted to date or not.

The terms of the bar orders therefore would prohibit all
Stanford-related litigation, and not just the Actions, but
including any pending matters and any actions that may be brought
in the future. Final Court approval of these bar orders is a
condition of the settlement.

On September 7, 2016, Plaintiffs filed with the Court a motion to
approve the settlement. On October 19, 2016, the Court
preliminarily approved the settlement.

Several of the plaintiffs in the other actions above objected to
the settlement, and a hearing to consider final approval of the
settlement was held on January 20, 2017, after which the Court
reserved decision. On August 23, 2017, the Court approved the
settlement, including the bar orders.

Several of the objectors appealed the settlement approval and bar
orders to the Fifth Circuit. Oral argument on the appeals was heard
on December 3, 2018, and, on July 22, 2019, the Fifth Circuit
affirmed the approval of the settlement, including the bar orders.


On August 5, 2019, certain of the plaintiff-appellants filed a
petition for rehearing by the Fifth Circuit en banc (the
'Petition'). On August 19, 2019, the Fifth Circuit requested a
response to the Petition. On August 29, 2019, the Receiver filed a
response to the Petition. On December 19, 2019, the Fifth Circuit
granted the Petition (treating it as a petition for panel
rehearing), withdrew its July 22, 2019 opinion, and substituted a
new opinion that also affirmed the approval of the settlement,
including the bar orders.

On January 2, 2020, certain of the plaintiff-appellants filed
another petition for rehearing by the Fifth Circuit en banc (the
'Second Petition'), in which the other plaintiff-appellants joined.
On January 21, 2020, the Fifth Circuit denied the Second Petition.

Willis Towers said, "The Company will not make the $120 million
settlement payment until the settlement is not subject to any
further appeal."

Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an
advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human
Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan
design, and administrative services for traditional pension and
retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking, and
administration services for health and group benefit programs; and
benefits outsourcing services. The company is based in London,
England.


WILLIS TOWERS: Appeal on Dismissal of Stockholders Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
30, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the
Supreme Court of the State of Delaware has not yet made a decision
on City of Fort Myers General Employees' Pension Fund Alaska
Laborers-Employers Retirement Trust's appeal

Fort Myers and Alaska filed a notice of appeal from the court's
July 25, 2019 dismissal order to the Supreme Court of the State of
Delaware. On November 22, 2019, the parties completed briefing on
the appeal, which was submitted on April 22, 2020 for decision in
lieu of argument. The decision remains pending.

On February 27, 2018 and March 8, 2018, two purported former
stockholders of Legacy Towers Watson, City of Fort Myers General
Employees' Pension Fund ('Fort Myers') and Alaska
Laborers-Employers Retirement Trust ('Alaska'), filed putative
class action complaints on behalf of a putative class of Legacy
Towers Watson stockholders against the former members of the Legacy
Towers Watson board of directors, Legacy Towers Watson, Legacy
Willis and ValueAct, in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned
City of Fort Myers General Employees' Pension Fund v. Towers Watson
& Co., et al., C.A. No. 2018-0132, and Alaska Laborers-Employers
Retirement Trust v. Victor F. Ganzi, et al., C.A. No. 2018-0155,
respectively.

Based on similar allegations as the Eastern District of Virginia
action, the complaints assert claims against the former directors
of Legacy Towers Watson for breach of fiduciary duty and against
Legacy Willis and ValueAct for aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty.

On March 9, 2018, Regents filed a putative class action complaint
on behalf of a putative class of Legacy Towers Watson stockholders
against the Company, Legacy Willis, ValueAct, and Messrs. Haley,
Casserley, and Ubben, in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned
The Regents of the University of California v. John J. Haley, et
al., C.A. No. 2018-0166.

Based on similar allegations as the Eastern District of Virginia
action, the complaint asserts claims against Mr. Haley for breach
of fiduciary duty and against all other defendants for aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty.

Also on March 9, 2018, Regents filed a motion for consolidation of
all pending and subsequently filed Delaware Court of Chancery
actions, and for appointment as Lead Plaintiff and for the
appointment of Bernstein as Lead Counsel for the putative class.

On March 29, 2018, Fort Myers and Alaska responded to Regents'
motion and cross-moved for appointment as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and
for the appointment of their counsel, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. and
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as Co-Lead Counsel.

On April 2, 2018, the court consolidated the Delaware Court of
Chancery actions and all related actions subsequently filed in or
transferred to the Delaware Court of Chancery.

On June 5, 2018, the court denied Regents' motion for appointment
of Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel and granted Fort Myers' and
Alaska's cross-motion. On June 20, 2018, Fort Myers and Alaska
designated the complaint previously filed by Alaska (the 'Alaska
Complaint') as the operative complaint in the consolidated action.


On September 14, 2018, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Alaska Complaint. On October 31, 2018, Fort Myers and Alaska filed
an amended complaint, which, based on similar allegations, asserts
claims against the former directors of legacy Towers Watson for
breach of fiduciary duty and against ValueAct and Mr. Ubben for
aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty.

On January 11, 2019, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint, and on March 29, 2019, the parties completed
briefing on the motions. The court heard argument on the motions on
April 11, 2019 and, on July 25, 2019, dismissed the amended
complaint in its entirety.

