/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200602.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, June 2, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 110

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Garcias Sue over Drinking Water Contamination
ADTALEM GLOBAL: Appeal Over Petrizzo Suit Dismissal Still Pending
ADTALEM GLOBAL: Brown Putative Class Suit Stayed
ADTALEM GLOBAL: Magana Putative Class Suit Stayed
ADTALEM GLOBAL: Robinson Class Suit Stayed

ADTALEM GLOBAL: Versetto Putative Class Suit Stayed
ADVANCED MICRO: $12MM Settlement in Dickey Suit Gets Final Approval
AIR FRANCE: Class Action Mulled Over Unpaid Flight Refunds
AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Appeal in Karth Class Suit Pending
AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Keryx Merger Suit Granted

ALAN MINOTA: Clark Seeks Minimum & OT Pay Under FLSA & Labor Code
ALL MAGAZINES: Metro Cardiovascular Files TCPA Suit in Illinois
ALLSTATE CORP: Appeal From Class Certification Order Pending
ANSON PLACE: Faces Class Action Over COVID-19 Outbreak
APC PASSE: Baker Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA and AMWA

ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER: Appeal in Artex Clients' Suit Still Pending
AUGUST AICHHORN: Hamilton et al. Sue over Abrupt Termination
AVANGRID INC: 1st Circuit Cancels Oral Argument
BAIDU INC: June 22 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
BIMBO BAKERIES: Burke Labor Suit Moved From N.D. to S.D. New York

BOK FINANCIAL: 10th Cir. Appeal in Overdraft Fees Suit Pending
BOK FINANCIAL: Class Suit Over Demand Deposit Pacts Dismissed
BOK FINANCIAL: Faces 401(k) Plan Related Suit
BOK FINANCIAL: New Jersey Class Action Stayed Until June 18
BROOK CONSULTANTS: Dobbs Files FLSA Suit in Oklahoma

BROOKDALE SENIOR: Pomerantz LLP Investigates Securities Claims
BURGOS RESTAURANT: Alvarez Seeks Minimum and OT Wages Under FLSA
CAPIO PARTNERS: Anderson Files Breach under FDCPA
CHINA: Berman Firm Launches $6 Trillion Coronavirus Class Action
CHINA: Husband and Wife Join Coronavirus Class Action

CHINA: More Than 10,000 Americans Join Class Action Over Pandemic
CHW GROUP: Faces McGill TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Telephone Calls
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss GoTo Services Spinoff Suit Pending
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Settlement Reached in Data Theft Suit
CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES: Jimenez Files Labor Suit in Oklahoma

CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Blasi Files Product Liability Suit in N.D.
DELTA AIR: Class Action to Push Through Despite Ticket Refunds
DIEBOLD NIXDORF: Continues to Defend NY Consolidated Class Suit
DOMINION ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Class Suit Denied
DOMINION ENERGY: SCANA Pays $160-Mil. to Escrow Account

DOMINION ENERGY: Settlement in Ratepayers' Suit Okayed
DOMINION ENERGY: Settlement Reached in RICO-Linked Suit
E-HOUSE HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Files Class Action Suit
EOG RESOURCES: Blasi Files Product Liability Suit in North Dakota
FARMER BOYS: Alcazar ADA Suit Moved from N.D. to C.D. California

FGL HOLDINGS: Faces Shareholder Class Action
FLORIDA: Faces Class Action Over Delayed Unemployment Benefits
FORD MOTOR CO: Wooten Suit Transferred to Michigan
FRESENIUS MEDICAL: Frani Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Somers Class Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania

GOLDEN STAR: Faces Class Action Threat in U.S.
HARRIS & HARRIS: Boykin Files Breach of FDCPA
HAWAIIAN AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Refund
HF FOODS: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action Suit
HP INC: Court Tosses Most of Claims in Printer Ink Class Action

INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Canez Class Suit Still Pending
INTELSAT SA: Rosen Announces Filing of Securities Class Action
JIMMY JOHN'S LLC: Martin Suit Moved to W.D. Missouri
JPMORGANCHASE: Two Cos. Sue Over Handling of PPP Applications
KANSAS CITY, KS: Faces Burdette Suit Over Civil Rights Violation

KARYOPHARM THERAPEUTICS: Securities Suits Over SOPRA Trial Ongoing
KENAN ADVANTAGE: Ballard Suit Moved from C.D. Calif. to N.D. Ohio
KIRKHAM SOLUTIONS: Underpays Field Technicians, Adamson et al Say
KRAKEN DEVELOPMENT: Blasi Files Suit in North Dakota
LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Bid to Dismiss Smith Class Suit Pending

LIME ROCK RESOURCES: Blasi Files Suit in North Dakota
LUMENTUM HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Karri Class Action Still Pending
LUNDY MANOR: $10MM Negligence Claim Filed as Part of Class Action
LUNDY MANOR: Class Action Mulled Over COVID-19 Deaths
MAINE: Republican Politician to Join Suit Over Gov. Exec Order

MASSACHUSETTS: Class Action Filed on Behalf of ICE Detainees
MDL 2445: Daubert Briefing Ongoing in Suboxone Antitrust Litig.
MDL 2492: Hestera Suit v. NCAA Over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2795: Court Denies Bid to Stay CenturyLink Securities Suit
MDL 2873: Stengel v. 3M Company Over AFFF Products, Consolidated

MDL 2924: Abraham v. Dr. Reddy's Over Ranitidine, Consolidated
MDL 2924: Carlo v. Strides Suit Over Ranitidine, Consolidated
MEET GROUP: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
MICROSOFT CORP: Sued Over Xbox Elite Controller Joystick Drift
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Bid to Dismiss Johnson Class Suit Pending

MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Del. Securities Class Suit Temporarily Stayed
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Shareholder Class Suit in Georgia Ongoing
NCH HEALTHCARE: Martinez Suit Moved to M.D. Florida
NEON THERAPEUTICS: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
NEW YORK: Syville Lawsuit Can't Proceed as Class Action

NMC HEALTH: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
NMC HEALTH: Six US Law Firms File Securities Fraud Class Action
NORTH AMERICAN: Phillips Asserts Breach of FDCPA in Florida
NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Coronavirus-Related Shutdown
NUNAVUT: Judge Set to Decide on Sexual Abuse Class Action

OPTUS: Faces Class Action Over Customer Data Breach
PARETEUM CORP: Baxley Suit Moved From N.D. Alabama to S.D.N.Y.
PENN STATE: Faces Lawsuit After Campus Closure Due to Pandemic
PENN UNIVERSITY: Student's Class Action Demand Tuition Refunds
PENNSYLVANIA: ACLU to Turn Immigration Case Into Class Action

PERRIGO CO: 3rd Cir. Won't Hear Class Certification Appeal
PERRIGO CO: Baton Class Suit in Tel Aviv Stayed Indefinitely
PERRIGO CO: Suits Alleging Drug Price-Fixing Underway
PHARMACIELO LTD: Faces Securities Class Action in California
PHOENIX TREE: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Trujillo Alleges Violation under FDCPA
PRIMOHOAGIES: Faces Class Action Over Payment Data Breach
QANTAS: Slater & Gordon Mulls Class Action Over Travel Vouchers
RADIUS GLOBAL: Palmer Alleges Violation under FDCPA
RING: Kelley Drye Attorneys Discuss CCPA Consumer Class Action

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Withouski Suit Transferred to N.D. Ca.
SAN DIEGO, CA: NLCHP's Class Action Over Ordinance Pending
SCENIC TOURS: High Court Allows Appeal in Class Action
SI-BONE INC: Settlement Executed in Fromer Class Suit
SOULBOUND STUDIOS: Wash. AG Responds to Chronicles of Elyria Suit

SPROUT FARMERS: Settlement Reached in Phishing Scam Suit
STATE AUTO: Dino Palmieri Salon Leads Class Action
SUNRUN INC: Kuhnast Balks at Illegal Telemarketing Conduct
SVM MGMT: Count III in Joiner Unlawful Penalties Suit Reinstated
TENNESSEE VALLEY: Bid to Dismiss Kingston Ash Spill Suit Pending

TERKELL LAW: Katz Files Breach of FDCPA in New York
TEXAS: Death Row Inmates Join Class Action Over COVID-19 Risk
THERANOS INC: Ninth Cir. Appeal Filed in BP Medical Battery Suit
TRANSUNION LLC: Womble Bond Discusses 9th Cir. FCRA Case Ruling
TREASURY WINE: Faces Another Class Action of Deceptive Conduct

TREASURY WINE: Needs Temporary Reprieve From Class Actions
TRIPLE J: Gray Suit Seeks Overtime Pay for Sod Layers Under FLSA
TUFIN SOFTWARE: June 5 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Faces Shareholder Class Action
TWITTER INC: Jury Trial Set for June 22 in Securities Suit

TWITTER INC: User Setting-Related Class Suit in California Ongoing
U.S. SPECIALTY: Egg Works Files Business Interruption Class Suit
UFC: Mark Hunt Supports Class Action
UNITED STATES: Lawsuit Filed on Behalf of Calhoun ICE Detainees
UNITED STATES: New Yorkers Class in Global Entry Case Certified

UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Class Suit Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Weiss Files Suit in Florida
UNUM GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Tenn. Securities Class Suit Pending
USC: Settlement in Health Center Suit Gets Final Nod
VISTRA ENERGY: Price-Fixing Suits Ongoing in Wisconsin and Kansas

VOCUS GROUP: Court Approves $35MM Class Action Settlement
WAGNER COLLEGE: Refuses COVID-19 Tuition Refunds, Student A Says
WALGREENS BOOTS: Files 9th Cir. Appeal in BP Medical Battery Suit
WAYFAIR INC: Bid to Dismiss Massachusetts Class Action Pending
WELLS FARGO: $20.8MM Settlement Reached in ATM Access Fee Suit

WELLS FARGO: Approval of GAP Case Settlement Under Appeal
WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action Over PPP Loan Applications
WELLS FARGO: Faces Suits Over Paycheck Protection Program
WELLS FARGO: Plaintiffs Ask 11th Cir. to Revive Class Suit
WELLS FARGO: Still Faces Lawsuits over Retail Sales Practices

WESTERN UNION: 10th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Smallen Class Suit
WESTERN UNION: Frazier Class Suit Still Stayed Pending Arbitration
WINGS OVER: Class in Wilson Suit Conditionally Certified Under FLSA
WIPRO: Former Employees File Discrimination Class Action
WOODBOLT DISTRIBUTION: Clausen Suit Transferred to Texas

ZOOM VIDEO: Hurvitz Suit Transferred from C.D. to N.D. California
ZUORA INC: Hagens Berman Relays Court Opinion in Securities Suit
[*] 25 Universities Face Lawsuits Over Tuition, Campus Fees
[*] Canadian Nursing Homes Face Lawsuits Over Covid-19 Handling
[*] Class Actions v. Marijuana and CBD Companies Doubled in 2019

[*] Restauranteur Sues Insurer Over Denied Claim
[*] Salon Owner Sues Insurer Over Business Interruption Insurance

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Garcias Sue over Drinking Water Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NORMA GARCIA and PATRICK GARCIA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly-situated v. 3M COMPANY, f/k/a
MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING CO.; AGC, INC., f/k/a ASAHI
GLASS CO. LTD.; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION;
ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ANGUS INTERNATIONAL SAFETY GROUP,
LTD.; ARKEMA FRANCE, S.A.; ARKEMA INC.; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; BASF
CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba
Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.;
CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT
CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Sandoz
Chemical Corporation; CORTEVA, INC., individually and as successor
in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.;
DAIKIN INDUSTRIES LTD.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE
NEMOURS INC., individually and as successor in interest to DuPont
Chemical Solutions; DYNAX CORPORATION; DYNEON, LLC; E. I. DUPONT DE
NEMOURS AND COMPANY, individually and as successor in interest to
DuPont Chemical Solutions; FIRE SERVICES PLUS, INC.; KIDDE, P.L.C.;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., individually and as successor in interest to
Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc.; NARCHEM CORPORATION; NATION FORD
CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; SOLVAY SPECIALTY POLYMERS, USA, LLC; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY, individually and as successor in interest to DuPont
Chemical Solutions; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, individually and
as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions; THE ELE
CORPORATION; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01882-RMG (D.S.C., May 15, 2020), the
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants continue to manufacture and
sold aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) products containing per- and
poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) despite known health and
environmental risks.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent similarly-situated current and
former residents of Meade and Pennington Counties in South Dakota.

According to the lawsuit, the Defendants' AFFF products were
discharged into the environment at Ellsworth Air Force Base (EAFB)
located in Meade and Pennington Counties during fire protection,
training, and response activities, resulting in widespread PFAS
contamination. As part of firefighting training exercises, EAFB,
like many other U.S. military bases, has used AFFF and other
materials containing perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and/or their chemical precursors
since 1970. These firefighting agents were released during
training, equipment maintenance, and use. In 2018, the Air Force
Civil Engineer Center recently tested for the presence of PFOS and
PFOA in private drinking wells near the base. Sampling results
indicated that nine drinking water wells are above the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) health advisory levels for
PFOS and PFOA. All affected property owners and/or residents were
notified by Air Force personnel, and alternative drinking water is
being provided for those affected.

As a result of the Defendants' production and distribution of AFFF
products containing PFAS, the Plaintiffs and Class members were
exposed to drinking water contaminated with PFOA and/or PFOS, had
their properties and soil contaminated with PFOA and/or PFOS,
and/or suffered bioaccumulation of PFOA and/or PFOS in their
bodies.

3M Company, formerly known as Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Co., is a designer, manufacturer and distributor of aqueous
film-forming foam (AFFF) containing per- and poly-fluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS), with its principal place of business located at
3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.

AGC, Inc., formerly known as Asahi Glass Co. Ltd., a Japanese
global glass manufacturing company, with its a principal place of
business in Tokyo, Japan.

AGC Chemicals Americas, Inc. is a specialty chemicals manufacturer,
with its principal place of business at 55 East Uwchlan Avenue,
Suite 201, Exton, Pennsylvania.

Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products, with
its principal place of business located at 7595 Gadsden Highway,
Trussville, Alabama.

Angus Fire Armour Corporation is a manufacturer of fire protection
products, with its principal place of business at 141 Junny Road,
Angier, North Carolina.

Angus International Safety Group, Ltd. is a foreign private limited
company that develops innovative products and technological
engineered solutions, with offices at Station Road, High Bentham,
Near Lancanster, United Kingdom.

Arkema France S.A. is a publicly-traded foreign corporation that
develops specialty chemicals, with its principal place of business
in Colombes, France.

Arkema Inc. is a specialty chemicals manufacturer, with its
principal place of business at 900 First Avenue, King of Prussia,
Pennsylvania.

Archroma U.S., Inc. is a specialty chemicals manufacturer, with its
a principal place of business at 543577 Center Drive., Ste. 10,
Charlotte, North Carolina.

BASF Corporation is a specialty chemicals manufacturer, with its
principal place of business located at 100 Park Avenue, Florham
Park, New Jersey.

Buckeye Fire Equipment Company is a manufacturer of AFFF products
containing PFAS, with its principal place of business located at
110 Kings Road, Kings Mountain, North Carolina.

Chemdesign Products Inc. is a specialty chemicals manufacturer,
with its principal place of business located at 2 Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemguard Inc. is a manufacturer of AFFF products containing PFAS,
with its principal place of business located at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemicals, Inc. is a specialty chemicals manufacturer, with its
principal place of business located at 12321 Hatcherville, Baytown,
Texas.

Chubb Fire Ltd. is a fire and security business, with offices at
Littleton Road, Ashford, Middlesex, United Kingdom.

Clariant Corporation is a specialty chemicals manufacturer, with
its principal place of business at 4000 Monroe Road, Charlotte,
North Carolina.

Corteva, Inc. is an agricultural chemical and seed company, with
its principal place of business at 974 Centre Rd., Wilmington,
Delaware.

Daikin America, Inc. is a developer and manufacturer of
fluorochemical products, having its principal place of business at
20 Olympic Drive, Orangeburg, New York.

Daikin Industries Ltd. is a developer and manufacturer of
fluorochemical products, having its principal place of business in
Osaka, Japan.

Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a manufacturer of fluorosurfactants,
with its principal place of business located at 196122 E County
Road 40, Woodward, Oklahoma.

Dupont De Nemours Inc., formerly known as DowDuPont, Inc., is a
specialty chemicals company, with its principal place of business
at 974 Centre Road, Wilmington, Delaware 19805 and 2211 H.H. Dow
Way, Midland, Michigan.

Dynax Corporation is a producer of fluorosurfactants and
fluorochemical stabilizers, with its principal place of business
located at 103 Fairview Park Drive, Elmsford, New York.

Dyneon, LLC is a producer of fluorosurfactants, with its principal
place of business at 6744 33rd Street N, Oakdale, Minnesota.

E. I. Dupont De Nemours and Company is a specialty chemicals
producer, with its principal place of business located at 974
Centre Road, Wilmington, Delaware.

Fire Services Plus, Inc. is a manufacturer of AFFF products, with
its principal place of business located at 180 Etowah Trace,
Fayetteville, Georgia.

Kidde, P.L.C. is a manufacturer of fire safety products, with its
principal place of business at One Carrier Place, Farmington,
Connecticut.

Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products, with
its principal place of business at One Financial Plaza, Hartford,
Connecticut.

Narchem Corporation is a specialty chemicals company, with its
principal place of business located at 2519 Pan AM Blvd, Elk Grove
Village, Illinois.

Nation Ford Chemical Company is a specialty chemicals manufacturer,
with its principal place of business located at 2300 Banks Street,
Fort Mill, South Carolina.

National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of AFFF products, with its
principal place of business located at 141 Junny Road, Angier,
North Carolina.

Raytheon Technologies Corporation is an aerospace and defense
company, with its principal place of business at 10 Farm Springs
Road, Farmington, Connecticut.

Solvay Specialty Polymers, USA, LLC is a specialty chemicals
producer, having a principal place of business at 4500 McGinnis
Ferry Road, Alpharetta, Georgia.

The Chemours Company is a specialty chemicals company, with its
principal place of business located at 1007 Market Street, P.O. Box
2047, Wilmington, Delaware.

The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a specialty chemicals company, with
its principal place of business located at 1007 Market Street,
Wilmington, Delaware.

The Ele Corporation is a specialty chemicals company, with its
principal place of business located at 7847 West 47th Street,
McCook, Illinois.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc. is a producer
security and fire control systems, with its principal place of
business at 3211 Progress Drive, Lincolnton, North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
          
         Paul J. Napoli, Esq.
         Andrew W. Croner, Esq.
         Patrick J. Lanciotti, Esq.
         NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
         360 Lexington Avenue, 11th
         New York, NY 10017
         Telephone: (212) 397-1000
         E-mail: pnapoli@napolilaw.com
                 acroner@napolilaw.com
                 planciotti@napolilaw.com

ADTALEM GLOBAL: Appeal Over Petrizzo Suit Dismissal Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adtalem Global Education Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the appeal from the
order dismissing the consolidated Petrizzo class action suit is
still pending.

On October 14, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Debbie Petrizzo and five other former DeVry University students,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against
Adtalem, DeVry University, Inc., and DeVry/New York Inc.
(collectively the "Adtalem Parties") in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the Petrizzo Case").

The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons
consisting of those who enrolled in and/or attended classes at
DeVry University during and after 2002 and who were unable to find
employment within their chosen field of study within six months of
graduation.

Citing the civil complaint filed by the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) on January 26, 2016 against the Adtalem Parties (the "FTC
lawsuit"), the plaintiffs claimed that defendants made false or
misleading statements regarding DeVry University's graduate
employment rate and asserted claims for unjust enrichment and
violations of six different states' consumer fraud, unlawful trade
practices, and consumer protection laws.

The plaintiffs seek monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other
unspecified relief.

On October 28, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Jairo Jara and eleven others, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, against the Adtalem Parties in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the
"Jara Case").

The individual plaintiffs claimed to have graduated from DeVry
University in 2001 or later and sought to proceed on behalf of a
putative class of persons consisting of those who obtained a degree
from DeVry University and who were unable to find employment within
their chosen field of study within six months of graduation.

Citing the FTC lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed that defendants made
false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University's
graduate employment rate and asserted claims for unjust enrichment
and violations of ten different states' consumer fraud, unlawful
trade practices, and consumer protection laws.

The plaintiffs sought monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other
unspecified relief.

By order dated November 28, 2016, the district court ordered the
Petrizzo Case and the Jara Case be consolidated under the Petrizzo
caption for all further purposes.

On December 5, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint on behalf of 38 individual plaintiffs and others
similarly situated. The amended consolidated complaint sought to
bring claims on behalf of the named individuals and a putative
nationwide class of individuals for unjust enrichment and alleged
violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices
Act and the Illinois Private Businesses and Vocational Schools Act
of 2012.

In addition, it purported to assert causes of action on behalf of
certain of the named individuals and 15 individual state-specific
putative classes for alleged violations of 15 different states'
consumer fraud, unlawful trade practices, and consumer protection
laws. Finally, it sought to bring individual claims under Georgia
state law on behalf of certain named plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs sought monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other
unspecified relief.

A motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed by the Adtalem
Parties and granted by the court, without prejudice, on February
12, 2018.

On April 12, 2018, the Petrizzo plaintiffs refiled their complaint
with a new lead plaintiff, Renee Heather Polly. The plaintiffs’
refiled complaint is nearly identical to the complaint previously
dismissed by the court on February 12, 2018.

The Adtalem Parties moved to dismiss this refiled complaint on May
14, 2018. The court granted defendants' motion and dismissed the
amended complaint with prejudice on February 13, 2019.

On March 15, 2019, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and this
matter is currently pending on appeal before the Seventh Circuit.

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

Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and
Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business.
Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in
Chicago, Illinois.

ADTALEM GLOBAL: Brown Putative Class Suit Stayed
------------------------------------------------
Adtalem Global Education Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the putative class
action suit initiated by Robby Brown, has been stayed.

On March 29, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Robby Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, against Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc., in the
Western District of Missouri.

The complaint was filed on behalf of himself and two separate
classes of similarly situated individuals who were citizens of the
State of Missouri and who purchased or paid for and received any
part of a DeVry University program.

The plaintiffs claim that defendants made false or misleading
statements regarding DeVry University's graduate employment rate
and assert claims of breach of contract, negligent
misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent
concealment, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust
enrichment, and declaratory relief.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory, exemplary, punitive, treble, and
statutory penalties and damages as allowed by law, including
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest disgorgement, restitution,
injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 31, 2019.
On October 9, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part
the motion to dismiss. The court dismissed plaintiffs' claims for
unjust enrichment and conversion, allowing the remaining claims to
proceed.

On October 29, 2019, defendants filed an answer to the complaint.

This matter is currently stayed.

Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and
Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business.
Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in
Chicago, Illinois.


ADTALEM GLOBAL: Magana Putative Class Suit Stayed
-------------------------------------------------
Adtalem Global Education Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the putative class
action suit initiated by Magana has been stayed.

On August 13, 2019, a plaintiff, Magana, filed a putative class
action lawsuit against Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc. in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California, alleging damages based on allegedly deceptive
statements made about the benefits of obtaining a DeVry University
degree.