On August 22, 2019, Fort Myers and Alaska filed a notice of appeal
from the court's July 25, 2019 dismissal order to the Supreme Court
of the State of Delaware. On November 22, 2019, the parties
completed briefing on the appeal, which was submitted on April 22,
2020 for decision in lieu of argument. The decision remains
pending.

Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an
advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human
Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan
design, and administrative services for traditional pension and
retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking, and
administration services for health and group benefit programs; and
benefits outsourcing services. The company is based in London,
England.


WILLIS TOWERS: Renewed Motions to Dismiss Proxy Litigation Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
30, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia has denied
the defendants' renewed motions to dismiss the class action suit
entitled, In re Willis Towers Watson plc Proxy Litigation, Master
File No. 1:17-cv-1338-AJT-JFA.

On November 21, 2017, a purported former stockholder of Legacy
Towers Watson filed a putative class action complaint on behalf of
a putative class consisting of all Legacy Towers Watson
stockholders as of October 2, 2015 against the Company, Legacy
Towers Watson, Legacy Willis, ValueAct Capital Management
('ValueAct'), and certain current and former directors and officers
of Legacy Towers Watson and Legacy Willis (John Haley, Dominic
Casserley, and Jeffrey Ubben), in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia.

The complaint asserted claims against certain defendants under
Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 'Exchange
Act') for allegedly false and misleading statements in the proxy
statement for the Merger; and against other defendants under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act for alleged 'control person'
liability with respect to such allegedly false and misleading
statements.

The complaint further contended that the allegedly false and
misleading statements caused stockholders of Legacy Towers Watson
to accept inadequate Merger consideration.

The complaint sought damages in an unspecified amount.

On February 20, 2018, the court appointed the Regents of the
University of California ('Regents') as Lead Plaintiff and
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP ('Bernstein') as Lead
Counsel for the putative class, consolidated all subsequently
filed, removed, or transferred actions, and captioned the
consolidated action 'In re Willis Towers Watson plc Proxy
Litigation,' Master File No. 1:17-cv-1338-AJT-JFA. On March 9,
2018, Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint.

On April 13, 2018, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Amended Complaint, and, on July 11, 2018, following briefing and
argument, the court granted the motions and dismissed the Amended
Complaint in its entirety.

On July 30, 2018, Lead Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the
court's July 11, 2018 dismissal order to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and, on December 6, 2018, the
parties completed briefing on the appeal. On May 8, 2019, the
parties argued the appeal, and on August 30, 2019, the Fourth
Circuit vacated the dismissal order and remanded the case to the
Eastern District of Virginia for further proceedings consistent
with its decision.

On September 13, 2019, the defendants filed a petition for
rehearing by the Fourth Circuit en banc, which the Fourth Circuit
denied on September 27, 2019. On November 8, 2019, the defendants
filed renewed motions to dismiss in the Eastern District of
Virginia based upon certain arguments that were advanced in their
original motions to dismiss, but undecided by both the district
court and the Fourth Circuit.

On December 18, 2019, the parties completed briefing on the
defendants' renewed motions, and, on December 20, 2019, the court
heard argument on the motions.

On January 31, 2020, the court denied the motions.

Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an
advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human
Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan
design, and administrative services for traditional pension and
retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking, and
administration services for health and group benefit programs; and
benefits outsourcing services. The company is based in London,
England.


WINK LABS: Cohen Sues Over Abrupt Imposition of Monthly Payment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Cohen, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
WINK LABS, INC., and I.AM.PLUS Electronics Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-02809 (N.D. Ill., May 8, 2020), is brought against the
Defendants as a result of their decision to unilaterally and
abruptly impose monthly subscription fees to the devices they sold
to consumers.

Wink announced on May 6, 2020, that owners of Wink devices would be
required to pay $5 per month to keep using the devices they
purchased, and if those consumers failed to pay the newly imposed
$5 monthly fee, Wink would deactivate those devices.

As a result of this fraudulent bait-and-switch pricing scheme, the
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, violated the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse
Act, made both negligent and fraudulent misrepresentations,
trespassed on Cohen's chattels, and breached express and implied
warranties to consumers.

The Plaintiff purchased a Wink Hub 2 on January 7, 2017.

Wink produces and sells software and hardware that connects with
and controls smart home devices and home automation devices from a
consolidated user interface.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540
          Austin, TX 78701
          Phone: (512) 322-3912
          Email: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com


XP INC: IPO-Related Class Suits Underway in New York
----------------------------------------------------
XP Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2019, that the company has been named as a
defendant in three putative securities class action suits related
to its Initial Public Offering (IPO).

From March to April 2020, three putative securities class action
complaints were filed against, among others, the company, certain
of its officers and directors and its controlling shareholder XP
Controle, one of which was filed in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York and two of which were filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The complaints allege, among other things, that certain offering
documents filed with the SEC in connection with the company's
Initial Public Offering (IPO) misrepresented and/or omitted to
state certain material facts.

XP said, "We intend to defend ourselves vigorously."

XP Inc. is a Brazilian investment management company. The company
offers fixed income, equities, investment funds, and private
pension products, as well as offers wealth management and other
financial services. The company is based in Sao Paulo, Brazil.


[^] 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


                            *********

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 ***