Plaintiffs assert claims under the California Unfair Competition
Law, California False Advertising Law, and claims of fraud/material
misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment/intentional omission of
material facts, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract,
breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and
declaratory relief.

This matter is currently stayed.

Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and
Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business.
Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in
Chicago, Illinois.


ADTALEM GLOBAL: Robinson Class Suit Stayed
------------------------------------------
Adtalem Global Education Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the class action suit
initiated by T'Lani Robinson has been stayed.

On April 3, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
T'Lani Robinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, against Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc., in the
Northern District of Georgia.

The complaint was filed on behalf of herself and three separate
classes of similarly situated individuals who were citizens of the
State of Georgia who purchased or paid for and received any part of
a DeVry University program.

The plaintiffs claim that defendants made false or misleading
statements regarding DeVry University's graduate employment rate
and assert claims of breach of contract, negligent
misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent
concealment, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust
enrichment, and declaratory relief.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory, exemplary, punitive, treble, and
statutory penalties and damages as allowed by law, including
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest disgorgement, restitution,
injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 31, 2019.
On November, 25, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the claims for
breach of fiduciary duty and conversion with prejudice.

The court dismissed the claims for negligent misrepresentation,
fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and unjust
enrichment without prejudice, ordering plaintiffs' to file an
amended class-action complaint within fourteen days of the order.
The court allowed the claims for breach of contract and declaratory
relief to proceed.

On December 9, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended class-action
complaint. On December 23, 2019, defendants filed their answer to
the amended class action complaint. The matter is currently
stayed.

Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and
Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business.
Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in
Chicago, Illinois.


ADTALEM GLOBAL: Versetto Putative Class Suit Stayed
---------------------------------------------------
Adtalem Global Education Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the putative class
action suit initiated by Nicole Versetto remains stayed.

On April 13, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Nicole Versetto, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, against the Adtalem Parties in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, Chancery Division.

The complaint was filed on behalf of herself and three separate
classes of similarly situated individuals who were citizens of the
State of Illinois and who purchased or paid for a DeVry University
program between January 1, 2008 and April 8, 2016.

The plaintiff claims that defendants made false or misleading
statements regarding DeVry University's graduate employment rate
and asserts causes of action under the Illinois Uniform Deceptive
Trade Practices Act, Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, and Illinois Private Business and Vocational Schools
Act, and claims of breach of contract, fraudulent
misrepresentation, concealment, negligence, breach of fiduciary
duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief as to
violations of state law.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory, exemplary, punitive, treble, and
statutory penalties and damages, including pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, in addition to restitution, declaratory and
injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.

The Adtalem Parties moved to dismiss this complaint on June 20,
2018. On March 11, 2019, the court granted plaintiff's motion for
leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint that same day, asserting similar claims, with new lead
plaintiff, Dave McCormick.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint
on April 15, 2019 and the court granted Defendants' motion on July
29, 2019, with leave to amend. The plaintiff has filed an amended
complaint on August 26, 2019.

On October 18, 2019, defendants' moved to dismiss this complaint as
it is substantially similar to the one the court previously
dismissed.

No hearing on the motion to dismiss is currently scheduled. A
status hearing is scheduled for June 8, 2020. This matter is
currently stayed.

Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and
Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business.
Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in
Chicago, Illinois.


ADVANCED MICRO: $12MM Settlement in Dickey Suit Gets Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TONY DICKEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ADVANCED MICRO
DEVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-04922-HSG (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California has entered final approval of the
proposed class settlement.

Plaintiffs Tony Dickey and Paul Parmer commenced the consumer class
action against Defendant Advanced Micro Devices ("AMD"), alleging
that the Defendant engaged in deceptive practices when it
purportedly misrepresented the number of central processing units
("CPUs") in its "Bulldozer Processors."  According to the
Plaintiffs, AMD consistently advertised the Bulldozer Processors as
having eight cores to outmatch its competitors.  However, the
Bulldozer Processors allegedly did not have eight cores, because
the "cores" were actually sub-processors that could not operate and
simultaneously multitask as "actual cores."  The Plaintiffs contend
that had they known the CPUs did not have eight-core capabilities,
they would not have purchased the processors.

The Second Amended Complaint (SAC) asserts six causes of action:
(1) California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act; (2) California's
Unfair Competition Law; (3) California's False Advertising Law; (4)
fraud in the inducement; (5) breach of express warranties; and (6)
negligent misrepresentation.

In the first quarter of 2018, the Court granted class certification
on: All individuals who purchased one or more of the following AMD
computer chips either (1) while residing in California or (2) after
visiting the AMD.com website: FX-8120, FX-8150, FX-8320, FX-8350,
FX-8370, FX-9370, and FX-9590.

Named Plaintiffs Dickey and Parmer were appointed to represent the
class and their attorneys Edelson PC was named class counsel.

The parties participated in a mediation session before the Hon.
James F. Holderman (Ret.) of JAMS in May 2019, and were able to
reach an agreement in principle to settle the case on a class-wide
basis, and agreed to stay any pretrial and trial deadlines.  The
parties got preliminary approval of their class action settlement
on Oct. 4, 2019.

The key terms of the Class Settlement are:

  a. The Settlement Class is defined as: All Persons who purchased
     one or more of the following AMD computer chips either (1)
     while residing in California or (2) after visiting the
     AMD.com website: FX-8120, FX-8150, FX-8320, FX-8350, FX-8370,
     FX-9370, and FX-9590.

  b. Settlement Benefits: The Defendant will make a $12.1 million
     non-reversionary payment.  Individual settlement payments are

     estimated to average approximately $30.40 per purchased
     processor.  All payments issued tothe Class Members via check

     will state on the face of the check that it will expire and
     become null and void unless cashed within 90 days after the
     date of issuance.  Funds remaining from any uncashed checks
     provided during the initial distribution may be used for a
     second distribution to the participating class members on a
     pro rata basis, and/or may be directed to the appropriate cy
     pres recipient.

  c. Cy Pres Distribution: To the extent that a Second
     Distribution is made and any Second Distribution checks
     remain uncashed after 90 days, such funds will be directed to

     the cy pres recipient, the Rose Foundation.  The Parties
     agree that any fees will be paid exclusively from the
     Settlement Fund.

  d. Class Notice: A third-party settlement administrator will
     send class notices via U.S. mail and/or email based on
     information provided by certain third-party resellers of the
     AMD processors at issue.  The settlement administrator will
     also implement a digital media campaign targeting
     approximately 6,713,000 potential purchasers.

  e. Opt-Out Procedure: The deadline for a class member to submit
     a request for exclusion is 45 days after the Notice Date and
     no sooner than 14 days after papers supporting a fee award
     are filed with the Court and posted to the settlement
     website.

  f. Incentive Award: The Named Plaintiffs applied for incentive
     awards of no more than $7,500 for each Named Plaintiff.

  g. Attorneys' Fees and Costs: The Class Counsel has filed an
     application for attorneys' fees not to exceed 25% of the
     settlement fund, in the amount of $3,025,000, as well as
     costs in the amount of $47,517.37.

Upon deliberation, the Court approved the settlement amount of
$12.1 million, including payment in the amount of $18,750 to the
Labor Workforce Development Agency under the PAGA; settlement
administrator costs in the amount of $10,000; attorneys' fees in
the amount of $3,025,000; costs in the amount of $47,517.37; an
incentive fee for the Named Plaintiffs in the amount of $5,000
each; and reimbursement of litigation costs to Plaintiff Dickey in
the amount of $2,482.85 for computer damage.

The Court's decision are memorialized in a Feb. 21, 2020 Order
available at https://is.gd/LDfMnp from Leagle.com.

In a subsequent Feb. 28, 2020 Stipulated Final Order and Judgment
available at https://is.gd/jHTYXI from Leagle.com, the Court noted
that six individuals have requested exclusion from the Settlement
Class and the settlement of the matter -- Jonathan Barrett, Justin
Brubaker, Adriel Douglass, Christopher Galliart, Virginia A.
Macgowan, Matthew B. Nelson.  Accordingly, the Final Order and
Judgment will not bind or affect those individuals.

The Court also approved the sum of $668,031.57 to be paid to
Angeion, the Settlement Administrator, for notice and
administrative costs to be paid from the Settlement Fund.

Tony Dickey & Paul Parmer, Plaintiffs, represented by Lily E. Hough
-- lhough@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Benjamin Scott Thomassen --
bthomassen@edelson.com -- Edelson P.C., Brandt Silver-Korn --
bsilverkorn@edelson.com -- Gregory Scott Dovel -- greg@dovel.com --
Dovel and Luner, Rafey Sarkis Balabanian -- rbalabanian@edelson.com
-- Edelson PC, Simon Carlo Franzini -- simon@dovel.com -- Dovel and
Luner & Todd M. Logan -- tlogan@edelson.com -- Edelson PC.

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew
David Powers -- mpowers@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Edmundo
Clay Marquez -- cmarquez@omm.com -- O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP & Kelsey
M. Larson -- klarson@omm.com -- O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP.


AIR FRANCE: Class Action Mulled Over Unpaid Flight Refunds
----------------------------------------------------------
Oliver Whitfield Miocic, writing for euronews, reports that a
British legal firm currently leading a class-action lawsuit against
British Airways over its 2018 data breach is now threatening legal
action against Air France, KLM and Ryanair over their refusal to
refund customers whose flights have been cancelled due to the
COVID-19 pandemic.

Lawyers from the legal firm SPG Law told Euronews that it was
"monitoring the situation very carefully" and invited disgruntled
customers to get in touch about a class action case.

KLM, Ryanair and Air France have all refused to refund customers
within seven days of flights being cancelled, as required by EU
law.

Air France and KLM are pushing grounded travellers to accept flight
vouchers which are only refundable a year after the date of issue.

Ryanair originally offered to reimburse fliers within 20 working
days but now says any requests will be placed in a "queue until the
Covid-19 emergency has passed."

SPG Law said it would decide on whether to proceed with the
lawsuits over the coming days and did not rule out targeting other
airlines.

The so-called 'no win, no fee' firm is representing 8,000 claimants
in a case against BA for a breach that saw the details of as many
as 500,000 customers stolen by hackers.

Senior Associate Chris Neill said lawyers would demand that
airlines refund customers as well as fight for punitive damages
which he estimates could be worth up to €1,150 per person.

Damages come at a cost
Neill says potential clients will get 100% of refunds returned but
that SPG Law would need to take 50% of any damages awarded to make
the case economically viable.

It is believed the firm would base its legal arguments around "the
distress and inconvenience" suffered by customers as well as "poor
conduct" by the airlines.

If the litigation goes ahead it would initially be for UK residents
but could be expanded for international customers.

Air France and Ryanair were asked for an official comment but none
of the airlines responded by the time of publication. In an emailed
statement, KLM said: "We do not wish to comment on a potential
lawsuit at this time."

Customers vent their anger
Euronews has spoken to frustrated KLM customers who have been
fruitlessly trying to get their money back.

Asmik Sardaryan who lives in Vancouver had been due to fly to
Moscow via Amsterdam with her husband and two children.

She said: "We paid about 2,600 euros and it is absolutely
frustrating and devastating because it is really not easy to save
that amount of money for transatlantic trips."

"We really feel very frustrated with the fact that the company
doesn't respect the legislation in terms of the cash refunds for
flights that are cancelled." [GN]


AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Appeal in Karth Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the appeal in the class
action suit entitled, Karth v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al., is pending.

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

Plaintiff sought to represent all stockholders who purchased shares
of Keryx common stock between May 8, 2013 and August 1, 2016.

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

By order dated July 19, 2018, the Massachusetts District Court
granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint.

On February 27, 2019, defendants filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings. On April 30, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to further
amend his complaint, and also moved for class certification.

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

On September 23, 2019, the Massachusetts District Court issued a
Memorandum and Order denying plaintiff's motion for class
certification, granting defendants' motion for judgment on the
pleadings, and denying plaintiff's motion for leave to further
amend his Complaint.  

That same day, the Massachusetts District Court entered a final
judgment in favor of defendants on all claims.  

On September 24, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, which is
currently pending.

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


AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Keryx Merger Suit Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the Delaware District
Court has granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the class
action suit entitled, In re Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., in its
entirety.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Delaware District Court also appointed Kiswani and plaintiff
Andreula as lead plaintiffs for the Consolidated Action.

On June 3, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint in the Consolidated Action, or the Consolidated
Complaint. The Consolidated Complaint generally alleged that the
registration statement filed in connection with the Merger
contained allegedly false and misleading statements or failed to
disclose certain allegedly material information in violation of
Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, or the Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder.

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

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

The defendants in the Consolidated Action moved to dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint in its entirety and with prejudice on August
2, 2019.

On April 15, 2020, the Delaware District Court granted the
defendants' motion and dismissed the Consolidated Action in its
entirety.

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


ALAN MINOTA: Clark Seeks Minimum & OT Pay Under FLSA & Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHANTELLE CLARK, an individual v. ALAN KIYOSHI MINOTA, an
individual; DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-04383 (C.D.
Cal., May 14, 2020), is brought under the California Labor Code and
Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of the Plaintiff and others
similarly situated arising from the Defendants' failure to pay
minimum and overtime wages, unlawful taking of tips and illegal
kickbacks.

The Plaintiff is an individual adult resident of the State of
California. She was employed by the Defendants and qualifies as an
"employee" of the Defendants.

Defendant Minota was/is a main manager, who executed the policies
regarding payment to dancers/entertainers and management of
dancers/entertainers, including the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALL MAGAZINES: Metro Cardiovascular Files TCPA Suit in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against All Magazines
Subscription Agency, Inc. The case is styled as Metro
Cardiovascular Consultants, LTD., individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. All Magazines
Subscription Agency, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03123 (N.D.
Ill., May 27, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) filed pursuant to the Restrictions
of Use of Telephone Equipment.

All Magazines Subscription Agency, Inc. provides magazines to all
types of businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph Scott Davidson, Esq.
   Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
   2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
   Lombard, IL 60148
   Tel: (630) 575-8181 x116
   Email: jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com

     - and -

   Victor Thomas Metroff, Esq.
   Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
   2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
   Lombard, IL 60148
   Tel: (630) 575-8181
   Email: vmetroff@sulaimanlaw.com

     - and -

   Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
   Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
   2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
   Lombard, IL 60148
   Tel: (630) 575-8181
   Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com



ALLSTATE CORP: Appeal From Class Certification Order Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the appeal of the
defendants in the case styled, In re The Allstate Corp. Securities
Litigation, regarding a lower court's ruling granting plaintiffs'
motion for class certification remains pending in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

In re The Allstate Corp. Securities Litigation is a certified class
action filed on November 11, 2016 in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company and
two of its officers asserting claims under the federal securities
laws. Plaintiffs allege that they purchased Allstate common stock
during the class period and suffered damages as the result of the
conduct alleged.

Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages, costs, attorney's
fees, and other relief as the court deems appropriate.

Plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain senior officers made
allegedly material misstatements or omissions concerning claim
frequency statistics and the reasons for a claim frequency increase
for Allstate brand auto insurance between October 2014 and August
3, 2015.

Plaintiffs' further allege that a senior officer engaged in stock
option exercises during that time allegedly while in possession of
material nonpublic information about Allstate brand auto insurance
claim frequency. The Company, its chairman, president and chief
executive officer, and its former president are the named
defendants.

After the court denied their motion to dismiss on February 27,
2018, defendants answered the complaint, denying plaintiffs'
allegations that there was any misstatement or omission or other
misconduct. On June 22, 2018, plaintiffs filed their motion for
class certification, which was fully briefed as of January 11,
2019. On September 12, 2018, the court allowed the lead plaintiffs
to amend their complaint to add the City of Providence Employee
Retirement System as a proposed class representative.

The amended complaint was filed the same day. On March 26, 2019,
the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
certified a class consisting of all persons who purchased Allstate
common stock between October 29, 2014 and August 3, 2015.

On April 9, 2019, defendants filed with the Seventh Circuit Court
of Appeals a petition for permission to appeal this ruling pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (f) and the Court of Appeals
granted that petition on April 25, 2019.

The appeal was fully briefed as of July 31, 2019, and the Seven
Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on September 18,
2019.

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

The Allstate Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides
property and casualty, and other insurance products in the United
States and Canada. The company operates through Allstate
Protection, Service Businesses, Allstate Life, and Allstate
Benefits segments. The Allstate Corporation was founded in 1931 and
is headquartered in Northbrook, Illinois.


ANSON PLACE: Faces Class Action Over COVID-19 Outbreak
------------------------------------------------------
Sam Pazzano, writing for Toronto Sun, reports that a Toronto lawyer
representing a son who lost his mother to COVID-19 at a
Hamilton-area nursing home hopes her proposed class-action lawsuit
"holds companies accountable."

"Our No. 1 priority is to hold companies accountable, as usually
large amounts of money are not rewarded, but we hope everyone will
join (the class action suit) to have a meaningful impact and bring
about permanent change for the better," said medical malpractice
specialist Pinta Maguire, who filed the lawsuit on April 24.

The 15-year lawyer represents Mike McCarroll, who is the
representative plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit against Anson
Place Care Centre in Hagersville, a private for-profit retirement
and long-term care facility.

Mike McCarroll, the only child of Ruby McCarroll who lived at Anson
Place, is grieving the loss of his 95-year-old mother, who died of
COVID-19 on March 30.

Three days earlier, a nurse told Mike McCarroll -- who was visiting
his mom after being informed earlier that she was gravely ill --
that his mom had tested positive for COVID-19.

The nurse also informed him that another Anson Place resident had
died earlier of COVID-19.

The lawsuit -- which has not yet been tested in court -- asserts
that "to date, 27 of 101 total residents living in Anson Place have
passed away from COVID-19 related complications, representing over
25% of Anson Place's total population.

"This was the first time Michael was informed of a COVID-19
outbreak at Anson Place, let alone that his mother had COVID-19, or
had been tested for it," the lawsuit alleged.

"Ruby passed away from COVID-19 related complications on March 30,
2020. She died alone without Michael or any family by her side."

The lawsuit alleges "the defendants failed to protect the residents
living in their homes through their inadequate general planning and
preparation for a viral respiratory outbreak.

"In the months after COVID-19 emerged on the world stage and before
any outbreaks in Ontario, the defendants again failed to protect
the residents in their homes by not putting in place adequate
measures to prepare for and respond to the COVID-19 virus," the
lawsuit alleges.

"After the COVID-19 virus took root in Canada, the defendants again
failed to protect the residents living in their homes by repeatedly
failing to follow the leadership of public health officials and
comply with public health guidance and directives regarding: (1)
outbreak planning; (2) supply, use, and access to personal
protective equipment.

"As a result of the defendants' failure to adequately and properly
plan, prepare and respond to the COVID-19 virus, the virus has run
rampant through many of their homes," the lawsuit adds.

Maguire said in an interview that "COVID-19 has exposed private
companies for profit."

"They are trusted with the care of the most vulnerable members of
our society, our grandparents and our parents. Once this started,
it should have been extinguished immediately," she said.

Maguire has litigated many cases against institutions involving the
"loss of loved ones by hospitals and plastic surgeon clinics."

The defendants have been served with the lawsuit notice but their
lawyers haven't yet filed a notice of defence.

"Mike McCarroll is obviously grieving but due to COVID-19
restrictions, he cannot gather with the people who support you in
his loss," Maguire noted. [GN]


APC PASSE: Baker Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA and AMWA
--------------------------------------------------------------
CECILIA BAKER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. APC PASSE, LLC, ARKANSAS PROVIDER COALITION, LLC, and
ANTHEM PARTNERSHIP HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-00508-KGB
(E.D. Ark., March 13, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and a reasonable
attorney's fee and costs as a result of the Defendants' failure to
pay lawful overtime compensation under the FLSA and the AMWA.

The Defendants own and operate a healthcare management company. The
Defendants have unified operational control and management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER: Appeal in Artex Clients' Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the appeal in the class
action suit by the micro-captive clients of Artex Risk Solutions,
Inc. or Tribeca Strategic Advisors, is still pending.

On December 7, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
company, its subsidiary Artex Risk Solutions, Inc. (Artex) and
other defendants including Tribeca, in the United States District
Court for the District of Arizona.  

The named plaintiffs are micro-captive clients of Artex or Tribeca
and their related entities and owners who had IRC Section 831(b)
tax benefits disallowed by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

The complaint attempts to state various causes of action and
alleges that the defendants defrauded the plaintiffs by marketing
and managing micro-captives with the knowledge that the captives
did not constitute bona fide insurance and thus would not qualify
for tax benefits.

The named plaintiffs are seeking to certify a class of all persons
who were assessed back taxes, penalties or interest by the IRS as a
result of their ownership of or involvement in an IRS Section
831(b) micro-captive formed or managed by Artex or Tribeca during
the time period January 1, 2005 to the present.  

The complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought by the
named plaintiffs or the putative class.

On August 5, 2019, the trial court granted the defendants' motion
to compel arbitration and dismissed the class action lawsuit.
Plaintiffs are appealing this ruling to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  

Arthur J. Gallagher said, "We will continue to defend against the
lawsuit vigorously.  Litigation is inherently uncertain, however,
and it is not possible for us to predict the ultimate outcome of
this matter and the financial impact to us, nor are we able to
reasonably estimate the amount of any potential loss in connection
with this lawsuit."

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

Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., together with its subsidiaries, provides
insurance brokerage, consulting, and third party claims settlement
and administration services to entities in the United States and
internationally. The company offers its services through a network
of correspondent insurance brokers and consultants. Arthur J.
Gallagher & Co. was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in Rolling
Meadows, Illinois.


AUGUST AICHHORN: Hamilton et al. Sue over Abrupt Termination
------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA HAMILTON, ALIANDRI BAUTISTA, WALTER MOORE, BRENDA CORDERO,
DEVON FERNANDEZ, IRENE GOSHAY, TALEIDA GAMBLE, DESIREE WRIGHT,
PHILLIP JAMES, SHONYTA ALSTON, SHAASIA HAYES, PATRICK JOHNSON,
JACQUELINE GRAVES, ANGEL RIVERA, SARAH CARTER, SHALIVIA COPPEDGE,
MIGUEL BAEZ, LOLETTA ROBERTSON, LORICE BATTISTE, TASHEEN BRENT,
GRISEL APONTE, MICHAEL BRITT, KYANA WILLIAMS, DERECK LOWERY, and
ANITA PETERSON, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, -against- THE AUGUST AICHHORN CENTER FOR
ADOLESCENT RESIDENTIAL CARE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-04040 (S.D.N.Y., May 26, 2020) alleges that Defendant
neither provided 60 days advance written notice of their
terminations, as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act ("WARN Act"), nor 90 days advance written notice
of their terminations, as required by the New York State Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("NY WARN Act"), New
York Labor Law.

Plaintiffs respectfully seek to recover, on behalf of themselves
and the Class Members they seek to represent, their wages and
benefits, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to
the WARN Act and the NY WARN Act.

For many years, Plaintiffs and the Class Members were employed by
Defendant in various positions in Defendant's residential service
programs.

The August Aichhorn Center for Adolescent Residential Care, Inc. is
a New York not-for-profit corporation, which at all times relevant
hereto operated two residential service programs in New York City,
as well as a school, to provide treatment and long-term care to
teenagers who need psychiatric care and/or treatment.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Harrison, Esq.
          Julie Salwen, Esq.
          HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES
          110 State Highway 35, Suite 10
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Telephone: (718) 799-9111  
          Facsimile: (718) 799-9171
          Email: dharrison@nynjemploymentlaw.com
                 jsalwen@nynjemploymentlaw.com

AVANGRID INC: 1st Circuit Cancels Oral Argument
-----------------------------------------------
Avangrid, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit canceled oral arguments on an appeal
and ordered the PNE Energy Supply LLC v. Eversource Energy and
Avangrid, Inc. case to be decided on the briefs without oral
argument.

On August 10, 2018, PNE Energy Supply LLC, a competitive energy
supplier located in New England that purchases electricity in the
day-ahead and real time wholesale electric market, filed a civil
antitrust action, on behalf of itself and those similarly situated,
against the Company and Eversource alleging that their respective
gas subsidiaries illegally manipulated the supply of pipeline
capacity in the "secondary capacity market" in order to
artificially inflate New England natural gas and electricity
prices.

These allegations were also based on the conclusions of the
whitepaper issued by EDF. The plaintiff claims to represent
entities who purchased electricity directly in the wholesale
electricity market that it claims was targeted by the alleged
anticompetitive conduct of Eversource and the Company.

On September 28, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss all of
the claims based on federal preemption and lack of any evidence of
antitrust behavior, citing, among other reasons, the results of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) staff inquiry and the
dismissal of the related case, "Breiding et al. v. Eversource and
Avangrid," by the same court in September.

The plaintiffs filed opposition to the motion to dismiss on October
26, 2018 and the Company filed a reply on November 15, 2018. The
district court heard oral arguments on the motion to dismiss on
January 18, 2019.

On April 26, 2019, the Company filed a brief in support of its
motion to dismiss, and on June 7, 2019, the district court granted
the Company's Motion to Dismiss and dismissed all claims.

On July 3, 2019, the plaintiffs filed notice of appeal in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and, on October 18, 2019,
filed a brief in support of appeal.

On January 2, 2020, the Company and Eversource filed a joint motion
in opposition and on January 23, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a reply
brief.

On April 9, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
canceled oral arguments of the appeal and ordered the case to be
decided on the briefs without oral argument.

Avangrid said, "We cannot predict the outcome of this class action
lawsuit."

Avangrid, Inc. operates as an energy services holding company in
the United States. It engages in the generation, transmission, and
distribution of electricity, as well as distribution,
transportation, and sale of natural gas. Avangrid, Inc. was founded
in 1852 and is headquartered in Orange, Connecticut. Avangrid, Inc.
is a subsidiary of Iberdrola, S.A.


BAIDU INC: June 22 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP disclosed that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

WWE Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/world-wrestling-entertainment-inc-loss-form?prid=6197&wire=1
I Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/intelsat-s-a-loss-form?prid=6197&wire=1
BIDU Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/baidu-inc-information-request-form?prid=6197&wire=1

* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *

World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. (WWE)
WWE Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 7, 2019
- February 5, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 5, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/world-wrestling-entertainment-inc-loss-form?prid=6197&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, World
Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: Defendants
perpetrated a fraudulent scheme which: (i) deceived the investing
public regarding WWE's business and prospects; (ii) artificially
inflated the price of WWE Class A common stock; (iii) permitted
certain senior executives of WWE to sell more than $282 million
worth of their personally held shares at fraud inflated prices; and
(iv) caused the public to purchase WWE Class A common stock at
artificially inflated prices.

Intelsat S.A. (NYSE:I)
I Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased November 5, 2019 -
November 18, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 8, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/intelsat-s-a-loss-form?prid=6197&wire=1

The complaint filed against BC Partners, its individual partners
and directors of Intelsat Raymond Svider and Justice Bateman, and
Silver Lake Group, L.L.C. (and its related entities) alleges that
throughout the class period, defendants made false and misleading
statements to the market. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Silver Lake and its fellow defendants violated the Exchange Act by
selling a block of Intelsat's shares while holding material
non-public information, including the fact that the Company had met
with the Federal Communications Commission (the "FCC") on November
5, 2019 to discussed the sale of spectrum controlled by Intelsat
for future "5G" use (the "C-Band"). The FCC opposed Intelsat's
proposal for a private sale of the C-Band, preferring a public
auction. The FCC announced a public auction of the C-Band on
November 18, 2019, contrary to Intelsat's wishes, its stock dropped
40%.

Baidu, Inc. (BIDU)
BIDU Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 16, 2019 -
April 7, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 22, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/baidu-inc-information-request-form?prid=6197&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Baidu,
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) Baidu's feed services were not in
compliance with applicable Chinese regulatory standards; (ii) the
foregoing noncompliance subjected the Company to a heightened risk
of regulatory enforcement, including the removal or suspension of
certain of Baidu's services and products; (iii) accordingly, the
Company's revenues derived from online marketing services were
unlikely to be sustainable; and (iv) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]


BIMBO BAKERIES: Burke Labor Suit Moved From N.D. to S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC BURKE, CRAIG BARKER,
RICK CALTON, ARTHUR SALISBURY, WILLIAM CORY TANNER, BRIAN TANNER,
and TONY WEAVER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC. and BIMBO BAKERIES
DISTRIBUTION, LLC, Case No. 5:19-cv-00902 (Filed July 23, 2019),
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District New York to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Foley Square) on May 14, 2020.

The Southern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-03742-UA to the proceeding.

The action is brought on behalf of individuals, who are current and
former delivery drivers or "Distributors" of the Defendants,
challenging the unlawful misclassification of them as independent
contractors instead of employees under the New York Labor Law. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated the NYLL by making
unlawful deductions from their wages, failing to comply with the
record keeping and notice requirements of the NYLL, and failing to
pay an overtime premium when they worked more than 40 hours per
week.

Bimbo is the American corporate arm of the Mexican multinational
bakery product manufacturing company Grupo Bimbo.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Samuel A. Alba, Esq.
          FRIEDMAN & RANZENHOFER, P.C.
          74 Main Street, PO Box 31
          Akron, NY 14001
          Telephone: (716)-542-5444
          E-mail: Sam@legalsurvival.com

               - and -

          Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
          Matthew W. Thomson, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
                  mthomson@llrlaw.com


BOK FINANCIAL: 10th Cir. Appeal in Overdraft Fees Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the appeal from the
court order dismissing the class action suit related to extended
overdraft fees remains pending.

On March 7, 2017, a plaintiff filed a putative class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
alleging an extended overdraft fee charged by BOKF, NA is interest
and exceeds permitted rates.

On September 18, 2018, the District Court dismissed the Texas
action and the plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit which heard argument
on October 8, 2019.

On August 22, 2018, a plaintiff filed a second putative class
action in the United States District Court for New Mexico making
the same allegations as the Texas action.

The District Court dismissed the plaintiff's action.

The plaintiff has appealed to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit.

BOK Financial said, "Management is advised by counsel that a loss
is not probable in either the now dismissed Texas action or the New
Mexico action and that the loss, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated."

BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding company
for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services
in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado,
Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three segments:
Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. BOK
Financial Corporation was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in
Tulsa, Oklahoma.


BOK FINANCIAL: Class Suit Over Demand Deposit Pacts Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the class action suit
related to the company's breached of its Demand Deposit Agreements
has been dismissed.

On July 6, 2018, a plaintiff served a petition in a putative class
action in the Oklahoma District Court for Tulsa County Oklahoma
alleging BOKF NA breached its Demand Deposit Agreements by charging
overdraft and not sufficient funds fees to deposit accounts on the
day of the transaction triggering the fee and by the bank's debit
hold process causing overdraft fees.

On January 20, 2020, the plaintiff dismissed the action without
prejudice.

BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding company
for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services
in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado,
Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three segments:
Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. BOK
Financial Corporation was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in
Tulsa, Oklahoma.


BOK FINANCIAL: Faces 401(k) Plan Related Suit
---------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company has been
named as a defendant in a putative class action suit related to its
401k Plan.

On March 7, 2020, three former employees sued BOKF, NA, the Plan
Committee of the BOKF, NA 401k Plan, and Cavanal Hill Investment
Management, Inc., a subsidiary of BOKF, NA, alleging that the
Defendants included proprietary investment products as investment
options in the BOKF, NA 401k Plan, whose fees were too high and
performance too low, for the purpose of earning fees.

The action is brought as a putative class action on behalf of all
Plan Participants. The action is pending on the defendants' motions
to dismiss.

BOK Financial said, "Management is advised by counsel that a loss
is not probable and that the loss, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated."

BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding company
for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services
in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado,
Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three segments:
Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. BOK
Financial Corporation was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in
Tulsa, Oklahoma.


BOK FINANCIAL: New Jersey Class Action Stayed Until June 18
-----------------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that a New Jersey class
action has been stayed until June 18, 2020.

On August 26, 2016, BOKF, NA was sued in the United States District
Court for New Jersey by two bondholders in a putative class action
on behalf of all holders of the bonds alleging BOKF, NA
participated in the fraudulent sale of securities by the
principals. The New Jersey Federal District Action has been stayed
until June 18, 2020.

On September 14, 2016, BOKF, NA was sued in the District Court of
Tulsa County, Oklahoma by 19 bondholders alleging BOKF, NA
participated in the fraudulent sale of securities by the
principals. The Tulsa County District Court Action is pending on
BOKF, NA's motion to dismiss.

Four separate arbitration complaints with similar allegations were
filed with the Financial Institutions Regulatory Association
("FINRA"). BOKF, NA challenged FINRA's jurisdiction in the United
States District Court of Nevada. On appeal, the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held BOKF, NA was not subject to
FINRA jurisdiction. The four FINRA complaints were then dismissed
and have not been refiled in any other venue.

BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding company
for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services
in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado,
Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three segments:
Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. BOK
Financial Corporation was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in
Tulsa, Oklahoma.


BROOK CONSULTANTS: Dobbs Files FLSA Suit in Oklahoma
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brook Consultants,
Inc. The case is styled as Michael Dobbs, individually and on
Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Brook
Consultants, Inc. doing business as: Brook TS (USA), a Foreign
Corporation and Labyrinth International, LLC, a Foreign
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00232-CVE-FHM (N.D.
Okla., May 26, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Labor filed
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Brooks Consulting LLC provides ISP consulting services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Charles C Vaught, Esq.
   Armstrong & Vaught PLC
   2727 E 21ST ST STE 505
   TULSA, OK 74114
   Tel: (918) 582-2500
   Fax: (918) 583-1755
   Email: cvaught@a-vlaw.com



BROOKDALE SENIOR: Pomerantz LLP Investigates Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Brookdale Senior Living Inc. ("Brookdale" or the "Company") (BKD).
Such investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980.

The investigation concerns whether Brookdale and certain of its
officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other
unlawful business practices.

On April 30, 2020, media outlets reported that a proposed class
action had been filed against Brookdale accusing the Company of,
among other things, "chronically insufficient staffing" at its
facilities in an effort to meet financial benchmarks.

On this news, Brookdale's stock price fell $0.56 per share, or
15.22%, over the following two trading sessions, closing at $3.12
per share on May 1, 2020.

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


BURGOS RESTAURANT: Alvarez Seeks Minimum and OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
DIOGENES REYNOSO ALVAREZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. BURGOS RESTAURANT CORP. (D/B/A BURGOS
RESTAURANT CAFE), ZERVIAN CAFE CORP (D/B/A BURGOS RESTAURANT CAFE),
JACKELYN BURGOS, and JOSE BURGOS, Case No. 1:20-cv-03715 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 13, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards and the New York Labor Law.

Mr. Reynoso alleges that he 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 he worked. Rather,
the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the
hours worked and failed to pay him appropriately for any hours
worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is employed as a food preparer at the Defendants'
restaurant.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a restaurant, located at
206 Dyckman Street, in New York City, under the name "Burgos
Restaurant Cafe."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CAPIO PARTNERS: Anderson Files Breach under FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capio Partners LLC.
The case is styled as Brandy Anderson, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Capio Partners LLC,
CF Medical, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
7:20-cv-00298-EKD (W.D. Va., May 26, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as P.I.: Other
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Capio Partners, LLC is a debt collection company located in Duluth,
Georgia, with operations in Sherman, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Aryeh E. Stein, Esq.
   Meridan Law, LLC
   600 Reisterstown Road, Suite 700
   Baltimore, MD 21208
   Tel: (443) 326-6011
   Fax: (410) 653-9061
   Email: astein@meridianlawfirm.com



CHINA: Berman Firm Launches $6 Trillion Coronavirus Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sunrise reports that a law firm in the U.S. is suing the Chinese
government for its handling of the coronavirus outbreak.

The Berman Law Group wants more than $6 trillion in compensation
for the lives lost and economic devastation caused by the global
pandemic.

Their class action alleges that China hid the deadliness of
COVID-19 from the rest of the world for crucial weeks after the
outbreak began.

They claim this allowed the highly contagious virus to spread
unimpeded across the globe while China took measures to protect its
own citizens.

More than 10,000 people have signed on, including family members of
coronavirus victims and frontline healthcare workers.

"China is going to have to be held accountable for what they did,"
chief strategist behind the class action, Jeremy Alters said on
Sunrise.

COVID-19 was first reported in humans in the Chinese city of Wuhan
in late December 2019 after clusters of pneumonia patients began
appearing in hospitals.

So far the deadly bug has infected over 2.5 million people, killed
more than 200,000 and caused an economic downturn that has lead to
millions of workers losing their jobs. [GN]


CHINA: Husband and Wife Join Coronavirus Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Yael Halon, writing for Fox News, reports that a New York husband
and wife, whose lives have been upended by the coronavirus
pandemic, told Fox News they joined a class-action lawsuit against
China to hold the country accountable for concealing the origin and
initial spread of the virus, which endangered the lives of millions
of Americans and sparked economic chaos.

Lissette and Felix Conde appeared on "Fox & Friends Sunday" with
attorney Matthew Moore to detail their personal experience with the
virus and its impact on their lives.

Lissette, a Bronx medical facility employee, said she contracted
the coronavirus after a series of "repeated upper respiratory
infections" which began in February.

"They were not telling us nor allowing us to wear masks" at the
time, Lissette said. "I work the front desk . . . dealing with 300
to 400 patients a day. So, who's to say . . . I got it through one
of the patients coming in because of no protection?" she asked.

Felix said he likely contracted the virus from his wife later and
has been unable to work, suffering financial losses from his closed
businesses.

"I run a martial arts school and I run a canine school . . .  can't
do that," he said. "Financially, it's bad."

The husband and wife said the virus not only forced them to keep
their distance from their 14-year-old daughter, who has been
quarantined "on the other side of the house," but also had a
profound impact on their extended family.

"I stay away from my wife because I have no symptoms at the moment
[and] she's constantly coughing and short of breath," Felix said.
"I have a 90-year-old mother who we can't see, try to see her
through FaceTime as best we can, and family members on my wife's
side have passed away, so the impact has been pretty big."

Moore said the Condes and over 10,000 other people were bringing
the suit to hold China accountable, and applauded the couple's
willingness to "stand up to a world superpower."

"The simple fact here is, China lied and people died, and it's just
not okay," he said. "We're suing the Chinese government and we're
suing the Chinese Communist Party because we want the truth, we
want to get justice and we want to make China accountable for what
they've done. So, we've filed two class-actions. The first one
filed on March 12th, we've had over 10,000 people join our suit so
far, and it's people like Felix and Lissette who are heroic and
willing to stand up to a world superpower and really put themselves
out there and make sure that China is accountable."

Moore said the suit took advantage of limited exceptions in U.S.
law that allowed Americans to sue other governments, noting that
the "Chinese Communist Party is an independent organization, and
they can be sued directly for what they've done here."

"They can't hide behind being a foreign state and sovereign
immunity," he continued. "They can definitely be held accountable.
And, it's been done before, people have sued countries before. It's
possible, and there's a clear path to justice because China has
acted so egregiously here and they failed to warn us about a danger
that has killed so many people and cost so many people their
jobs."

States including Mississippi, Missouri and Florida also have filed
class-action suits against the Chinese government; other states are
expected to follow suit. [GN]


CHINA: More Than 10,000 Americans Join Class Action Over Pandemic
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Morgan, writing for American Military News, reports that more
than 10,000 Americans have joined a class-action lawsuit against
China on claims it lied about the severity of the coronavirus and
allowed it to grow into a pandemic.

Matthew Moore, an attorney representing the class action lawsuit
spoke to Fox News on April 26 about the action. Moore's lawsuit
argues China concealed the origin and initial spread of the virus,
which in turn endangered the lives and livelihoods of millions of
Americans.

"The simple fact here is, China lied and people died and it's just
not okay," Moore said. "We're suing the Chinese government and
we're suing the Chinese Communist Party because we want the truth,
we want to get justice and we want to make China accountable for
what they've done."

U.S. lawmakers have already begun discussing ways to change laws
that currently limit lawsuits against foreign governments, to make
it easier for complaints against China to proceed. Moore said his
lawsuit already takes advantage of some limited exceptions to U.S.
laws regarding lawsuits of foreign governments. In particular,
Moore's lawsuit takes aim at the ruling Chinese Communist Party as
an independent organization.

"They can't hide behind being a foreign state and sovereign
immunity," he continued. "They can definitely be held accountable.
And, it's been done before, people have sued countries before. It's
possible, and there's a clear path to justice because China has
acted so egregiously here and they failed to warn us about a danger
that has killed so many people and cost so many people their
jobs."

Felix and Lissette Conde, a New York husband and wife who joined
the lawsuit, also spoke with Fox News about the damages they've
assessed since the start of the coronavirus outbreak. In
particular, the pair talked about financial losses suffered as a
result of their businesses closing due to the virus.

"I run a martial arts school and I run a canine school . . . can't
do that," Felix said. "Financially, it's bad."

The Condes also discussed having to isolate themselves from their
14-year-old daughter after they both became sick with the
coronavirus. Moore praised the Conde family and the more than
10,000 other plaintiffs for being willing to "stand up to a global
superpower."

The lawsuit follows growing reports that the Chinese government
punished whistleblowers and concealed early information about the
severity of the virus. World Health Organization assessments, which
appeared to be based on inaccurate information from China, also
exacerbated misunderstandings about the virus.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, a member of the White House coronavirus task
force recently assessed that once virus cases emerged in the U.S.,
the ease at which the disease spread became quickly apparent. He
said it has seen become clear that false information about
coronavirus was "propagated right from the beginning." [GN]


CHW GROUP: Faces McGill TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Telephone Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
RUFUS MCGILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CHW GROUP, INC., d/b/a Choice Home Warranty, a New
Jersey corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-05853 (D.N.J., May 13, 2020),
seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing calls using an
automatic telephone dialing system to the cellular telephones of
consumers nationwide without their prior express consent and to
consumers, who have specifically requested to the Defendant to stop
calling them.

The lawsuit also seeks to stop the Defendant from making
pre-recorded calls to landlines without the proper consent and from
calling consumers, who are registered on the National Do Not Call
Registry.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Heidelberg, Mississippi.

The Defendant offers appliance service contracts that purport to
protect homeowners against high repair and replacement costs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
          1072 Madison Ave.
          Lakewood, NJ 08701
          Telephone: (877) 333-9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com


CITRIX SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss GoTo Services Spinoff Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Citrix Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the defendants' motions
to dismiss the class action suit related to the company's 2017
spin-off of Citrix's GoTo family of service offerings, is pending.

On July 25, 2019, a class action lawsuit was filed against Citrix,
LogMeIn and certain of their directors and officers in the Circuit
Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making alleged misstatements and omissions in
LogMeIn's Registration Statement and Prospectus filed in connection
with the 2017 spin-off of Citrix's GoTo family of service offerings
and subsequent merger of that business with LogMeIn.

The complaint seeks among other things the recovery of monetary
damages.

On April 28, 2020, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint.

Citrix said, "We believe that Citrix and our directors have
meritorious defenses to these allegations; however, we are unable
to currently determine the ultimate outcome of this matter or the
potential exposure or loss, if any."

Citrix Systems, Inc., incorporated on April 17, 1989, offers
Enterprise and Service Provider products, which include Workspace
Services solutions and Delivery Networking products. The Company's
Enterprise and Service Provider products include Cloud Services
solutions, and related license updates and maintenance, support and
professional services. The Company's NetScaler nCore Technology is
an architecture that enables execution of multiple packet engines
in parallel. The company is based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.


CITRIX SYSTEMS: Settlement Reached in Data Theft Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Citrix Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the parties in the
consolidated class action suit related to cyber attacks have
reached an agreement to resolve the dispute.

The company was a victim of a previously disclosed cyber attack, in
which international cyber criminals gained intermittent access to
its internal network through "password spraying", and over a
limited number of days between October 13, 2018 and March 8, 2019,
stole business documents and files from a shared network drive and
a drive associated with a web-based tool used in the company's
consulting practice. The company conducted an investigation and
completed its review of documents and files that may have been
accessed or were stolen in this incident.

In 2019, three putative class action lawsuits have been filed
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida following a previously disclosed
cyberattack during which international cyber criminals gained
intermittent access to Citrix's internal network and stole certain
business files, including human resources and employee records,
some of which contained sensitive and personal identification
information of the Company's current and former employees and, in
some cases, their beneficiaries, dependents and others.

These matters, Howard v. Citrix, Jackson and Sargent v. Citrix, and
Ramus, Young and Charles v. Citrix, were filed on May 24, 2019, May
30, 2019, and June 23, 2019, respectively, and have been
consolidated.

The plaintiffs, who purport to represent various classes of current
and former employees (and their dependents) of the Company,
generally claim to have been harmed by the Company's alleged
actions and/or omissions in connection with this incident and their
personal data.

They assert a variety of common law and statutory claims seeking
monetary damages or other related relief.

On March 30, 2020, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement
informing the Court that the parties reached agreement to resolve
the material terms required to settle all claims in this action.
This agreement is subject to Court approval.

Citrix Systems, Inc., incorporated on April 17, 1989, offers
Enterprise and Service Provider products, which include Workspace
Services solutions and Delivery Networking products. The Company's
Enterprise and Service Provider products include Cloud Services
solutions, and related license updates and maintenance, support and
professional services. The Company's NetScaler nCore Technology is
an architecture that enables execution of multiple packet engines
in parallel. The company is based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.


CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES: Jimenez Files Labor Suit in Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Construction
Enterprises Inc. The case is styled as Carlos Joel Grajeda Jimenez,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Construction Enterprises Inc., a domestic for profit business
corporation, Golden Nugget LLC, a domestic liability company,
Thomas Viuf, an individual and Zach Viuf, an individual,
Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00233-CVE-FHM (N.D. Okla., May 27,
2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Labor: Fair
Standards filed over Denial of Overtime Compensation.

Construction Enterprises Inc. is a corporation established to
provide Architectural Consultancy, Design & Build.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Charles C Vaught, Esq.
   Armstrong & Vaught PLC
   2727 E 21ST ST STE 505
   TULSA, OK 74114
   Tel: (918) 582-2500
   Fax: (918) 583-1755
   Email: cvaught@a-vlaw.com
    


CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Blasi Files Product Liability Suit in N.D.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Continental
Resources, Inc.  The case is styled as David A Blasi and Paula J
Blasi, as trustee of the Blasi living Trust, on behalf of himself
and a class of similarly situated persons other Blasi Living Trust,
Plaintiffs v. Continental Resources, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-00093-ARS (D.N.D., May 26, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract
Product Liability filed pursuant to the Diversity-Contract
Dispute.

Continental Resources, Inc. is an American petroleum and natural
gas exploration and production company based in the Continental Oil
Center in Oklahoma.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Michael S. Montgomery, Esq.
   Montgomery & Pender, P.C.
   5630 34th Avenue So., Ste 120
   Fargo, ND 58104
   Tel: (701) 281-8001
   Email: mike@mplawnd.com



DELTA AIR: Class Action to Push Through Despite Ticket Refunds
--------------------------------------------------------------
Katheryn Tucker, writing for Law.com, reports that a lawyer for the
lead plaintiff in a putative class action against Atlanta-based
Delta Air Lines Inc. over ticket refunds confirmed on April 24 that
the lawsuit is still taking off, even though the company has given
the demanded refund. [GN]


DIEBOLD NIXDORF: Continues to Defend NY Consolidated Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated class action suit pending before the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In July and August 2019, shareholders filed putative class action
lawsuits alleging violations of federal securities laws in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
and the Northern District of Ohio.

The lawsuits collectively assert that the Company and three former
officers made material misstatements regarding the Company's
business and operations, causing the Company's common stock to be
overvalued from February 14, 2017 to August 1, 2018.

The lawsuits have been consolidated before a single judge in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
and lead plaintiffs appointed.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter and
management remains confident that it has valid defenses to these
claims.

Diebold said, "As with any pending litigation, the Company is
unable to predict the final outcome of this matter."

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

Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated, incorporated on August 11, 1876,
provides connected commerce services, software and technology. The
Company's geographic segments include North America (NA), Asia
Pacific (AP), Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA), and Latin
America (LA). These segments sell and service financial
self-service (FSS), retail solutions and security systems. The
Company provides connected commerce solutions to financial
institutions. The company is based in North Canton, Ohio.


DOMINION ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Class Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dominion Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
the consolidated City of Warren and Metzler lawsuits has been
denied.

Dominion Energy's acquisition of SCANA Corporation (SCANA) was
completed on January 1, 2019 pursuant to the terms of the SCANA
Merger Agreement, which was entered on January 2, 2018. The SCANA
Merger Approval Order (Final order) was issued by the South
Carolina Commission on December 21, 2018.

In January 2018, a purported class action was filed against SCANA,
Dominion Energy and certain former executive officers and directors
of SCANA in the State Court of Common Pleas in Lexington County,
South Carolina (the City of Warren Lawsuit).

The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that defendants violated
their fiduciary duties to shareholders by executing a merger
agreement that would unfairly deprive plaintiffs of the true value
of their SCANA stock, and that Dominion Energy aided and abetted
these actions. Among other remedies, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin
and/or rescind the merger.

In February 2018, Dominion Energy removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina, and filed a
Motion to Dismiss in March 2018. In June 2018, the case was
remanded back to the State Court of Common Pleas in Lexington
County.
Dominion Energy appealed the decision to remand to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, where the appeal was
consolidated with a similar appeal in the Metzler Lawsuit. In June
2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the
order remanding the case to state court.

In February 2018, a purported class action was filed against
Dominion Energy and certain former directors of SCANA and DESC in
the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County, South Carolina
(the Metzler Lawsuit).

The allegations made and the relief sought by the plaintiffs are
substantially similar to that described for the City of Warren
Lawsuit. In February 2018, Dominion Energy removed the case to the
U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, and filed a
Motion to Dismiss in March 2018. In August 2018, the case was
remanded back to the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland
County.

Dominion Energy appealed the decision to remand to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, where the appeal was
consolidated with the City of Warren Lawsuit.

In June 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
reversed the order remanding the case to state court.

In September 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Carolina granted the plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate the
City of Warren Lawsuit and the Metzler Lawsuit. In October 2019,
the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against certain former
directors and executive officers of SCANA and DESC, which stated
substantially similar allegations to those in the City of Warren
Lawsuit and the Metzler Lawsuit as well as an inseparable fraud
claim. In November 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss.


In April 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina denied the motion to dismiss. This case is pending.

Dominion Energy, Inc., formerly Dominion Resources, Inc.,
incorporated on February 18, 1983, is a producer and transporter of
energy. Dominion is focused on its investment in regulated electric
generation, transmission and distribution and regulated natural gas
transmission and distribution infrastructure. Dominion manages its
operations through three primary segments: Dominion Virginia Power
operating segment (DVP), Dominion Generation, Dominion Energy, and
Corporate and Other. The company is based in Richmond, Virginia.


DOMINION ENERGY: SCANA Pays $160-Mil. to Escrow Account
-------------------------------------------------------
Dominion Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that SCANA Corporation
(SCANA) has funded an escrow account with $160 million in cash and
the balance of the settlement will be paid upon final approval of
the settlement by the court.

Dominion Energy's acquisition of (SCANA) was completed on January
1, 2019 pursuant to the terms of the SCANA Merger Agreement, which
was entered on January 2, 2018. The SCANA Merger Approval Order
(Final order) was issued by the South Carolina Commission on
December 21, 2018.

In September 2017, a purported class action was filed against SCANA
and certain former executive officers and directors in the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina.

Subsequent additional purported class actions were separately filed
against all or nearly all of these defendants (collectively the
SCANA Securities Class Action). In January 2018, the U.S. District
Court for the District of South Carolina consolidated these suits,
and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in March
2018.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that the
individually named defendants are liable under §20(a) of the same
act.

In June 2018, the defendants filed motions to dismiss. In March
2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina
granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to
dismiss.

In December 2019, the parties executed a settlement agreement
pursuant to which SCANA will pay $192.5 million, up to $32.5
million of which can be satisfied through the issuance of shares of
Dominion Energy common stock, subject to approval by the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina.

In February 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement,
pending a fairness hearing.

In March 2020, SCANA funded an escrow account with $160 million in
cash and the balance of the settlement will be paid upon final
approval of the settlement by the court.

Dominion Energy, Inc., formerly Dominion Resources, Inc.,
incorporated on February 18, 1983, is a producer and transporter of
energy. Dominion is focused on its investment in regulated electric
generation, transmission and distribution and regulated natural gas
transmission and distribution infrastructure. Dominion manages its
operations through three primary segments: Dominion Virginia Power
operating segment (DVP), Dominion Generation, Dominion Energy, and
Corporate and Other. The company is based in Richmond, Virginia.


DOMINION ENERGY: Settlement in Ratepayers' Suit Okayed
------------------------------------------------------
Dominion Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the court handling the
class action suit initiated by Santee Cooper ratepayers has granted
preliminary approval for a settlement agreement.

In September 2017, a purported class action was filed by Santee
Cooper ratepayers against Santee Cooper, Dominion Energy South
Carolina, Inc. (DESC), Palmetto Electric Cooperative, Inc. and
Central Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. in the State Court of
Common Pleas in Hampton County, South Carolina (the Santee Cooper
Ratepayer Case). The allegations are substantially similar to those
in the DESC Ratepayer Case.

The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the defendants may
not charge the purported class for reimbursement for past or future
costs of the NND Project. In March 2018, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint including as additional named defendants,
including certain then current and former directors of Santee
Cooper and SCANA Corporation (SCANA).

In June 2018, Santee Cooper filed a Notice of Petition for Original
Jurisdiction with the Supreme Court of South Carolina. In December
2018, Santee Cooper filed its answer to the plaintiffs' fourth
amended complaint and filed cross claims against DESC, which was
denied. In October 2019, Santee Cooper voluntarily consented to
stay its cross claims against DESC pending the outcome of the trial
of the underlying case.

In November 2019, DESC removed the case to the U.S. District Court
for the District of South Carolina. In December 2019, the
plaintiffs and Santee Cooper filed a motion to remand the case to
state court. In January 2020, the case was remanded to state court.


In March 2020, the parties executed a settlement agreement relating
to this matter as well as the Luquire Case and the Glibowski Case.
The settlement agreement provides that Dominion Energy and Santee
Cooper will establish a fund for the benefit of class members in
the amount of $520 million, of which Dominion Energy's portion is
$320 million of shares of Dominion Energy common stock. Also in
March 2020, the court granted preliminary approval for the
settlement agreement. This case is pending.

In July 2019, a similar purported class action was filed by certain
Santee Cooper ratepayers against DESC, SCANA, Dominion Energy and
former directors and officers of SCANA in the State Court of Common
Pleas in Orangeburg, South Carolina (the Luquire Case).

In August 2019, DESC, SCANA and Dominion Energy were voluntarily
dismissed from the case. The claims are similar to the Santee
Cooper Ratepayer Case. In March 2020, the parties executed a
settlement agreement as described above relating to this matter as
well as the Santee Cooper Ratepayer Case and the Glibowski Case.
This case is pending.

Dominion Energy, Inc., formerly Dominion Resources, Inc.,
incorporated on February 18, 1983, is a producer and transporter of
energy. Dominion is focused on its investment in regulated electric
generation, transmission and distribution and regulated natural gas
transmission and distribution infrastructure. Dominion manages its
operations through three primary segments: Dominion Virginia Power
operating segment (DVP), Dominion Generation, Dominion Energy, and
Corporate and Other. The company is based in Richmond, Virginia.


DOMINION ENERGY: Settlement Reached in RICO-Linked Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Dominion Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the parties in the
class action suit alleging violation of The Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) have executed a preliminary
settlement term sheet.

In January 2018, a purported class action was filed, and
subsequently amended, against SCANA Corporation (SCANA), Dominion
Energy South Carolina, Inc. (DESC) and certain former executive
officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina (the Glibowski Case).

The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that SCANA, DESC and the
individual defendants participated in an unlawful racketeering
enterprise in violation of RICO and conspired to violate RICO by
fraudulently inflating utility bills to generate unlawful proceeds.


The DESC Ratepayer Class Action settlement described previously
contemplates dismissal of claims by DESC ratepayers in this case
against DESC, SCANA and their officers.

In August 2019, the individual defendants filed motions to
dismiss.

In March 2020, the parties executed a settlement agreement relating
to this matter as well as the Santee Cooper Ratepayer Case and the
Luquire Case. This case is pending.

Dominion Energy, Inc., formerly Dominion Resources, Inc.,
incorporated on February 18, 1983, is a producer and transporter of
energy. Dominion is focused on its investment in regulated electric
generation, transmission and distribution and regulated natural gas
transmission and distribution infrastructure. Dominion manages its
operations through three primary segments: Dominion Virginia Power
operating segment (DVP), Dominion Generation, Dominion Energy, and
Corporate and Other. The company is based in Richmond, Virginia.


E-HOUSE HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Files Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on May 2
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of E-House (China) Holdings Limited
(NYSE: EJ): (i) during the period from April 15, 2016, until August
31, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period"); or (ii) by way of, or as
a result, of tendering their American Depository Receipts ("ADRs")
as part of the merger, regardless of when that tender occurred. The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for E-House investors under the
federal securities laws.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) the merger was not fair or in the best interest of those
investors not affiliated with the buyer group; (2) there were plans
for post-merger transactions; (3) the projections in the proxies
were not based on the best available information; and (4) as a
result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, prospects, and the merger, were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. The lawsuit
claims that investors suffered damages as a result of defendants'
wrongful scheme to take E-House private at less than fair value
(with the goal of relisting it at a higher valuation), former ADR
holders outside the buyer group have suffered harm under the
federal securities laws.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 9,
2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1849.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Contact Information:

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


EOG RESOURCES: Blasi Files Product Liability Suit in North Dakota
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EOG Resources, Inc.
The case is styled as David A Blasi and Paula J Blasi, as trustee
of the Blasi living Trust, on behalf of himself and a class of
similarly situated persons other Blasi Living Trust, Plaintiffs v.
EOG Resources, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00094-ARS (D.N.D.,
May 26, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract
Product Liability filed pursuant to the Diversity-Contract
Dispute.

EOG Resources, Inc. is a company engaged in hydrocarbon
exploration.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Michael S. Montgomery, Esq.
   Montgomery & Pender, P.C.
   5630 34th Avenue So., Ste 120
   Fargo, ND 58104
   Tel: (701) 281-8001
   Email: mike@mplawnd.com



FARMER BOYS: Alcazar ADA Suit Moved from N.D. to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN ALCAZAR, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FARMER BOYS FOOD,
INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case
No. 3:20-cv-02157 (Filed March 30, 2020), was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Los
Angeles) on May 13, 2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-04342-RSWL-KS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Ronald S.W. Lew.

The Plaintiff seeks redress against Farmer Boys for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully
and equally accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial
of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of
its products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with
its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California's Unruh
Civil Rights Act.

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

The Defendant offers the https://www.farmerboys.com/ website, to
the public. The website offers goods and services, which allow
consumers to find restaurant locations, access information about
promotions, nutritional facts, allergen guides, career, and
franchising opportunities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daniel Kurt Dik, Esq.
          FRASER WATSON CROUTCH LLP
          100 West Broadway, Suite 650
          Glendale, CA 91210
          Telephone: (818) 543-1380
          Facsimile: (818) 543-1390


FGL HOLDINGS: Faces Shareholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------
Halper Sadeh LLP, a global investor rights law firm, announced the
filing of shareholder class action lawsuits against the following
companies:

FGL Holdings (NYSE: FG)
A class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of FGL Holdings
shareholders alleging that Defendants issued a materially
misleading registration statement in recommending that FGL Holdings
shareholders vote in favor of the proposed sale of FGL Holdings to
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. According to the complaint, the
registration statement contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning, among other things, FGL
Holding's financial projections, analyses performed by FGL
Holding's financial advisor, potential conflicts of interest
involving FGL's financial and transaction advisors, and the sales
process leading up to the proposed transaction.

If you would like to join the action or discuss your legal rights
and options, please visit
https://halpersadeh.com/actions/fgl-holdings-fg-stock-merger-fidelity-national/
or contact Daniel Sadeh or Zachary Halper, free of charge, at (212)
763-0060 or sadeh@halpersadeh.com or zhalper@halpersadeh.com.

Mobile Mini, Inc. (NASDAQ: MINI)
A class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Mobile Mini
shareholders alleging that Defendants issued a materially
misleading registration statement in recommending that Mobile Mini
shareholders vote in favor of the proposed sale of Mobile Mini to
WillScot Corporation. According to the complaint, the registration
statement contains materially incomplete and misleading information
concerning, among other things, Mobile Mini's, WillScot's and the
combined company's financial projections, and analyses performed by
Mobile Mini's financial advisors.

If you would like to join the action or discuss your legal rights
and options, please visit
https://halpersadeh.com/actions/mobile-mini-inc-mini-stock-merger-willscot-corporation/
or contact Daniel Sadeh or Zachary Halper, free of charge, at (212)
763-0060 or sadeh@halpersadeh.com or zhalper@halpersadeh.com.

Opus Bank (NASDAQ: OPB)
A class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Opus Bank
shareholders alleging that Defendants issued a materially
misleading registration statement in recommending that Opus Bank
shareholders vote in favor of the proposed sale of Opus Bank to
Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc. According to the complaint, the
registration statement contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning, among other things, Opus Bank's
and Pacific Premier's financial projections, analyses performed by
Opus Bank's financial advisor, and the sales process leading up to
the proposed transaction.

If you would like to join the action or discuss your legal rights
and options, please visit
https://halpersadeh.com/actions/opus-bank-opb-stock-merger-pacific-premier/
contact Daniel Sadeh or Zachary Halper, free of charge, at (212)
763-0060 or sadeh@halpersadeh.com or zhalper@halpersadeh.com.

The class actions seek damages and/or equitable relief on behalf of
shareholders under the federal securities laws.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTIONS. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE OR YOU MAY REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT.

Halper Sadeh LLP represents investors all over the world who have
fallen victim to securities fraud and corporate misconduct. Our
attorneys have been instrumental in implementing corporate reforms
and recovering millions of dollars on behalf of defrauded
investors.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

Contact Information:
Halper Sadeh LLP
Daniel Sadeh, Esq.
Zachary Halper, Esq.
(212) 763-0060
sadeh@halpersadeh.com  
zhalper@halpersadeh.com   
https://www.halpersadeh.com [GN]


FLORIDA: Faces Class Action Over Delayed Unemployment Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Padro Ocasio, writing for Miami Herald, reports that Florida
has now reported over 1 million unemployed workers, a bleak
milestone as the state continues to lag on processing a massive
caseload.

According to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, the
state has received 1,025,657 unique unemployment claims as of May
3, and has so far paid 452,526.

With a population of 21.5 million people, Florida's deficient
unemployment system has been slow to catch up to the growing number
of workers who have been laid off or furloughed due to the
coronavirus pandemic emergency. The online application system under
an understaffed agency has been riddled with glitches since the
number of jobless Floridians first began to spike in early March.

The promise of financial relief to Florida's jobless workers has
been so delayed that lawyers have filed at least one class-action
lawsuit asking a Tallahassee judge to order the state to
immediately pay the unemployment benefits. They're asking in part
to have the suit extended to hundreds of thousands who have waited
over a month for their checks.

Others have protested the system and have demanded immediate
changes.

Still, of the nearly 1.8 million unemployment claims submitted, 38%
have been denied, or about 268,000 workers. FDEO said that workers
who have been denied financial aid are likely eligible for benefits
under the federal Pandemic Unemployment Assistance. Those denied
include gig workers, independent contractors and self-employed
workers.

The state's queue of claims that are in the process of being
verified has reached nearly 300,000. Some Democratic lawmakers have
denounced the lengthy verification process as a time-consuming
burden on the ability to quickly issue checks.

Meanwhile, some of the hardest hit workers continue to be
hospitality and tourism employees, whose industries have been
nearly halted by mandatory closures throughout the state. On
Monday, May 4, restaurants, stores and state parks were set to open
in most of the state for the first time in weeks as part of
Florida's phased-in reopening. The concentration of COVID-19 hot
spots in Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties has largely
excluded South Florida from the reopening measures. [GN]


FORD MOTOR CO: Wooten Suit Transferred to Michigan
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Christopher Wooten, Eric Gregorio, Brandon
Lemons, Joseph Plis and John Walker, individually, and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated individual, Plaintiffs v. Ford Motor
Company, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, was transferred from
the Central District of California with the assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-09773 to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan (Detroit) on May 26, 2020, and assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-11310-LJM-DRG.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other Fraud
filed over Diversity-Fraud.

Ford Motor Company is a global company based in Dearborn, Michigan.
The company designs, manufactures, markets and services a full line
of Ford cars.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
   Capstone Law, APC
   1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
   Los Angeles, CA 90067
   Tel: (310) 556-4811
   Fax: (310) 943-0396
   Email: Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com

     - and -

   Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
   Capstone Law, APC
   1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
   Los Angeles, CA 90067
   Tel: (310) 556-4811
   Fax: (310) 943-0396
   Email: Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com

     - and -

   Trisha K. Monesi, Esq.
   Capstone Law APC
   1875 Century Park East, Ste 1000
   Los Angeles, CA 90067
   Tel: (310) 712-8014
   Email: trisha.monesi@capstonelawyers.com

     - and -

   Steven R. Weinmann, Esq.
   Capstone Law APC
   1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
   Los Angeles, CA 90067
   Tel: (310) 556-4811
   Fax: (310) 943-0396
   Email: Steven.Weinmann@capstonelawyers.com



FRESENIUS MEDICAL: Frani Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MARY ANN FRANI; JANSEN DIAZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE HOLDINGS, INC., a New York corporation,
d/b/a FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE NORTH AMERICA; FRESENIUS USA, INC., a
Massachusetts corporation; BIO- MEDICAL APPLICATIONS OF CALIFORNIA,
INC., a Delaware Corporation ; and DOES 1-500, inclusive, Case No.
CGC-20-582947 (Filed Feb. 14, 2020), was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
May 14, 2020.

The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-03290 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from the Defendants' failure to pay overtime
compensation and minimum wages under the California Labor Code.

Fresenius provides kidney dialysis services through a network of
3,994 outpatient dialysis centers, serving 345,096 patients.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          David H. Stern, Esq.
          Alex Spjute, Esq.
          ECHERT LLP
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 4900
          Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 808-5736
          Facsimile: (213) 808-5760
          E-mail: david.stern dechert.com
                  alex.spjute@dechert.com


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Somers Class Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as BRUCE SOMERS, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. GENERAL ELECTRIC
COMPANY, Case No. GD-20-004979 (Filed April 6, 2020), was removed
from the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on
May 13, 2020.

The Western District of Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-00704-CRE to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract under
Pennsylvania law and violations of the Pennsylvania Wage Payment
and Collection Law.

General Electric is an American multinational conglomerate
incorporated in New York City and headquartered in Boston.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry A. Weisberg, Esq.
          Derek W. Cummings, Esq.
          WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C.
          2704 Commerce Drive, Suite B
          Harrisburg, PA 17110-9380
          E-mail: lwesisberg@weisbergcummings.com
                  dcummings@weisbergcummings.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James A. Holt, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          Reed Smith Centre
          225 Fifth Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 288-4173
          Facsimile: (412) 288-3063
          E-mail: jholt@reedsmith.com


GOLDEN STAR: Faces Class Action Threat in U.S.
----------------------------------------------
Africa Intelligence reports that Egyptian billionaire Naguib
Sawiris's firm La Mancha is considering whether to increase or
decrease its investment in the operator of two Ghanaian gold mines,
Golden Star Resources, with the threat of a class action in the US
hanging over the mining company. [GN]


HARRIS & HARRIS: Boykin Files Breach of FDCPA
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Harris & Harris, Ltd.
The case is styled as Frederick J. Boykin, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Harris & Harris, Ltd.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-00441 (E.D. Tex., May 27, 2020).

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

Harris & Harris Ltd operates as credit rating agency. The Company
offers credit reporting and management, and debt collection
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Taxiarchis Hatzidimitriadis, Esq.
   Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd
   2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200
   Lombard, IL 60148
   Tel: (630) 581-5858
   Fax: (630) 575-8188
   Email: thatz@sulaimanlaw.com

     - and -

   Nathan Charles Volheim, Esq.
   Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd
   2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200
   Lombard, IL 60148
   Tel: (630) 568-3056
   Fax: (630) 575-8188
   Email: nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com



HAWAIIAN AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Refund
--------------------------------------------------------
Juergen T Steinmetz, writing for eTurboNews, reports that the
fraudulent actions of Hawaiian Airlines caused damage to Plaintiff
and members of the Class and Subclasses, who are entitled to
damages and other legal and equitable relief as a result.

This is alledged by Nataly Alvarez on behalf of herself and those
named in a class-action lawsuit filed on April 20 in the United
States District Court in Honolulu, Hawaii.

As a result of Hawaiian Airlines' willful and malicious conduct,
punitive damages are warranted.

Bases for this lawsuit, the United States Department of
Transportation ("DOT") has "issued an Enforcement Notice
clarifying, in the context of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19)
public health emergency, that the U.S. and foreign airlines remain
obligated to provide a prompt refund to passengers for flights to,
within, or from the United States when the carrier cancels the
passenger's scheduled flight or makes a significant schedule change
and the passenger chooses not to accept the alternative offered by
the carrier.

The obligation of airlines to provide refunds, including the ticket
price and any optional fee charged for services a passenger is
unable to use, does not cease when the flight disruptions are
outside of the carrier's control (e.g., a result of government
restrictions)."1 Indeed, the DOT's Enforcement Notice makes
perfectly clear that offering "vouchers or credits for future
travel" is not an adequate or appropriate substitute for airlines'
obligations to offer refunds for canceled flights.

Hawaiian is among the largest airlines in the United States and
focuses heavily on travel between mainland United States and
Hawaii, as well as destinations in Asia and the South Pacific. In
2019, Hawaiian carried over 11 million passengers.

Hawaiian's business was disrupted as a result of
government-mandated restrictions on travel in response to the
coronavirus. Defendant Hawaiian announced in April 2020 that it was
"reducing its scheduled service systemwide by 95 percent through
April 2020," with the "likelihood of similar reductions in May."

The California Plaintiff, like many other travelers, was scheduled
to fly with Hawaiian from Los Angeles to Maui. The plaintiff's
flight was canceled by Hawaiian due to the coronavirus travel
restrictions.

In the cancellation e-mail to Plaintiff, Hawaiian claimed that
Plaintiff could request a refund online. She was told that she
would receive an e-mail once her refund had been processed.

Hawaiian also represents in its Domestic Contract of Carriage that
a customer is entitled to a refund when Hawaiian cancels a
customer's flight entitles passengers to a refund when Hawaiian
"refuse[s] to allow you, to travel for reasons relating to  Flight
Delays, Changes, Cancellations, and Aircraft Changes."

The plaintiff requested a refund from Hawaiian, which never came.
Further, upon information and belief, the Plaintiff would not have
been able to get a cash refund, as Hawaiian is only offering
credits.

In the lawsuit, it is alleged Hawaiian'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. The DOT Enforcement Notice applies to
"U.S. and foreign airlines."

Hawaiian does not provide instructions online on what happens if
Hawaiian cancels the customer's flight. Instead, Hawaiian directs
customers to "follow the instructions presented in the email."

The e-mail, as noted above, only directs customers to submit a form
requesting a refund. Hawaiian does not provide refund instructions
or guidance in its coronavirus frequently asked questions, nor does
Hawaiian provide refund instructions on its COVID-19 Travel

Hawaiian does, however, provide detailed instructions on travel
waivers and rescheduling on both pages.

Hawaiian's consumers have excoriated Hawaiian's refusal or failure
to provide its customers with refunds. For instance, like
Plaintiff, customers on the website tripadvisor.com have stated:

Plaintiff Nataly Alvarez is a citizen of the State of California
and resides in Baldwin Park, California. On March 4, 2020, the
Plaintiff purchased a ticket directly from Hawaiian for an April
14, 2020 flight from Los Angeles to Maui. The plaintiff was to fly
with her husband and son and paid approximately $149.00 per ticket
for this flight, for a total of approximately $447.00. However, the
flight was canceled by Hawaiian on March 27, 2020, due to the
coronavirus, COVID-19. The plaintiff submitted a request for a
refund but never received confirmation. On April 2, 2020, the
Plaintiff attempted to call Hawaiian to request a refund for her
flight but received no response. The plaintiff has spent many hours
on the phone since trying to get ahold of Hawaiian but with the
same result each time. The plaintiff's father was also a passenger
on the flight (although he booked separately) and managed to get
ahold of a Hawaiian customer service representative after multiple
attempts. However, the Plaintiff's father was told that Hawaiian
was only issuing credits for the flight cancellations, no cash
refunds.

At the time that Plaintiff purchased her tickets, she understood
that she would be entitled to a refund from Hawaiian if her flight
was canceled. However, the Plaintiff was deceived by Hawaiian
regarding her right to a refund. Had Plaintiff been aware or had
Defendant disclosed that she would not be entitled to a refund for
canceled flights, she would not have booked through Hawaiian and
would have used a different airline and/or booking company, one
that would have refunded money for canceled flights.

As alleged herein, Defendant's conduct was deceptive because it had
the effect of deceiving consumers into believing that Hawaiian
would promptly refund their airline tickets in the event that
Hawaiian canceled their flights. The belief that Hawaiian would
promptly refund their airline tickets in the event that Hawaiian
canceled their flights was material because it was important to
consumers and influenced Plaintiff's and the Hawaii Subclass
members' decision to purchase airline tickets with Hawaiian.
Specifically, Plaintiff and the Hawaii Subclass members would not
have purchased airline tickets with Hawaiian, or would have paid
less for them, had they known that they would not be promptly
refunded by Hawaiian in the event that Hawaiian canceled their
flights.

The action was filed by attorneys Bervar & Jones in Honolulu,
Hawaii; Bursor & Fisher in Walnut Creek, California; Brusor &
Fisher in New York, NY.

With travel and tourism at almost a stop, this lawsuit may only be
the beginning of an avalanche of class action relief to be forced
against airlines.

This may cause another enormous liability and drain of cash flow
against the aviation industry in the United States. [GN]


HF FOODS: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on May 2 disclosed that that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against HF Foods Group, Inc. ("HF Foods" or the
"Company")(HFFG) and certain of its officers. The class action,
filed in United States District Court for the Central District of
California, and indexed under 20-cv-03967, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise, acquired HF Foods securities between August
23, 2018, and March 23, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased HF Foods securities during
the Class Period, you have until May 28, 2020, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

HF Foods through its subsidiaries purports to market and distribute
fresh produce, frozen and dry food products, and non-food products
to Asian restaurants, primarily Chinese restaurants, and other
foodservice customers throughout the Southeast, Pacific, and
Mountain West regions in the United States.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about HF Foods' business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to
disclose to investors that: (i) HF Foods engaged in undisclosed
related party transactions; (ii) HF Foods insiders and related
parties were enriching themselves by misusing shareholder funds;
(iii) HF Foods was "gaming" the FTSE/Russell Index by masking the
true number of shares free-floating; and (iv) as a result,
Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.

On March 23, 2020, Hindenburg Research published a report (the
"Report") explaining in detail that HF Foods had, among other
issues, failed to disclose: (i) transactions with related-parties;
(ii) its flagrant misuse of shareholder funds; and (iii) its gaming
of the FTSE/Russell Index criteria.

On this news, HF Foods' stock price fell $2.52 per share, or over
20%, to close at $9.80 per share on March 23, 2020, damaging
investors.

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


HP INC: Court Tosses Most of Claims in Printer Ink Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maeve Allsup, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that HP Inc.
didn't mislead consumers about the usability of third-party ink
cartridges in some of its printers, a district court in California
decided, dismissing most of the claims lodged against it by a
proposed class of printer owners.

A Florida man who owns several HP printers said the company
conducted a remote update to the devices without alerting users,
causing the printers to stop working if the ink cartridges weren't
HP.

Product statements that HP ink produces "best results" imply that
it's possible to use non-HP ink cartridges with the printer, the
complaint said. [GN]


INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Canez Class Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Intelligent Systems Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
the class action complaint spearheaded by Edgardo Canez is still
pending.

On or about July 9, 2019, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York (Case No. 1:19-cv-03949) by Michael Skrzeczkoski,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
against the company, and certain current and former directors and
officers.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain of our
press releases and SEC filings were misleading as a result of the
failure to disclose alleged related party transactions affecting
revenue recognition and the absence of disclosure regarding certain
allegations against former director Parker H. Petit in connection
with his former position with MiMedx, Inc.

The complaint seeks to recover attorney's fees and costs and
unspecified damages on behalf of purchasers who acquired our stock
during the period from January 23, 2019, through May 29, 2019, and
purportedly suffered financial harm as a result of the alleged
misleading statements.

On September 26, 2019, the Court appointed Edgardo Canez as lead
plaintiff on behalf of the putative class. On November 18, 2019,
Lead Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a putative class of
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded company securities from May 23, 2014 through May 29, 2019,
filed an amended class action complaint against the company, and
certain current and former directors and officers.

The Amended Complaint alleges similar allegations in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act as the
previously filed complaint.

The Amended Complaint seeks to recover attorney's fees and costs
and unspecified damages.

On January 2, 2020, Defendants submitted a motion to dismiss and on
March 3, 2020, briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed.
The motion to dismiss is currently pending.

Intelligent Systems said, "We dispute these claims and intend to
defend the matter vigorously. We have not determined the likelihood
of loss to be probable nor is any potential loss estimable at this
time, therefore we have not recorded any related liability as of
March 31, 2020."

Intelligent Systems Corporation, incorporated on November 8, 1991,
is engaged in the business of providing technology solutions and
processing services to the financial technology and services
market. The Company's financial transaction solutions and services
(FinTech) operations are conducted through its CoreCard Software,
Inc. (CoreCard) subsidiary. The company is based in Norcross,
Georgia.


INTELSAT SA: Rosen Announces Filing of Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Intelsat S.A. (NYSE: I) between November 5, 2019 and
November 18, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").  The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Intelsat investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the Intelsat class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1831.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants violated provisions of the
Exchange Act by selling a block of Intelsat shares while in
possession of material non-public information, including that
Intelsat had met with the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC")
on November 5, 2019, to discuss the private sale of certain
wavebands controlled by Intelsat for future "5G" use (the "C-Band")
and that the FCC opposed Intelsat’s then-existing proposal,
instead favoring a public auction rather than private sale of the
C-Band. Then on November 18, 2019, after the FCC announced that it
would publicly auction the C-Band that Intelsat had been hoping to
sell privately, Intelsat’s share price declined 40% to close at
$8.03 per share. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 8,
2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1831.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

Contact:

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

JIMMY JOHN'S LLC: Martin Suit Moved to W.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Sharon K. Martin, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated in Missouri, Plaintiff v. Jimmy
John's, LLC and Jimmy John's Franchise, LLC, Defendants, was
transferred from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri with
the assigned Case No. 2016-CV00408 to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Missouri (Kansas City) on May 27, 2020, and
assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-00415-RK.

The nature of the case is stated as Contract Product Liability.

Jimmy John's, LLC operates and franchises restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


JPMORGANCHASE: Two Cos. Sue Over Handling of PPP Applications
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dalvin Brown, writing for USA Today, reports that two companies in
California filed a class-action lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase bank
alleging unfair business practices toward some small businesses
that applied for coronavirus-related loans under the government's
Paycheck Protection Program.

In the suit filed on April 19, a cybersecurity firm and event
planning company accused Chase Bank of prioritizing small business
borrowers who were seeking larger loan amounts rather than
processing the government-sponsored loan applications on a
first-come, first-served basis as advertised.

The move meant that Chase and other banks would collect larger
processing fees -- nearly $6 billion in total -- by frontloading
the queue with businesses seeking higher loans, according to the
lawsuit.

The businesses seeking lower loans were deprioritized, so many
didn't get the aid they were entitled to, the lawsuit filed on
behalf of small businesses said.

The legal action is one in a series of lawsuits lodged by small
businesses against big banks such as Wells Fargo, Bank of America
and Bancorp citing unfair business practices and false advertising.


The loans were a part of a $349 billion emergency small business
lending program meant to keep businesses afloat and staffers
employed in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.

The government-backed forgivable loan plan kicked off on April 3
and ran out of money less than two weeks later on April 16.

"Chase concealed from the public that it was reshuffling the PPP
applications it received and prioritizing the applications that
would make the bank the most money," the lawsuit said.

Chase bank wasn't immediately available for comment.

Chase updated a statement to small business customers on its
website on April 19, the day the lawsuit in California was filed.

"I also understand that many of you are frustrated that you applied
early in the process, but that SBA funding ran out before you could
receive a loan," said Jennifer Roberts, CEO of Chase Business
Banking. "We want you to know that we are working to make sure as
many of our Business Banking customers receive loans as possible."

Eighty percent of PPP loans processed through Chase went to
businesses with less than $5 million in revenue. About half went to
small businesses with less than $100,000, the bank said.

The proof of Chase prioritizing larger borrowers lies in numbers
provided by the Small Business Administration, the lawsuit alleges.
In the past three days, before the PPP loan money ran out, banks
allegedly processed loan applications for $150,000 and under at
twice the rate of larger loans.

This would suggest that banks prioritized applications for the
largest loans early on, otherwise "the percentage change of
applications submitted in the last three days of the program would
be consistent among all application types," the plaintiffs claim.
[GN]


KANSAS CITY, KS: Faces Burdette Suit Over Civil Rights Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
EVELYN BURDETTE v. UNIFIED GOVERNMENT OF WYANDOTTE COUNTY KANSAS
CITY, KANSAS, Case No. 2:20-cv-02244 (D. Kan., May 13, 2020), is
brought under the Civil Rights Act against the Defendant seeking
monetary damages to redress the deprivation of rights accorded to
the Plaintiff and others similarly situated.

The Plaintiff alleges that during her employment with the
Defendant, the Defendant denied her equal rights and benefits as
enjoyed by white citizens in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981.
The Defendant is also engaged in a pattern and practice of
intentional discrimination and harassment, she adds.

Ms. Burdette is a mixed race, citizen of the United States, and
resident of Wyandotte County, Kansas. She was an employee of the
Unified Government and worked in the Police Department.

The Defendant Unified Government is the municipality and it
operates the Kansas City, Kansas Police Department as its law
enforcement agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sarah A. Brown, Esq.
          Daniel G. Curry, Esq.
          BROWN & CURRY, LLC
          1600 Genessee Street, Suite 956
          Kansas City, MO 64102
          Telephone: (816) 756-5458
          Facsimile: (816) 666-9596
          E-mail: sarah@brownandcurry.com
                  dan@brownandcurry.com


KARYOPHARM THERAPEUTICS: Securities Suits Over SOPRA Trial Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend class action lawsuits related to the results from the
Phase 2 SOPRA study and Part 2 of the Phase 2b STORM study.

The company has been named as a defendant in a securities class
action litigation filed on July 23, 2019, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The complaint was filed by the Allegheny County Employees'
Retirement System, against the company and certain of its current
and former executive officers and directors as well as the
underwriters of its public offerings of common stock conducted in
April 2017 and May 2018.

This complaint was voluntarily dismissed on March 12, 2020.

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

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

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

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

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


KENAN ADVANTAGE: Ballard Suit Moved from C.D. Calif. to N.D. Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as DWAYNE BALLARD, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. THE KENAN ADVANTAGE GROUP,
INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. 2:18-cv-09990 (Filed Nov. 29, 2018), was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Akron)
on May 13, 2020.

The Northern District of Ohio Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:20-cv-01042-SL to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Sara Lioi.

The class action arises from the Defendant's acquisition and use of
consumer and/or investigative consumer reports to conduct
background checks on the Plaintiff and other prospective employees.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant routinely obtains and
uses information from background reports in connection with its
hiring processes without complying with state and federal mandates
for doing so.

Kenan provides transportation services.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Katherine Huibonhoa, Esq.
          Stephen Yang, Esq.
          CURLEY, HURTGEN & JOHNSRUD LLP
          4400 Bohannon Drive, Suite 230
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Telephone: 650 600 5300
          Facsimile: 650 323 1002
          E-mail: khuibonhoa@chjllp.com
                  syang@chjllp.com


KIRKHAM SOLUTIONS: Underpays Field Technicians, Adamson et al Say
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DUSTIN ADAMSON and DAVID WHITE, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KIRKHAM SOLUTIONS, INC.
and COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 2:20-cv-00778-CB (W.D. Penn., May 27, 2020) is a collective and
class action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged
willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as field technicians –
Adamson from approximately June 2018 to July 2019 and White from
approximately February 2019 to August 2019.

According to the complaint, Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
Field Technicians regularly work over 40 hours per week. However,
Defendant did not pay them any overtime premium not less than one
and one-half times their regular pay rate for all hours worked over
40 per week.

Kirkham Solutions, Inc. provides technical support and internet
installation services for customers across Pennsylvania.

Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC is a global media and
technology company that provides high-speed internet and phone to
residential and commercial consumers. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Tel: (215) 884-2491
          Email: mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com
                 https://winebrakelaw.com/

                - and –

          Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
          Charles R. Ash IV, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Tel: (248) 355-0300
          Emails: kstoops@sommerspc.com
                  crash@sommerspc.com


KRAKEN DEVELOPMENT: Blasi Files Suit in North Dakota
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kraken Development
III LLC. The case is styled as David A Blasi and Paula J Blasi, as
trustee of the Blasi living Trust, on behalf of himself and a class
of similarly situated persons other Blasi Living Trust, Plaintiffs
v. Kraken Development III LLC and Kraken Operating LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00092-ARS (D.N.D., May 26, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract
Product Liability filed over a Diversity-Contract Dispute.

Kraken Development III LLC is a private equity-backed exploration
and production company formed in 2012 to focus on drilling and
development opportunities.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Michael S. Montgomery, Esq.
   Montgomery & Pender, P.C.
   5630 34th Avenue So., Ste 120
   Fargo, ND 58104
   Tel: (701) 281-8001
   Email: mike@mplawnd.com


LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Bid to Dismiss Smith Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
LifeVantage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint filed in Smith v. LifeVantage Corp.,
Case No. 3:18-cv-a35, is pending.

On January 24, 2018, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut,
entitled Smith v. LifeVantage Corp., Case No. 3:18-cv-a35 (D.
Conn., filed Jan. 24, 2018).

In this action, Plaintiffs alleged that the Company, its Chief
Executive Officer, Chief Sales Officer and Chief Marketing Officer
operated a pyramid scheme in violation of a variety of federal and
state statutes, including Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO) and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act.

On April 16, 2018, the Company filed motions with the court to
dismiss the complaint against LifeVantage, dismiss the complaint
against the Company's executives, transfer the venue of the case
from the State of Connecticut to the State of Utah, and contest
class certification.

On July 23, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation with the Court
agreeing to transfer the case to the Federal District Court for
Utah. On September 20, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
in Utah.

As per the parties stipulated agreement, Plaintiff's amended
complaint dropped the RICO and Connecticut state law claims and
removed the Company's Chief Sales Officer and Chief Marketing
Officer as individual defendants (the Chief Executive Officer
remains a defendant in the case).

The Plaintiffs' amended complaint added an antitrust claim,
alleging that the Company fraudulently obtained patents for its
products and is attempting to use those patents in an
anti-competitive manner. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the
amended complaint on November 5, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a response
to the Company's Motion to Dismiss on December 17, 2018, and the
Company filed a reply brief on January 10, 2019.

The Court ruled on the motion on December 5, 2019, dismissing three
of the Plaintiff's four claims, including the antitrust claim,
unjust enrichment claim, and the securities claim for the sale of
unregistered securities.

On December 19, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
which included three causes of action, including a 10(b)(5)
securities fraud claim, and renewed claims relating to the sale of
unregistered securities and unjust enrichment.

The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint
on January 28, 2020, and as of March 16, 2020, the Motion has been
fully briefed for the court.

The parties are now waiting for the court to schedule oral argument
or the court may decide the matter on the papers.

LifeVantage said, "The Company has not established a loss
contingency accrual for this lawsuit as it believes liability is
not probable or estimable, and the Company plans to vigorously
defend against this lawsuit. Nonetheless, an unfavorable resolution
of this matter could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations or financial condition."

LifeVantage Corporation engages in the identification, research,
development, and distribution of nutraceutical dietary supplements
and skin care products. The company sells its products through a
direct sales model, as well as a network of independent
distributors in the United States, Japan, Hong Kong, Australia,
Canada, Mexico, Thailand, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands,
Germany, Spain, and Taiwan. LifeVantage Corporation is
headquartered in Sandy, Utah.


LIME ROCK RESOURCES: Blasi Files Suit in North Dakota
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lime Rock Resources
Operating Company, Inc. The case is styled as David A Blasi and
Paula J Blasi, as trustee of the Blasi living Trust, on behalf of
himself and a class of similarly situated persons other Blasi
Living Trust, Plaintiffs v. Lime Rock Resources Operating Company,
Inc. and Lime Rock Resources III-A, L.P., Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-00091-ARS (D.N.D., May 26, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract
Product Liability filed pursuant to the Diversity-Contract
Dispute.

Based in Houston, the Lime Rock Resources team acquires, operates,
and improves producing oil and gas properties in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Michael S. Montgomery, Esq.
   Montgomery & Pender, P.C.
   5630 34th Avenue So., Ste 120
   Fargo, ND 58104
   Tel: (701) 281-8001
   Email: mike@mplawnd.com

LUMENTUM HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Karri Class Action Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lumentum Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
the amended complaint in SaiSravan B. Karri v. Oclaro, Inc., et
al., No. 3:18-cv-03435-JD, has been fully briefed and is pending.

On December 10, 2018, the company completed a merger with Oclaro,
Inc., a provider of optical components and modules for the
long-haul, metro and data center markets. Oclaro's products provide
differentiated solutions for optical networks and high-speed
interconnects driving the next wave of streaming video, cloud
computing, application virtualization and other bandwidth-intensive
and high-speed applications.

In connection with the company's acquisition of Oclaro, seven
lawsuits were filed by purported stockholders of Oclaro challenging
the proposed merger (the "Merger").

Two of the seven suits were putative class actions filed against
Oclaro, its directors, Lumentum, Prota Merger Sub, Inc. and Prota
Merger, LLC: Nicholas Neinast v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No.
3:18-cv-03112-VC, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (filed May 24, 2018) (the "Neinast
Lawsuit"); and Adam Franchi v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No.
1:18-cv-00817-GMS, in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware (filed June 9, 2018) (the "Franchi Lawsuit").
Both the Neinstat Lawsuit and the Franchi Lawsuit were voluntarily
dismissed with prejudice.

The other five suits, styled as Gerald F. Wordehoff v. Oclaro,
Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03148-NC (the "Wordehoff Lawsuit"),
Walter Ryan v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-03174-VC (the
"Ryan Lawsuit"), Jayme Walker v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No.
5:18-cv-03203-EJD (the "Walker Lawsuit"), Kevin Garcia v. Oclaro,
Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03262-VKD (the "Garcia Lawsuit"), and
SaiSravan B. Karri v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-03435-JD
(the "Karri Lawsuit" and, together with the other six lawsuits, the
"Lawsuits"), were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on May 25, 2018, May 29, 2018, May
30, 2018, May 31, 2018, and June 9, 2018, respectively.

These five Lawsuits named Oclaro and its directors as defendants
only and did not name Lumentum. The Wordehoff, Ryan, Walker, and
Garcia Lawsuits have been voluntarily dismissed, and the Wordehoff,
Ryan, and Walker dismissals were with prejudice. The Karri Lawsuit
has not yet been dismissed. The Ryan Lawsuit was, and the Karri
Lawsuit is, a putative class action.

The Lawsuits generally alleged, among other things, that Oclaro and
its directors violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder by
disseminating an incomplete and misleading Form S-4, including
proxy statement/prospectus.

The Lawsuits further alleged that Oclaro's directors violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by failing to exercise proper
control over the person(s) who violated Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act.

The remaining Lawsuit (the Karri Lawsuit) currently purports to
seek, among other things, damages to be awarded to the plaintiff
and any class, if a class is certified, and litigation costs,
including attorneys' fees.

A lead plaintiff and counsel has been selected, and an amended
complaint was filed on April 15, 2019, which also names Lumentum as
a defendant.

A motion to dismiss the amended complaint has been fully briefed
and is currently pending, and defendants intend to defend the Karri
Lawsuit vigorously.

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

Lumentum Holdings Inc. manufactures and sells optical and photonic
products in the Americas, the Asia-Pacific, Europe, the Middle
East, and Africa. The company operates through two segments,
Optical Communications and Commercial Lasers. Lumentum Holdings
Inc. was incorporated in 2015 and is headquartered in Milpitas,
California.


LUNDY MANOR: $10MM Negligence Claim Filed as Part of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shelby Knox, writing for iHeartRADIO, reports that a statement of
claim has been filed as part of a class action lawsuit against
Lundy Manor in Niagara Falls.

Will Davidson LLP issued the statement accusing the retirement
residence of negligence in the deaths of 18 people during the
COVID-19 pandemic.

The claim includes $10 million in compensatory damages for
negligence, breach of contract, and wrongful death and $10 million
in punitive and exemplary or aggravated damages.

Lundy Manor officials are accused of failing to implement social
distancing protocols in a timely manner -- namely, residents
continuing to gather in the dining room at meal times until late
March.

The class action lawsuit includes everyone who has contracted
COVID-19 at Lundy Manor or became ill after coming into contact
with someone who caught the virus at the facility.

Lundy Manor representatives had 20 days to respond. [GN]


LUNDY MANOR: Class Action Mulled Over COVID-19 Deaths
-----------------------------------------------------
Paul Forsyth, writing for Niagara This Week, reports that a
personal injury law firm with decades of experience says it's
exploring the possibility of a class-action lawsuit over the
COVID-19 deaths of residents at the Lundy Manor Retirement
Residence in Niagara Falls.

Gary Will, who is a managing partner of Will Davidson LLP and works
out of the firm's Oakville office, said on April 25 his firm has
been contacted by some witnesses and family members who have lost
loved ones to the novel coronavirus virus outbreak at the home on
Lundy's Lane.

Burlington-based Oxford Living, which owns Lundy Manor, said on
April 26 that the death toll at the home now stands at 18 after the
death of three more residents in recent days.

Will said his law firm isn't yet ready to launch a class-action
suit against the home. Before that can happen, someone has to agree
to step forward as the representative plaintiff -- something that
hasn't happened yet.

"We have been contacted by a number of people already, some
witnesses and some families of people who have passed away," Will
said. "We've started an investigation but we haven't found someone
who's willing to come forward and pursue a case at this point. They
prefer to remain private at this point."

The law firm has issued an invitation to family members who have
lost loved ones -- and witnesses such as staff members at the home
-- to get in touch.

"If an affected (family) member does come forward and wants to go
public with their case, we can launch an actual civil action," said
Will.

Lundy Manor is one of a number of long-term care and retirement
homes in Niagara where there are COVID-19 outbreaks.

Oxford Living, which says it has developed, owned and operated
every type of senior housing facility in every Canadian province
and more than 20 U.S. states, said on April 20 that 41 other
residents and eight staff members have tested positive for the
virus in addition to the residents who have died.

Twelve residents who contracted the virus and went to hospital have
since returned to the home, Oxford Living said at the time.


Will Davidson said in its announcement that it's investigating the
deaths and that there may be more COVID-19 deaths among infected
residents at the home.

"At this point it appears that Lundy Manor did not take the
necessary precautions or follow government guidelines to protect
its residents," the firm said, noting that Premier Doug Ford
expressed exasperation after hearing the home reportedly went ahead
with a pub night on March 28.

Ford said "you gotta be kidding me" after hearing about the pub
night as the province imposed increasingly tight restrictions on
the size of gatherings.

Oxford Living chief revenue office Tim Foster said on April 26 when
contacted by Niagara this Week for comment on the possible lawsuit
that "at this time, our singular focus remains protecting the
health and safety of our residents and staff and we continue to
work closely with Niagara Regional public health and the RHRA
(Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority) in this regard."

He also thanked the home's staff for their "tireless efforts"
during the outbreak.

The region said that of the 441 COVID-19 cases and 37
COVID-19-related deaths in Niagara as of April 25, cases in
long-term care or retirement homes accounted for about a third of
the cases but 86.5 per cent of the deaths, highlighting how
vulnerable the elderly are to the effects of the infection.

Will called the number of deaths and infections at Lundy Manor
"shocking" and "a terrible tragedy" and said family members or
witnesses can contact his firm for a free, initial consultation by
calling 905-337-9748 or 905-815-5802.

"We want to do an absolutely thorough investigation before
launching any claims," he said.

Will said his law firm has brought a number of class-action
lawsuits against nursing homes dating back 20 years in cases where
residents have died due to neglect or negligence. [GN]


MAINE: Republican Politician to Join Suit Over Gov. Exec Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pat Callaghan, writing for News Center Maine, reports that as of
May 1, some Maine businesses are free to reopen as part of phase
one of Gov. Janet Mills' plan to restart the economy in the midst
of the Coronavirus pandemic.

But some Republican politicians say the process is far too slow,
and some business owners agree, and they're pushing back on the
ongoing restrictions.

Dale Crafts, who is running for the Republican nomination for
Congress in Maine's second district, says he's signing on to a
class-action lawsuit against what he calls the government overreach
into the private sector caused by Governor Mills' newest executive
order.

"I don't think this can succeed, and I don't think it's a smart
approach," says attorney and NEWS CENTER Maine Democratic political
analyst John Richardson.

Richardson thinks business owners, in particular, should understand
that plans always need tweaking.

"The governor has been very clear that this is a dynamic plan, it
can change," Richardson says. "That change can occur when people
petition the government and talk to the governor or representatives
of the governor."

Republican analyst Phil Harriman says he wouldn't take the matter
to court, but he agrees with Crafts' point.

Harriman says "This is becoming more painful by the day for
employers and especially employees. We've got to pick up the pace
of helping people get back to a safe way to earn money, and pay
their bills, and help our economy recover."

As for the damage being done to the state budget, Gov. Mills has
ordered a freeze on all non-emergency spending and hiring.
Estimates say it could free up to $250 million in unspent funds to
help shore up the budget.

Harriman and Richardson agree that this is a step in the right
direction, but they think the governor is going to have to start
implementing budget curtailments.

Harriman says one problem with this kind of freeze is that "the
definition of 'emergency' takes on very different interpretations
depending upon who is in charge."

And Richardson says "I believe the curtailment is something that
will happen. Frankly, you're probably going to see somewhere around
$700 million of cuts that are going to have to happen."

Former Gov. Paul LePage told a Boston radio host that he intends to
challenge Gov. Mills in the 2022 election.

John Richardson brushes it off, saying "I'm hearing 'Florida
resident running for governor.'"

And he says we should get past this emergency and this year's
election before we start worrying about the gubernatorial race more
than two years away.

Phil Harriman agrees LePage's timing is bad, but he also says it's
clear that "the guy deeply cares about the state of Maine." [GN]


MASSACHUSETTS: Class Action Filed on Behalf of ICE Detainees
------------------------------------------------------------
Ganesh Setty, Anna Sturla and Theresa Waldrop, writing CNN, report
that two attorneys representing ICE detainees involved in a violent
altercation with corrections officers in Massachusetts said they
suspect the officers were retaliating for a class action suit.

An altercation over coronavirus tests broke out at the at the C.
Carlos Carreiro Immigration Detention Center in Bristol County on
May 1, after 10 ICE detainees and 15 other detainees reported
Covid-19 symptoms but refused to get tested, officials said. Their
lawyers said their clients refused testing for fear of exposure to
the virus.

According to the Bristol County Sheriff's Office, the detainees
"rushed violently at Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson and corrections
officers, barricaded themselves inside the facility, ripped washing
machines and pipes off the wall, broke windows and trashed the
entire unit."

Pepper spray was used to break up the incident, ICE said in a
statement. No officers were injured, but three detainees were taken
to a hospital.

Jonathan Darling, a spokesman for the Bristol County Sheriff's
Office -- which runs the detention center where the clash occurred
-- blasted the lawyers' suggestion of payback.

"Retaliation? That's absurd," Darling said. "They trashed the place
and attacked officers. All part of the misinformation campaign
these lawyers are spreading. It's shameful."

The lawsuit, filed in March on behalf of all ICE detainees in
Bristol County, asked the court to determine whether their
detention was unlawful, and demanded the immediate release of the
ICE detainees along with implementation of proper protocols to
limit the spread of Covid-19 in the facility.

"When we filed the lawsuit, we were receiving alarming reports from
detainees that they had no soap, no disinfectant, no sanitizer, and
that guards were showing up to the facility with symptoms," said
Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal, executive director of Lawyers for Civil
Rights (LCR). "And so it was a tinderbox waiting to be lit with
Covid-19."

The suit, filed in federal court in Massachusetts, named Hodgson,
County House of Corrections Superintendent Steven Souza, Acting
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf, and various
ICE officials as defendants, according to the copy provided by
lawyers.

To date, the class action has resulted in the humanitarian release
of over 40 civil immigration detainees, according to lawyers and
the sheriff's office.

Fear of the virus

LCR Litigation Director Oren Sellstrom said their clients told them
the corrections officers at the facility didn't always wear the
required protective equipment to prevent Covid-19 infection.
Espinoza-Madrigal also said their clients told them they hadn't
been provided with masks.

Darling disputed that claim, saying all prisoners at the facility
are required to wear masks and have soap. The facilities are
"cleaned every shift every day."

Fifteen detainees who reported Covid-19 symptoms or were in close
contact with symptomatic individuals all tested negative, Darling
said. So far, he said there have been no positive Covid-19 cases
among the incarcerated population.

Ten staff members have tested positive, he said. Six are out, and
expected to be back soon, and four have already recovered and
returned to duty.

Espinoza-Madrigal said the medical status of the three detainees
hospitalized at St. Luke's in New Bedford after the May 1 clash was
unknown. He didn't know whether the seven other detainees involved
in the altercation with officers were currently housed in the
facility's medical unit or if they had been tested.

Charges may be filed, sheriff says

At a press conference on May 2, Sheriff Hodgson said that the
office would be reviewing tapes of the incident with plans to file
charges, in addition to any potential state investigation.

Hodgson also sharply criticized Rep. Joe Kennedy III, who called
for an independent investigation and the release of surveillance
footage of the incident.

"America's sheriffs are done with these people in Congress who
spend all their time using issues like this for their political
advantage. And Joe Kennedy ought to be ashamed of himself," said
Hodgson. "He may be running for Senate, but you don't play games
with my staff's lives and the lives of the people we're charged
with, using it for your political gain."

ICE will review incident

ICE said it is reviewing the May 1 incident, during which facility
staff eventually used pepper spray to stop the detainees, according
to the agency.

The use of pepper spray was "consistent with agency protocol," ICE
said. After it was used, "the detainees became compliant and
facility staff was able to restore order in the facility."

Three detainees were taken to a hospital after the incident, one
for symptoms of a panic attack, another for a preexisting
condition, and a third "for a medical incident after being removed
from the unit," ICE said.

All three are expected to be fine, according to the sheriff's
office. No facility staff were injured, ICE said.

The detainees caused more than $25,000 in damages to the facility,
according to the sheriff's office.

Espinoza-Madrigal said attorneys have not been able to contact
detainees since the May 1 incident.

The ACLU of Massachusetts and other advocates for the detainees
have called for an independent investigation of the May 1 events.

"These reports are deeply disturbing," Carol Rose, executive
director of the ACLU of Massachusetts, said in a statement. "We are
concerned for our clients, and everyone detained in the Bristol
County House of Correction and ICE detention."

CNN's Rob Frehse contributed to this report. [GN]


MDL 2445: Daubert Briefing Ongoing in Suboxone Antitrust Litig.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that Daubert briefing is
ongoing in the class action suit entitled, In re Suboxone
(Buprenorphine Hydrochloride and Naloxone) Antitrust Litigation,
MDL No. 2445, or the Suboxone MDL.

On September 22, 2016, 41 states and the District of Columbia
brought suit against Indivior and the company in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging violations
of federal and state antitrust statutes and state unfair trade and
consumer protection laws relating to Indivior's launch of Suboxone
Sublingual Film in 2010 and seeking an injunction, civil penalties,
and disgorgement.

After filing the suit, the case was consolidated for pre-trial
purposes with the In re Suboxone (Buprenorphine Hydrochloride and
Naloxone) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2445, or the Suboxone MDL,
a multidistrict litigation relating to putative class actions on
behalf of various private plaintiffs against Indivior relating to
its launch of Suboxone Sublingual Film.

While the company was not named as a defendant in the original
Suboxone MDL cases, the action brought by the States alleges that
the company participated in an antitrust conspiracy with Indivior
in connection with Indivior's launch of Suboxone Sublingual Film
and engaged in related conduct in violation of federal and state
antitrust law.

The company moved to dismiss the States' conspiracy claims, but by
order dated October 30, 2017, the Court denied the company's motion
to dismiss. The company filed an answer denying the States' claims
on November 20, 2017.

The fact discovery period closed July 27, 2018, but the parties
agreed to conduct certain fact depositions in August 2018.  

The expert discovery phase closed May 30, 2019, but additional
reports and depositions were conducted through August 1, 2019.  

Daubert briefing is ongoing.  

The remainder of the case schedule, including summary judgment
briefing, is stayed pending resolution of Indivior's appeal of the
District Court's class certification ruling in a co-pending
multi-district litigation to which the company is not a party.

Aquestive said, "We are not able to determine or predict the
ultimate outcome of this proceeding or provide a reasonable
estimate, or range of estimate, of the possible outcome or loss, if
any, in this matter."

Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
focuses on identifying, developing, and commercializing various
products to address unmet medical needs. The Company markets
Sympazan, an oral soluble film formulation of clobazam for the
treatment of lennox-gastaut syndrome; Suboxone, a sublingual film
formulation of buprenorphine and naloxone for the treatment of
opioid dependence; and Zuplenz, an oral soluble film formulation of
ondansetron for the treatment of nausea and vomiting associated
with chemotherapy and post-operative recovery in the United States
and internationally. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in
2004 and is headquartered in Warren, New Jersey.


MDL 2492: Hestera Suit v. NCAA Over Health Issues Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DAVID HESTERA, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-00645 (Filed Feb. 27, 2020), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Indiana to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois (Chicago) on May 13, 2020.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-02834 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against the
Defendant to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of its
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of
student-athletes.

The Hestera case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, In Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools, who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation, the Panel said.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions
relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries
sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions,
including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

NCAA is a non-profit organization, which regulates athletes of
1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Dassow, Esq.
          William F. Eckhart, Esq.
          Tyler Zipes, Esq.
          HOVDE DASSOW & DEETS, LLC
          10201 North Illinois Street, Suite 500
          Indianapolis, IN 46290
          Telephone: (317) 818- 3100
          Facsimile: (317) 818-3111
          E-mail: rdassow@hovdelaw.com
                  beckhart@hovdelaw.com
                  tzipes@shovdelaw.com

               - and -

          Eugene R. Egdorf, Esq.
          Alex Barlow, Esq.
          James B. Hartle, Esq.
          SHRADER & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P.
          9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2300
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 782-0000
          Facsimile: (713) 571-9605
          E-mail: gene@shraderlaw.com
                  Barlow@shraderlaw.com
                  Jim@shraderlaw.com


MDL 2795: Court Denies Bid to Stay CenturyLink Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael J. Davis of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota (i) granted Movants Edwin Miller, Vonita Taylor, and
Patrick West's Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief; and (ii)
denied their Motion for Stay Pending Appeal in IN RE CENTURYLINK
SALES PRACTICES AND SECURITIES LITIGATION, This Document Relates to
Civil File Nos. 17-2832, 17-4613, 17-4614, 17-4615, 17-4616,
17-4617, 17-4618, 17-4619, 17-4622, 17-4943, 17-4944, 17-4945,
17-4947, 17-5046, 18-1562, 18-1565, 18-1572, 18-1573, MDL No.
17-2795 (MJD/KMM) (D. Minn.).

In October 2019, the Plaintiffs sought from the Court preliminary
approval of a proposed class settlement in the case.  With that
Motion for Settlement Preliminary Approval, the Plaintiffs filed a
Proposed Order, which included a preliminary injunction against the
Releasing Parties from participating in, among other things,
arbitration relating to the Released Claims.  Defendant
CenturyLink, Inc. and the Proposed Intervenors filed a brief in
support of the Plaintiffs' motion.

On Jan. 10, 2020, CenturyLink also filed a Supplemental Brief
addressing the Plaintiffs' request that the Court's Preliminary
Approval Order contain a temporary injunction of all parallel
proceedings, including arbitrations, by putative class members.  It
specifically addressed the individual consumer arbitrations brought
against CenturyLink by clients of the law firms of Keller Lenkner
LLC and Troxel Law LLP.  It represented that it would serve Keller
and the American Arbitration Association ("AAA") with a copy of its
brief on Jan. 10, 2020.

By the time the Court convened a hearing on Jan. 22, 2020, none of
Keller's clients appeared at the hearing nor did they file any
document in the MDL.

On Jan. 24, 2020, the Court issued the Preliminary Approval Order,
which included the following language, as requested by Plaintiffs
and CenturyLink: "10. Injunction against Releasing Parties' Pursuit
of Released Claims.  Pending the Final Approval Hearing and
issuance of the Final Approval Order and Final Judgment, Releasing
Parties are hereby enjoined from filing, commencing, prosecuting,
maintaining, intervening in, participating in (as class members or
otherwise), or receiving any benefits from any class action or
other lawsuit, arbitration, or administrative, regulatory, or other
proceeding in any jurisdiction based on or relating to the Released
Claims.  The Court finds that issuance of this preliminary
injunction is necessary and appropriate in aid of the Court's
jurisdiction over this action.  The Court finds no bond is
necessary for issuance of this injunction."

The "Releasing Party" is defined as "The Settlement Class
Representatives, all Settlement Class Members, and their respective
heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, agents, lawyers,
partners, successors, and assigns."

On February 7, 2020, Movants Edwin Miller, Vonita Taylor, and
Patrick West filed a Notice of Appeal from the Preliminary Approval
Order.  They represented that they are members of the provisionally
certified class and appealed the order temporarily enjoining them
from pursuing their claims against CenturyLink in arbitration.

On Feb. 10, 2020, the Movants filed a Motion to Stay Pending
Appeal, which was refiled on Feb. 12, 2020.  Each Movant filed a
declaration they want to arbitrate their claims against CenturyLink
on an individual basis immediately without any further delay, and
they do not wish to participate in the settlement or in any
class-action lawsuit against CenturyLink.

Judge Davis holds that before him is a complex, multi-district
action involving a Settlement Class of more than 17 million
consumers spread across dozens of states that was settled after
substantial motion practice, extended negotiations, and extensive
confirmatory discovery.  The Court found that a temporary
injunction of parallel proceedings by the parties to the lawsuit
was necessary to properly manage the disposition of the case and
enforce the Court's Preliminary Approval Order, including avoiding
confusion among class members, ensuring proper notice, and
preserving resources.  The Court's Order set forth an orderly,
efficient manner for class members to opt out and, thus, pursue
parallel actions, including lawsuits and arbitrations, with little
delay.  The Court's chosen process was carefully crafted
considering the practicality of efficiently managing a class of
more than 17 million consumers and, thus, the possibility of
millions of opt-out requests.

Judge Davis holds that the Preliminary Approval Order did not run
afoul of the Eighth Circuit's holding in Piper Funds, and that the
Movants are unlikely to succeed on their claim on appeal that the
Court's preliminary injunction violated the FAA.  The Movants have
submitted no evidence that they have a contractual right to
arbitrate any claim encompassed by the class action.  They have
failed to show that their claims are arbitrable, and the FAA does
not render the preliminary injunction erroneous.  Additionally, the
Movants have not elected to "irrevocably" opt out of the class
action.

Because the Movants received actual notice and the opportunity to
be heard, the Court need not reach the parties' alternative
arguments regarding representation by Class Counsel as members of a
duly certified Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 settlement class.
However, the Court notes that it is familiar doctrine of the
federal courts that members of a class not present as parties to
the litigation may be bound by the judgment where they are in fact
adequately represented by parties who are present, or where they
actually participate in the conduct of the litigation in which
members of the class are present as parties.

The Movants bear the burden of showing that the irreparable harm is
certain and great and of such imminence that there is a clear and
present need for equitable relief.  They have failed to show that
they will suffer irreparable harm absent a stay, the Court finds.

By attempting to remain in the Settlement Class while
simultaneously pursuing arbitration and staying the Preliminary
Approval Order, the Movants will delay the costly and complex class
notice process for a 17-million-person class and delay the class
members' opportunity to recover through the settlement, the Court
further finds.  The cost of class notice will increase if
implementation of the Preliminary Approval Order is further
delayed.

Finally, because the Court has found no violation of Movants' due
process rights or rights under the FAA, the public interest weighs
in favor of an efficient and timely resolution of the complex,
class action dispute.

Accordingly, Judge Davis concludes that a stay is not appropriate
in the case.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 21, 2020 Memorandum
of Law & Order is available at https://is.gd/Me72PP from
Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs' Interim Co-Lead Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by
Benjamin Jared Meiselas -- meiselas@geragos.com -- GERAGOS &
GERAGOS, pro hac vice, Brian C. Gudmundson --
brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Carolyn G.
Anderson -- carolyn.anderson@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP,
Daniel C. Hedlund , Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Francois Michel Blaudeau
-- Francois@southermedlaw.com  -- Southern Institute for Medical
&Legal Affairs LLC, Hart L. Robinovitch --
hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, James
McDonough, III -- Jmcdonough@hgdlawfirm.com -- Heninger Garrison
Davis, LLC, Lori G. Feldman -- lfeldman@zlk.com -- Geragos &
Geragos, pro hac vice, Mark J. Geragos -- mark@geragos.com --
GERAGOS & GERAGOS, pro hac vice, Mark M. O'Mara , O'Mara Law
Group, Michelle J. Looby , Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Richard M.
Hagstrom -- rhagstrom@hjlawfirm.com -- Hellmuth & Johnson, Roxanne
Barton Conlin , Roxanne Conlin & Associates, P.C., & Timothy R.
Langley, Hodge & Langley Law Firm, PC.

Defendant's Primary Outside Counsel, Defendant, represented by
David M. Aafedt -- daafedt@winthrop.com -- Winthrop & Weinstine,
PA, David A. Vogel -- dvogel@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, pro hac
vice, Douglas P. Lobel -- dlobel@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, pro hac
vice, Jeffrey M. Gutkin -- jgutkin@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP --
Library, Joseph M. Windler -- jwindler@winthrop.com -- Winthrop &
Weinstine, PA & William A. McNab -- wmcnab@winthrop.com –
Winthrop & Weinstine, PA.


MDL 2873: Stengel v. 3M Company Over AFFF Products, Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as MIKE STENGEL, on behalf of himself and C.S.,
a minor, and SONDRA MARAGUGLIO, on their own behalf and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (F/K/A Minnesota
Mining and Manufacturing Co.), TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P.,
successor-in-interest to THE ANSUL COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO., CHEMGUARD; E.I DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.,
and THE CHEMOURS Co., LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01850-RMG (April 29,
2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of West Virginia to the U.S. District Court for
the District of South Carolina (Charleston) on May 13, 2020.

The District of South Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-01850-RMG to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Honorable Richard M. Gergel. The lead case is Case No.
2:20-cv-01034-RMG.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for medical monitoring and
property damage as a result of their exposure to water contaminated
with toxic chemicals resulting from the Defendants' harmful and
defective products, aqueous firefighting foams ("AFFF") and other
materials containing perfluorochemicals (PFCs), including
perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related fluorochemicals
that can degrade to perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") or PFOS, which
were released onto the ground, into the environment and infiltrated
the groundwater and the Plaintiffs' drinking/potable water.

The Stengel case is being consolidated with MDL 2873, In re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation.

3M Company conducts operations in electronics, telecommunications,
industrial, consumer and office, health care, safety, and other
markets. 3M serves customers worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen G. Skinner, Esq.
          Levi B. Pellegrin, Esq.
          SKINNER LAW FIRM
          PO BOX 487
          Charles Town, WV 25414
          Telephone: 304-725-7029
          E-mail: sskinner@skinnerfirm.com
                  pellegrin@skinnerfirm.com

               - and -

          Anthony J. Majestro, Esq.
          POWELL & MAJESTRO, PLLC
          405 Capital Street, Suite P-1200
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 346-2889
          E-mail: amajestro@powellmajestro.com


MDL 2924: Abraham v. Dr. Reddy's Over Ranitidine, Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MARILYN ABRAHAM and FREDA
SMITH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-10253 (Filed April
30, 2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida (West Palm Beach) on May 13, 2020.

The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
9:20-cv-80791-RLR to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Robin L. Rosenberg.

The case is a class action lawsuit regarding Dr. Reddy's'
manufacturing of ranitidine-based over-the-counter and prescription
medications that allegedly contain dangerously high levels of
N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), a carcinogenic and liver-damaging
impurity. Ranitidine is designed to decrease the amount of acid
created by the stomach.

The Abraham case is being consolidated with MDL 2924, In re: ZANTAC
(RANITIDINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.

The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on Feb. 6 2020. These actions share
factual questions arising from allegations that ranitidine, the
active molecule in Zantac and similar heartburn medications, can
form the carcinogen NDMA, either during storage or when metabolized
in the human body.

In its 2020 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL
involve common questions of fact and that centralization in the
Southern District of Florida will serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of
this litigation. The lead case is Case No. 9:20-md-02924-RLR.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
          Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: swescot@bursor.com
                  aobergfell@bursor.com


MDL 2924: Carlo v. Strides Suit Over Ranitidine, Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as AIDA CARLO, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. STRIDES PHARMA,
INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-03372 (Filed April 30, 2020), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach) on May 13, 2020.

The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
9:20-cv-80788-RLR to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Robin L. Rosenberg.

The case is a class action lawsuit regarding Strides's
manufacturing of ranitidine-based over-the-counter and prescription
medications that allegedly contain dangerously high levels of
N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), a carcinogenic and liver-damaging
impurity. Ranitidine is designed to decrease the amount of acid
created by the stomach.

The Carlo case is being consolidated with MDL 2924, In re: ZANTAC
(RANITIDINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.

The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on Feb. 6 2020. These actions share
factual questions arising from allegations that ranitidine, the
active molecule in Zantac and similar heartburn medications, can
form the carcinogen NDMA, either during storage or when metabolized
in the human body.

In its 2020 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL
involve common questions of fact and that centralization in the
Southern District of Florida will serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of
this litigation. The lead case is Case No. 9:20-md-02924-RLR.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
          Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: swescot@bursor.com
                  aobergfell@bursor.com


MEET GROUP: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. disclosed that it has filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware on behalf of holders of The Meet Group, Inc. ("Meet
Group") (NASDAQ GS: MEET) common stock in connection with the
proposed acquisition of Meet Group by NCG – NuCom Group SE,
eHarmony Holding, Inc., and Holly Merger Sub, Inc. (collectively,
the "Buyers") announced on March 5, 2020 (the "Complaint").  The
Complaint, which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 against Meet Group and its Board of Directors (the
"Board"), is captioned Post v. The Meet Group, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-00479 (D. Del.).

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

On March 5, 2020, Meet Group entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") with the Buyers.  Pursuant to the
terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Meet Group will
receive $6.30 in cash per share (the "Proposed Transaction").

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

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than June 26, 2020.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

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

Attorney advertising.  Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
Seth D. Rigrodsky
Gina M. Serra
(888) 969-4242
(302) 295-5310
Fax: (302) 654-7530
info@rl-legal.com
http://www.rigrodskylong.com[GN]


MICROSOFT CORP: Sued Over Xbox Elite Controller Joystick Drift
--------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Tinner, writing for ScreenRant, reports that Microsoft is
facing down the barrel of a class action lawsuit, which claimants
have filed over a hardware defect in the Xbox Elite luxury line of
controllers that allegedly causes joystick drift. This suit joins a
similar lawsuit filed against Nintendo over Joy-Con drift, a
widespread problem that's just as, if not more, notorious as the
subject of these Xbox players' grievances.

The timing of this legal action probably couldn't be better for
Microsoft, whose gaming division is revving up to unveil a
long-awaited games showcase for this year's upcoming Xbox Series X
on May 7. Coupled with the global pandemonium caused by the
devastating COVID-19 virus, which has dominated gaming headlines
with a constant stream of delays and tragic industry deaths, it's
probable that mainstream coverage of this lawsuit will fly under
the radar for now. Even a verdict in players' favors is still
likely to spare the Xbox console line's image, as it isn't liable
to come until well after the Xbox Series X's launch, an event that
will leave many with little attention span for current-gen issues.

In an April 28 filing at a Washington US District Court obtained by
VGC, Donald McFadden and fellow claimants allege that Microsoft is
unduly burdening purchasers of Xbox Elite controllers. The document
states that they and other players are "experiencing problems after
their 90-day warranty expires are paying to repair" the drifting
joystick issue, claiming it is "a known fault" at Microsoft. In a
mechanical description that closely matches that of the well-known
Nintendo Switch Joy-Con defect, the lawsuit details how McFadden
and others have discovered the defect to be in a "design flaw" in
the Xbox Elite controllers' potentiometer, which degrades from use
and "scrapes resistive material off a curved track," causing
"electrical contact without input from the user" that results in
unwanted controller output.

Indignant players have long reported issues with the Xbox Elite
controller line, with the most recent batch of community complaints
arriving alongside the reportedly factory defective Xbox Elite
Series 2. Of course, anyone who's experienced similar joystick
drift with original Xbox One and Xbox One S gamepads would be quick
to point out how those controllers have similar issues with their
internal potentiometers. Considering the manufacturing similarities
shared by all three major consoles and their first-party
accessories, it's entirely possible that those parts are shared not
only between Xbox's different controller lines, but perhaps even
with Nintendo's drift-plagued Joy-Cons.

Although service has been temporarily interrupted by
COVID-19-related difficulties, its own class action suit and
constant pressure from angry players prompted Nintendo to begin
repairing and replacing defective Joy-Cons free-of-charge last
year, with or without a warranty. With longstanding community
complaints having finally snowballed into a credible lawsuit
against Microsoft, the company would be wise to get ahead of the
curve by offering its own free services to affected players sooner
rather than later. [GN]


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Bid to Dismiss Johnson Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
filed in the class action suit initiated by Jarrod Johnson, is
pending.

In September 2016, the Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of
Gadsden, Alabama (the "Gadsden Water Board") filed an individual
complaint in the Circuit Court of Etowah County, Alabama against
certain manufacturers, suppliers, and users of chemicals containing
specific Perfluorinated Compounds ("PFCs"), including the Company.


In May 2017, the Water Works and Sewer Board of the Town of Centre,
Alabama (the "Centre Water Board") filed a similar complaint in the
Circuit Court of Cherokee County, Alabama.

The Gadsden Water Board and the Centre Water Board both seek
monetary damages and injunctive relief claiming that their water
supplies contain excessive amounts of PFCs.

Certain defendants, including the Company, filed dispositive
motions in each case arguing that the Alabama state courts lack
personal jurisdiction over them. These motions were denied.

In June and September 2018, certain defendants, including the
Company, petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for Writs of Mandamus
directing each lower court to enter an order granting the
defendants' dispositive motions on personal jurisdiction grounds.
The Alabama Supreme Court denied the petitions on December 20,
2019.  

Certain defendants, including the Company, filed an Application for
Rehearing with the Alabama Supreme Court asking the Court to
reconsider its December 2019 decision. The Alabama Supreme Court
denied the application for rehearing.

In December 2019, the City of Rome, Georgia ("Rome") filed a
complaint in the Superior Court of Floyd County, Georgia that is
similar to the Gadsden Water Board and Centre Water Board
complaints, again seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief
related to PFCs.  

Also in December 2019, Jarrod Johnson filed a putative class action
in the Superior Court of Floyd County, Georgia purporting to
represent all water subscribers with the Rome (Georgia) Water and
Sewer Division and/or the Floyd County (Georgia) Water Department
and seeking to recover, among other things, damages in the form of
alleged increased rates and surcharges incurred by ratepayers for
the costs associated with eliminating certain PFCs from their
drinking water.  

In January 2020, defendant 3M Company removed the class action to
federal court.

The Company has filed motions to dismiss in both of these cases.

The Company denies all liability in these matters and intends to
defend them vigorously.

Mohawk Industries, Inc. is a global flooring manufacturer that
creates products to enhance residential and commercial spaces
around the world. The company is based in Calhoun, Georgia.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Del. Securities Class Suit Temporarily Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2020, that the Superior Court of
the State of Delaware has granted a temporary stay of a securities
class action.

The Company and certain of its present and former executive
officers were named as defendants in a putative state securities
class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of
Delaware on January 30, 2020.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and 12
of the Securities Act of 1933.

The complaint is filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased
shares of the Company's common stock in Mohawk Industries
Retirement Plan 1 and Mohawk Industries Retirement Plan 2 between
April 27, 2017 and July 25, 2019.

On March 27, 2020, the Court granted a temporary stay of the
litigation pending the earlier of either the close of fact
discovery or the deadline to appeal the dismissal of the related
Putative Securities Class Action pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.  

The stay may be lifted according to the terms set forth in the
Court's Order to Stay Litigation.

The Company believes the claims are frivolous and intends to defend
them vigorously.

Mohawk Industries, Inc. is a global flooring manufacturer that
creates products to enhance residential and commercial spaces
around the world. The company is based in Calhoun, Georgia.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Shareholder Class Suit in Georgia Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2020, that the company continues
to defend against a putative shareholder class action suit in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The Company and certain of its present and former executive
officers were named as defendants in a putative shareholder class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
making materially false and misleading statements and that the
officers are control persons under Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint is filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased
shares of the Company's common stock between April 28, 2017 and
July 25, 2019.

The Company believes the claims are frivolous and intends to defend
them vigorously.

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

Mohawk Industries, Inc. is a global flooring manufacturer that
creates products to enhance residential and commercial spaces
around the world. The company is based in Calhoun, Georgia.


NCH HEALTHCARE: Martinez Suit Moved to M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Johana Martinez, individually and on behalf
of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. NCH Healthcare
System, Inc., Defendant, was moved from the Collier County Circuit
Court with the assigned Case No. 20-CA-000996 to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida (Ft. Myers) on May 27,
2020, and assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-00381.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as PI: Other,
filed pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

NCH Healthcare System offers advanced heart, cancer, obstetric,
newborn, orthopedic and pediatric care.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.

The Defendant is represented by:

   Robin Horton Silverman, Esq.
   Wood, Smith, Henning, & Berman
   1501 S. Church Avenue, Suite 200
   Tampa, FL 33629
   Tel: (813) 422-6910
   Fax: (813) 274-8777
   Email: RHortonSilverman@wshblaw.com


NEON THERAPEUTICS: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. disclosed that it has filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware on behalf of holders of Neon Therapeutics, Inc. ("Neon" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ GS: NTGN) common stock in connection with
the proposed acquisition of Neon by BioNTech SE ("BioNTech") and
Endor Lights, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), announced on January 16, 2020
(the "Complaint").  The Complaint, which alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Neon, its Board of
Directors (the "Board"), BioNTech, and Merger Sub, is captioned
Franchi v. Neon Therapeutics, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00482 (D.
Del.).

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

On January 15, 2020, Neon entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") with BioNTech and Merger Sub.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Neon
will receive 0.063 American Depository Shares for each share of
Neon common stock they own (the "Proposed Transaction").

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

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than June 26, 2020.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

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

Attorney advertising.  Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]


NEW YORK: Syville Lawsuit Can't Proceed as Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALPHONSO SYVILLE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NEW YORK CITY
OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-CV-0570 (CM) (S.D.
N.Y.), Judge Colleen McMahon of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (i) dismissed without prejudice any
claims Syville asserts on behalf of any other individual, and (ii)
denied the request for the action to proceed as a class action.

Syville appears pro se.  He has signed the complaint and the Court
granted his application to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP").

The complaint asserts that the case should proceed as a class
action.  Attached to the complaint is a document that states: "We
the MICA Homeless Clients at Fort Washington Shelter for Single
Adult Men give permission to Alphonso Syville, our Client Advocate,
to advocate on our behalf about our rights being violated at Fort
Washington.  Some of us are old, in wheelchairs, uneducated and
it's hard for some of us to write.  So we will tell Syville what to
write for us and sign and print our names where they are supposed
to go."

Several individuals have signed that document, though they have not
signed the complaint.  And some of them are among the 28
individuals, in addition to Syville, who are listed as the
Plaintiffs in the action and have each filed a signed IFP
application.

Judge McMahon holds that the action cannot proceed as a class
action, and Syville cannot assert claims on behalf of any
individual other than himself.  Syville does not allege that he is
an attorney.  Accordingly, because Syville may only represent
himself, not others, the Court denies the request to proceed with
the action as a class action.  For the same reason, the Court
dismisses without prejudice any claims Syville asserts on behalf of
any individual other than himself.

Next, the Court finds that none of the individuals listed as the
Plaintiffs, other than Syville, has signed the complaint.  If any
of those individuals -- an individual, other than Syville, who has
submitted an IFP application -- wishes to remedy the deficiency and
proceed pro se, he must complete, sign, and submit a separate
attached declaration form within 30 days of the date of the Order.
In doing so, he will certify that he is a Plaintiff in the action,
that he is appearing pro se, and that he agrees with what is
asserted in the complaint.

The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of the Order to each
of the individuals listed as the Plaintiffs, with the exception of
Alphonso Syville, and note service on the docket.  Syville has
consented to electronic service of Court documents.

Judge McMahon denies the request for the action to proceed as a
class action.  The Judge dismisses without prejudice any claims
Syville asserts on behalf of any other individual.

The Court grants those individuals listed as the Plaintiffs, other
than Syville, leave to each file a completed and signed separate
declaration in which they each declare that they are a Plaintiff in
the action, that they are appearing pro se, and that they agree
with what is alleged in the complaint.  Each declaration must be
filed without delay.

No summons will issue at the present time.  If an individual who is
listed as a Plaintiff, other than Syville, fails to file a
declaration within the time allowed, the Court will dismiss that
individual's claims.

The Court certified under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3) that any
appeal from the Order would not be taken in good faith, and
therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 25, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/vj5SS6 from Leagle.com.

Alphonso Syville, Plaintiff, pro se.

Dexter Murray, Plaintiff, pro se.

Donald A. Lord, Plaintiff, pro se.

Terrance Carrington, Plaintiff, pro se.

Anthony McDonald, Plaintiff, pro se.

Julio Cesar Marin, Plaintiff, pro se.

Akeem Reed, Plaintiff, pro se.

Robert Fleming, Plaintiff, pro se.

Edward A. Crews, Plaintiff, pro se.

Bashiri K. Coleman, Plaintiff, pro se.


NMC HEALTH: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Isaac John, writing for Khaleej Times, reports that The Schall Law
Firm, a US shareholder rights litigation company, is the latest in
a host of law firms embarking of what appears to be a long
drawn-out legal battle against embattled NMC Health, which is
reeling under a debt pile of $6.6 billion.

The law firm announced the filing of a class-action lawsuit against
NMC Health for violations of some of the rules of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and a rule promulgated there under by the US
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Other law firms actively engaged with the class action suit filing
in courts on behalf of US investors alleging securities fraud
include Bernstein Liebherd, Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, Gainey,
McKenna & Egleston, Pomerantz Law, and Wolf Hadenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz.

These law firms have been encouraging investors who have lost
$100,000 or more on NMC Health American Depository Receipts to join
the fray.

Schall Law Firm asked investors who purchased NMC's securities
between March 13, 2016 and March 10, 2020, inclusive (the 'Class
Period'), to contact the firm before May 11, 2020.

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

According to the complaint, NMC Health made false and misleading
statements to the market. "NMC Health failed to maintain effective
internal controls. The company engaged in numerous related-party
transactions. The company understated its debts while
simultaneously overstating its cash-on-hand."

The law firms pointed out that NMC Health's principal shareholders
did not accurately report their interest in the company, which did
not review the ownership stakes of these principal shareholders,
and therefore could not enforce its relationship agreement with
them. "Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were
false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When
the market learned the truth about NMC Health, investors suffered
damages."

The filings make a number of allegations, including that the
company lacked effective internal controls, that it engaged in
"undisclosed and extensive" related party transactions, and that
its debts were significantly understated, while cash balances were
overstated.

At least one filing alleges that previous statements made by the
company were "were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis".

Legal firm Pomerantz alleged in its complaint that throughout the
"class period," NMC and its top officers "made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) NMC
lacked effective internal controls and risk management; (ii) NMC
engaged in undisclosed and extensive related party and de facto
related party transactions; (iii) NMC's debts were significantly
understated and obfuscated; (iv) NMC's cash-on-hand figures were
overstated; (v) NMC's principal shareholders were not accurately
reporting or accounting their interests or stakes in the company;
(vi) NMC did not review or know their principal shareholders
interests or stakes in the company; (vii) consequently, the company
was not enforcing its Relationship Agreement with the principal
shareholders; and (viii) as a result, defendants' statements about
NMC's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false
and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant
times." [GN]


NMC HEALTH: Six US Law Firms File Securities Fraud Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Fahy, writing for The National, reports that a number of US
law firms filed class action lawsuits with a view to representing
investors who might have suffered losses following the downfall of
NMC Health.

Bernstein Liebherd, Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, Gainey, McKenna
& Egleston, Pomerantz Law, Schall Law and Wolf Hadenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz are six firms that have filed class action suits in
courts on behalf of US investors alleging securities fraud.

Other firms are encouraging investors, who have lost $100,000
(Dh367,000) or more on NMC Health American Depository Receipts
(ADRs) -- a way for US stakeholders to invest in companies listed
on the London Stock Exchange -- to come forward with a view to
representing them.

The filings make a number of allegations, including that the
company lacked effective internal controls, that it engaged in
"undisclosed and extensive" related party transactions, and that
its debts were significantly understated, while cash balances were
overstated.

At least one filing alleges that previous statements made by the
company "were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis".

NMC Health was placed into administration in April following a
petition from its largest lender, Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank.

Joint administrators Richard Fleming, Mark Firmin and Ben Cairns
from Alvarez & Marsal Europe were appointed to run the business,
whose group companies continue to operate, but whose shares have
been delisted from the London Stock Exchange as a cost-saving
measure, and to simplify the restructuring process, administrators
said.

Administrators declined to comment on the cases filed in the US.

Even if they were to be successful, any claim against the company
from shareholders might not be paid given the scale of its debts.
Claims from equity holders typically rank below those of secured
and unsecured lenders, Kevin Lucas, an insolvency practitioner at
UK-based Lucas Johnson, told The National.

"As a shareholder in the UK, you have a right to money after
creditors have been paid -- you're not entitled to anything before
that, unless part of your investment was a bond investment, rather
than equity," Mr Lucas explained.

NMC Health owes $6.6 billion to lenders but had less than $5bn of
assets on its balance sheet as of June 30 last year, according to
its last filed accounts. That means banks themselves may not be
paid in full.

"If the banks are going to suffer a shortfall, that means the likes
of HMRC (the UK tax authority) and utilities companies aren't going
to get paid. If they're not going to be paid, there's nothing left
for the shareholders," Mr Lucas said.

However, he said it was unclear whether the law firms that have
filed claims were taking action against the company or its
directors.

If directors have taken action that is deemed to have prejudiced
investors, they may be personally liable, Mr Lucas said.

NMC Health, which employs 2,000 doctors and almost 20,000 other
staff, first hit problems in December when short seller Muddy
Waters Research issued a report arguing the company had inflated
cash balances, overpaid for assets and understated its debt.

The allegations sparked an independent investigation, which
highlighted "suspected fraudulent behaviour" and revealed the
$6.6bn debt pile, materially higher than the $2.1bn reported in the
company's last set of accounts.

NMC's founder BR Shetty said "serious fraud and wrongdoing" appears
to have taken place at the company, as well as at currency and
payments group Finablr and at several of his privately-owned
companies.

"This fraud also appears to have been undertaken by a small group
of current and former executives at these companies," Mr Shetty
said.

The fraud involved the creation of bank accounts, loans and
personal guarantees in his name, he said, which he "neither
authorised, consented to, or had any knowledge of".

Finablr, which is also listed on the London Stock Exchange,
reported on May 1 that its debt is almost $1bn higher than
previously reported. It has debts of $1.3bn, as compared with
$334.1 million in its last filed accounts for the six months to
June 30, 2019. [GN]


NORTH AMERICAN: Phillips Asserts Breach of FDCPA in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against North American Credit
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Kayla Phillips, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. North
American Credit Services, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case
No. 6:20-cv-00911 (M.D. Fla., May 27, 2020).

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

North American Credit Services, Inc. primarily specializes in the
professional collection of healthcare receivables.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin Zeig, Esq.
   Zeig Law Firm, LLC
   3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
   Hollywood, FL 33024
   Tel: (754) 217-3084
   Fax: (754) 217-3084
   Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com

NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Coronavirus-Related Shutdown
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Martinez, writing for Boston Herald, reports that a group of
students is taking aim at Northeastern University, charging in a
$50 million class action lawsuit that the school has unjustly
enriched itself and breached its contract with students paying
tuition during the coronavirus-related shutdown of the campus.

Manny Chong, the lead plaintiff in the suit filed in U.S. District
Court, says the online education Northeastern is providing him with
during the coronavirus shutdown has been characterized as
"inferior" by accreditation associations for his counseling
psychology masters degree.

"Instruction supplied substantially or entirely online has been
recognized as pedagogically inferior by, inter alia, the Commission
on Accreditation of the American Psychological Association," the
suit states.

Northeastern's campus shut down on March 12, after a letter to
students from university President Joseph Aoun announced the
closure March 11 as coronavirus cases began to spread in
Massachusetts.

A spokeswoman for the university on May 3 said Northeastern could
not comment because it had not yet received the complaint. Chong
also declined to comment.

Chong, a 2018 graduate and Canadian living in Boston, began his
M.S. in counseling psychology in fall 2019 and paid $23,400 in
tuition along with $146 in combined fees for campus resources,
according to the suit.

The university breached its contract when students agreed to accept
"full responsibility" to pay for educational services, a term
undefined in the agreement, attorney Douglas Hartman wrote.

Chong cites accreditation guidelines requiring face-to-face,
in-person interaction for psychology instruction, and says none of
the school's 18,000 undergraduates and 9,000 graduate students have
been permitted on campus since April.

Northeastern University is the latest university to be sued by
students over their sudden shutdown amid coronavirus concerns. A
separate class action lawsuit against Boston University is
contesting BU's pro-rated refund offers over housing costs, among
other grievances.

Northeastern asked students to move out of their residence halls by
March 17. The school, with a reported endowment exceeding $1
billion, announced on its website it will distribute $5.8 million
from the CARES Act to students "adversely impacted" by COVID-19,
although the exact distribution of funds was unclear.

At least 13 other universities across the country are facing
similar federal lawsuits, attorneys in the BU case told the Herald.
[GN]


NUNAVUT: Judge Set to Decide on Sexual Abuse Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Rohner, writing for CBC News, reports that a Nunavut judge
is expected to decide soon on whether to allow a class action
lawsuit involving a former teacher convicted of sexually assaulting
students to go ahead.

Justice Paul Bychok held a special chambers hearing on Feb. 14 to
hear arguments on whether the class action should be allowed.

The lawsuit, filed in 2015, says the governments of Canada, Nunavut
and the Northwest Territories did not do enough to protect students
from predatory abuse. The governments may have known about the
abuse without doing anything about it, the statement of claim says.


Maurice Cloughley was sentenced to ten years in prison in 1996 for
abusing nine children in six communities spread across Nunavut and
the Northwest Territories. The charges to which he pleaded guilty
included seven counts of indecent assault and two counts of sexual
assault.

Cloughley committed the abuses while teaching in those communities
between 1959 and 1979.

In 2004, a lawsuit with 31 plaintiffs was filed at the Nunavut
Court of Justice against the three governments. In 2008, a second
similar lawsuit with 32 plaintiffs was filed against the three
governments.

But the lawsuits stalled until 2015, when two law firms teamed up
and combined the cases into a single new case -- which is the
current case being considered.

For the last four years, lawyers from Ahlstrom Wright Oliver &
Cooper and Morris Martin Moore have been trying to get this case
approved as a class action lawsuit.

In Nunavut, there is no legislation that allows for class actions,
unlike most other jurisdictions. Class actions can still be
pursued, but require special permission from the court.

The new combined file had been sealed until earlier in April, when
Chief Justice Neil Sharkey lifted the seal after an appeal was made
by a member of the media.

3 complainants would represent collective experience

The statement of claim says three complainants would testify and
their testimony would represent the shared experiences of about 50
complainants between 1969 and 1981.

All complainants experienced sexual abuse by Cloughley while
underage, the lawsuit says.  

The governments "failed to respond to actual or constructive
knowledge of acts of sexual abuse committed in its facilities by
Cloughley, failed to properly investigate and supervise Cloughley,
and failed to ensure the safety of the plaintiffs," the statement
of claim says.

The statement says Cloughley coerced children with gifts, special
attention and extracurricular activities to pose for pornographic
photographs, take showers and baths and perform sexual acts on each
other, including intercourse.

Earlier this year in January, lawyers for the plaintiffs filed an
application to have the lawsuit approved as a class action with
three representative plaintiffs.

"The defendants had not put forth their positions as of the date of
this brief," said the document, filed Jan. 28, meaning the three
governments have not yet filed any statements of defence.

After hearing the application in February, Bychok reserved his
decision until early April, according to the court docket. But the
decision has not yet been released, according to the Nunavut Court
of Justice. [GN]


OPTUS: Faces Class Action Over Customer Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------
Wayne Flower, writing for Daily Mail Australia, reports that Optus
faces a multi-million dollar payout after publishing the addresses
of 50,000 customers in one of Australia's biggest-ever breaches of
privacy.

Maurice Blackburn Lawyers has made a ground-breaking class action
complaint against the telecommunications company -- and are asking
those who believed they may have been affected to contact them.

If successful, the action could see Optus forced to pay at least
$40 million -- or potentially even more.  

The proposed legal action is understood to be the first of its kind
against a telco for a breach of privacy.

The data breach was discovered by Optus during a routine audit of
10 million customers in October last year.

Optus told nearly 50,000 customers via a letter that their name,
address, mobile and home phone numbers had been wrongly published
in the White Pages, run by Sensis, against their wishes.

About 40,000 of those people were new customers whose details were
already breached, according to Optus.

"The majority of the affected customers' details were already
listed with Sensis prior to joining Optus," an Optus spokeswoman
said at the time.

But Sensis insisted it was strictly an "Optus issue".

While the personal details were subsequently removed from the White
Pages online directory, they remained published in printed copies
of the phone directory.

Under the Privacy Act, corporations which disclose personal details
of clients face penalties including fines.

The class action is expected to seek compensation for affected
customers.

Maurice Blackburn Senior Associate Elizabeth O'Shea said privacy
breaches were an increasing problem as companies became
increasingly entrusted with personal information.

"When people share personal information about themselves with
companies, especially large ones, they expect that data to be held
securely, and for it to be used only in lawful ways," she said.

"Too often we see reports of data mismanagement and it's time for
companies to be held accountable for this." [GN]


PARETEUM CORP: Baxley Suit Moved From N.D. Alabama to S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM BAXLEY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PARETEUM
CORPORATION, ROBERT TURNER, and EDWARD O'DONNELL, Case No.
1:20-cv-03738-UA (Filed Jan. 7, 2020), was transferred from U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square)
on May 14, 2020.

The Southern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-03738-UA to the proceeding.

The case is a class action brought on behalf of persons or
entities, who owned, purchased, or otherwise acquired publicly
traded Pareteum securities between December 26, 2017, and October
21, 2019, inclusive. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable
damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff purchased Pareteum securities during the Class Period
and was economically damaged thereby.

Pareteum is an international provider of mobile networking software
and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Phillip Campbell, Esq.
          John Harrison Hagood, Esq.
          CAMPBELL PARTNERS LAW, LLC
          505 20th Street North, Suite 1600
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 224-0750
          Facsimile: 205-383-261
          E-mail: andy@campbellpartnerslaw.com
                  harris@campbellpartnerslaw.com

               - and -

          J. Mark White, Esq.
          WHITE ARNOLD & DOWD PC
          2025 3rd Avenue North, Suite 500
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 323-1888
          Facsimile: (205) 323-8907
          E-mail: mwhite@whitearnolddowd.com


PENN STATE: Faces Lawsuit After Campus Closure Due to Pandemic
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Metts, writing for WJAC, reports that Penn State is under
fire as a student has now filed a class action lawsuit following
the closure of the campus because of the pandemic.

According to the lawsuit, Penn State student Tyler Thomson says he
and his classmates were deprived in person instruction as well as
the "true college experience".

The federal lawsuit was filed April 30th, and it states closing
campus due to the pandemic was the right thing to do however, it
deprived students of many benefits they already paid for in fees
and tuition.

In Thomson's suit, he claims, the true college experience includes
access to extracurricular activities, campus facilities, and face
to face interaction with professors and peers.

Penn State announced on March 16th that even though they are not
reimbursing students tuition rates since they'll continue to offer
classes online, they would offer prorated housing and meal plan
reimbursements.

Thomson says the University is liable for breach of contract and
unjust enrichment. He is looking for prorated refunds and
compensation for unspecified damages on behalf of the entire
student body. [GN]


PENN UNIVERSITY: Student's Class Action Demand Tuition Refunds
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pia Singh, writing for The Daily Pennsylvanian, reports that a Penn
student filed a class action lawsuit against the University
demanding tuition and fee refunds for the remainder of the spring
2020 semester. The outcome of the lawsuit could affect all Penn
students who paid tuition during this time period.

Master's student in the Graduate School of Education Asha Smith
filed the lawsuit on April 30, but Penn has rejected the basis for
the case. Smith's complaint follows a series of similar class
action suits filed by students against schools across the United
States who have shuttered campuses due to the coronavirus pandemic.


Smith is seeking prorated tuition and fee reimbursement from the
University. The lawsuit cited the lack of in-person instruction,
access to on-campus facilities, extra-curricular student
activities, and face-to-face interaction with professors and peers
that contribute to "the college experience."

"I felt like the only place that I could have redress and really be
heard is in a courtroom," Smith told The Daily Pennsylvanian in an
interview. "There [are] a lot of students who are not feeling heard
by the universities, and unfortunately Penn is one of those schools
who have not taken student concerns very seriously."

University spokesperson Stephen MacCarthy wrote in an emailed
statement to the DP that Penn believes the lawsuit to be
"misdirected and wholly without merit."

"In these very challenging times, Penn has always made, and
continues to make, the health and safety of our community our
highest priority, while continuing to provide the best and highest
quality academic experience, consistent with public health
requirements, for our students," MacCarthy continued.

Although Smith is the lead plaintiff, the outcome of the case may
affect most of Penn's student body, due to the breadth of the
suit's proposed Class, or group directly affected by the case's
allegations. In this suit, Class members include all people who
have paid tuition and fees on behalf of students who were enrolled
in courses this past semester, but did not receive in-person
instruction.

Representing Smith is the South Carolina-based Anastopoulo Law
Firm, a firm that is also representing numerous other students at
universities across the United States who have filed similar
complaints against their schools, such as Boston University,
Columbia University, Cornell University, and Drexel University.
Like Smith, these students are suing for tuition compensation due
to a loss of in-person academic experiences.  

Smith's attorney Roy Willey wrote in an email to the DP that his
firm has filed approximately 15 such cases nationally.

The Anastopoulo Law Firm also set up a website inviting students
whose colleges have closed campus to fill out a brief form so
attorneys can investigate potential legal action against schools
that are not offering tuition and fee refunds.

"All of us are in this together, and this isn't just about me,"
Smith said. "This is about setting a precedent that says schools
value their students in more than just their word, they value their
students with their financial priorities as well."

The University announced on April 9 it would offer prorated housing
and dining reimbursements, but has not announced tuition refunds,
despite appeals from students.

Smith said she thinks Penn can afford to reimburse students for
tuition in some capacity, referencing the University's financial
ability to continue supporting employees and refusal to apply for
or accept CARES Act assistance. Her lawsuit cites Penn's estimated
endowment of approximately $14.7 billion.

"What I do know is that Penn can certainly afford to compensate all
of us, employees and students alike," she said.  

But despite its large endowment, the University is making budget
adjustments to account for losses due to to the virus.

Provost Wendell Pritchett and Executive Vice President Craig
Carnaroli sent an email to the Penn community on April 13 detailing
Penn's budget plans for fiscal year 2021 in response to the
coronavirus pandemic. They wrote the University will institute a
hiring freeze, pause capital projects, and urge reductions in
discretionary spending -- such as travel and entertainment expenses
-- in order to maintain the majority of staff positions.

Vice President for Finance and Treasurer MaryFrances McCourt did
not share the specifics of how the University's endowment may be
affected by the pandemic, but said "if you just look at all the
financial markets, nothing would point to the endowment being up."

Beyond Penn, other colleges and universities across the country are
facing massive revenue losses after suspending on-campus
operations. After offering refunds for unused room and board fees
and canceling in-person activities, schools are facing weaker
endowments and expect lower fall enrollment from students facing
travel restrictions, financial burdens, and psychological impact
from the pandemic.

Smith said she imagines the lawsuit will force Penn to be more
attentive to students' needs.

"My hope is that it will force them to reconsider how to take care
of their students," Smith said about the lawsuit. "That's all this
is about, is remembering that we're all actually going through
these circumstances, but students are really struggling right now."
[GN]


PENNSYLVANIA: ACLU to Turn Immigration Case Into Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dylan Segelbaum, writing for York Daily Record, reports that as the
novel coronavirus continues to spread, the ACLU of Pennsylvania is
seeking to turn one of its cases into a class action lawsuit, which
could pave the way for dozens more immigrants who are at high risk
from COVID-19 to be released from detention.

Lawyers with the ACLU of Pennsylvania, the ACLU National Prison
Project and Immigrants Rights Project and Dechert LLP filed an
amended complaint on April 17 in U.S. District Court in
Harrisburg.

The proposed class action lawsuit would include people being held
in immigration custody now or in the future at the Clinton County
Correctional Institution, Pike County Correctional Institution and
York County Prison who have certain preexisting medical conditions
or are older than 45.

"It's increasingly clear to us that federal immigration authorities
are not serious about preventing the spread of COVID-19 in county
jails where our clients are held," said Reggie Shuford, executive
director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, in a statement.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III has twice ordered the release
of people from immigration detention to await the final outcome of
their cases. They must appear at future court proceedings, and some
of them are wearing ankle monitors.

The government has not yet filed a response, but it has argued in
previous court filings that the jails are equipped to stop the
spread of COVID-19. Lawyers have filed an emergency motion in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit to stay one of the
rulings, which would allow immigration authorities to return 19
people to custody.

The amended complaint adds 11 immigrants to the original lawsuit,
six of whom are being held at York County Prison. They emigrated
from counties such as Pakistan, Jamaica and Ghana and have
preexisting medical conditions that include asthma, diabetes and
HIV.

At York County Prison, the immigrants described conditions that
make it impossible to practice proper hygiene and social
distancing.

One woman exhibited symptoms of COVID-19 for six days before she
received medical attention, according to the lawsuit. Multiple
women are now showing symptoms, the lawsuit states, but no one has
been tested.

"Immigration officials' refusal to take essential public health
measures to protect older and other high-risk detainees from
contracting the virus places them in grave danger," said Witold
"Vic" Walczak, legal director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, in a
statement. "This mortal threat makes their detention
unconstitutional, thereby necessitating our clients' release as
soon as possible."

Mark Walters, a spokesman for York County, said one immigrant and
one corrections officer have tested positive for COVID-19, but both
have recovered from the disease.

Walters said the county will not comment on pending litigation.

The Pennsylvania Department of Health reported on April 20 that
more than 33,000 people statewide have tested positive for
COVID-19. About 1,200 have died. [GN]


PERRIGO CO: 3rd Cir. Won't Hear Class Certification Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2020, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit has denied the defendants' petition
for leave to appeal challenging the certification of the tender
offer class in the consolidated securities class action suit
entitled, Roofers' Pension Fund v. Papa, et al.

On May 18, 2016, a shareholder filed a securities case against the
company and its former CEO, Joseph Papa, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey (Roofers' Pension Fund v. Papa, et
al.).

The plaintiff purported to represent a class of shareholders for
the period from April 21, 2015 through May 11, 2016, inclusive.

The original complaint alleged violations of Securities Exchange
Act sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b‑5) and 14(e) against both
defendants and 20(a) control person liability against Mr. Papa.

In general, the allegations concerned the actions taken by the
company and the former executive to defend against the unsolicited
takeover bid by Mylan in the period from April 21, 2015 through
November 13, 2015. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendants
provided inadequate disclosure concerning alleged integration
problems related to the Omega acquisition in the period from April
21, 2015 through May 11, 2016.

On July 19, 2016, a different shareholder filed a securities class
action against us and our former CEO, Joseph Papa, also in the
District of New Jersey (Wilson v. Papa, et al.).

The plaintiff purported to represent a class of persons who sold
put options on our shares between April 21, 2015 and May 11, 2016.


In general, the allegations and the claims were the same as those
made in the original complaint filed in the Roofers' Pension Fund
case described above. On December 8, 2016, the court consolidated
the Roofers' Pension Fund case and the Wilson case under the
Roofers' Pension Fund case number.

In February 2017, the court selected the lead plaintiffs for the
consolidated case and the lead counsel to the putative class. In
March 2017, the court entered a scheduling order.

On June 21, 2017, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint that superseded the original complaints in the
Roofers' Pension Fund case and the Wilson case.

In the amended complaint, the lead plaintiffs seek to represent
three classes of shareholders - shareholders who purchased shares
during the period April 21, 2015 through May 3, 2017 on the U.S.
exchanges; shareholders who purchased shares during the same period
on the Tel Aviv exchange; and shareholders who owned shares on
November 12, 2015 and held such stock through at least 8:00 a.m. on
November 13, 2015 (the final day of the Mylan tender offer)
regardless of whether the shareholders tendered their shares.

The amended complaint names as defendants the company and 11
current or former directors and officers of Perrigo (Mses. Judy
Brown, Laurie Brlas, Jacqualyn Fouse, Ellen Hoffing, and Messrs.
Joe Papa, Marc Coucke, Gary Cohen, Michael Jandernoa, Gerald
Kunkle, Herman Morris, and Donal O'Connor).

The amended complaint alleges violations of Securities Exchange Act
sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b‑5) and 14(e) against all defendants
and 20(a) control person liability against the 11 individuals.

In general, the allegations concern the actions taken by the
company and the former executives to defend against the unsolicited
takeover bid by Mylan in the period from April 21, 2015 through
November 13, 2015 and the allegedly inadequate disclosure
throughout the entire class period related to purported integration
problems related to the Omega acquisition, alleges incorrect
reporting of organic growth at the Company and at Omega, alleges
price fixing activities with respect to six generic prescription
pharmaceuticals, and alleges improper accounting for the Tysabri(r)
royalty stream. The amended complaint does not include an estimate
of damages.

During 2017, the defendants filed motions to dismiss, which the
plaintiffs opposed. On July 27, 2018, the court issued an opinion
and order granting the defendants' motions to dismiss in part and
denying the motions to dismiss in part.

The court dismissed without prejudice defendants Laurie Brlas,
Jacqualyn Fouse, Ellen Hoffing, Gary Cohen, Michael Jandernoa,
Gerald Kunkle, Herman Morris, Donal O'Connor, and Marc Coucke. The
court also dismissed without prejudice claims arising from the
Tysabri(R) accounting issue described above and claims alleging
incorrect disclosure of organic growth described above.

The defendants who were not dismissed are Perrigo Company plc, Joe
Papa, and Judy Brown. The claims (described above) that were not
dismissed relate to the integration issues regarding the Omega
acquisition, the defense against the Mylan tender offer, and the
alleged price fixing activities with respect to six generic
prescription pharmaceuticals.

The defendants who remain in the case (the Company, Mr. Papa, and
Ms. Brown) have filed answers denying liability, and the discovery
stage of litigation has begun. The company intend to defend the
lawsuit vigorously.

On November 14, 2019, the court granted the lead plaintiffs' motion
and certified three classes for the case: (i) all those who
purchased shares between April 21, 2015 through May 2, 2017
inclusive on a U.S. exchange and were damaged thereby; (ii) all
those who purchased shares between April 21, 2015 through May 2,
2017 inclusive on the Tel Aviv exchange and were damaged thereby;
and (iii) all those who owned shares as of November 12, 2015 and
held such stock through at least 8:00 a.m. on November 13, 2015
(whether or not a person tendered shares in response to the Mylan
tender offer)(the "tender offer class").

Defendants filed a petition for leave to appeal in the Third
Circuit challenging the certification of the tender offer class,
and the class plaintiffs have filed an opposition. On April 30,
2020, the Third Circuit denied leave to appeal.

Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and
supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant
formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical
products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare
Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription
Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887
and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


PERRIGO CO: Baton Class Suit in Tel Aviv Stayed Indefinitely
------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2020, that the court has granted
the company's request to stay the class action suit entitled, Baton
v. Perrigo Company plc, et. al., indefinitely.  

On December 31, 2018, a shareholder filed an action against the
Company, its CEO Murray Kessler, and its former CFO Ronald
Winowiecki in Tel Aviv District Court (Baton v. Perrigo Company
plc, et. al.).

The case is a securities class action brought in Israel making
similar factual allegations for the same period as those asserted
in the In re Perrigo Company plc Sec. Litig case in New York
federal court.

This case alleges that persons who invested through the Tel Aviv
stock exchange can assert claims under Israeli securities law that
will follow the liability principles of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act.

The plaintiff does not provide an estimate of class damages.

In 2019, the court granted two requests by Perrigo to stay the
proceedings pending the resolution of proceedings in the United
States. Perrigo filed a further request for a stay in February
2020, and the court granted the stay indefinitely.

Perrigo said, "We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously."

Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and
supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant
formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical
products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare
Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription
Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887
and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.



PERRIGO CO: Suits Alleging Drug Price-Fixing Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a number of class action suit related to overarching
conspiracy allegations.  

The company has been named as a co-defendant with certain other
generic pharmaceutical manufacturers in a number of class actions
alleging single-product conspiracies to fix or raise the prices of
certain drugs and/or allocate customers starting, in some
instances, as early as June 2013.

The class actions were filed on behalf of putative classes of (a)
direct purchasers, (b) end payors, and (c) indirect resellers.

The products in question are Clobetasol gel, Desonide, and
Econazole.

Pursuant to the court's schedule staging various cases in phases,
the company moved to dismiss the complaints relating to Clobetasol
and Econazole. The court issued a decision denying the motions in
part in October 2018 and issued a second decision in February 2019
dismissing various state law claims, but allowing other state law
claims to proceed. The company filed answers to the Clobetasol gel
complaints on December 31, 2018. The company filed answers to the
Desonide and Econazole complaints on March 15, 2019. The cases are
proceeding in document discovery.

The same three putative classes have each filed complaints naming
the company as a co-defendant, along with 27 other manufacturers,
alleging an overarching conspiracy to fix or raise the prices of 15
generic prescription pharmaceutical products starting in 2011.

Perrigo manufactures only two of the products at issue, Nystatin
cream and Nystatin ointment.

Motions to dismiss certain single-product and overarching
complaints listed above were filed on February 21, 2019.
Plaintiffs' oppositions were due on May 2, 2019 and defendants'
replies were filed on June 13, 2019. On August 15, 2019, the Court
denied the Defendants' joint motions to dismiss certain overarching
conspiracy allegations. The cases are proceeding in document
discovery.

In December 2019, both the end payor and indirect reseller class
plaintiffs filed new overarching complaints against the company,
dozens of other manufacturers of generic prescription
pharmaceuticals, and certain individuals.

The Direct Purchaser plaintiffs filed a new overarching conspiracy
complaint in February 2020.

The complaints also allege conspiracies relating to the sale of
various new products, the majority of which Perrigo neither makes
nor sells.

The indirect reseller complaint alleges that Perrigo conspired in
connection with its sales of Immiquimod cream, Desonide cream and
ointment, and Hydrocortisone Valerate cream.

The end payor and direct purchaser complaints allege that Perrigo
conspired in connection with its sale of the following drugs:
Betamethasone Dipropionate, Bromocriptine Mesylate, Clindamycin
Phosphate, Fenofibrate, Halobetasol Proprionate, Hydrocortisone
Valerate, Permethrin, and Triamcinolone Acetonide. Perrigo has not
yet responded to the complaints, and responses are currently
stayed.

On March 11, 2020, the indirect reseller plaintiffs filed a motion
to amend the December 2019 complaint. The proposed amended
complaint adds additional products and allegations to the original
complaint.

Perrigo is discussed in connection with allegations concerning an
additional drug, Betamethasone Dipropionate lotion.

On April 24, 2020, defendants entered into a joint stipulation with
the indirect reseller plaintiffs not to oppose the motion to amend
and to stay responses to the amended complaint. The stipulation and
proposed order is pending Court approval.

Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and
supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant
formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical
products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare
Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription
Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887
and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


PHARMACIELO LTD: Faces Securities Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against PharmaCielo Ltd. ("PharmaCielo" or the "Company") (OTCQX:
PCLOF) and certain of its officers.   The class action, filed in
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, and indexed under 20-cv-03759, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded PharmaCielo
securities from June 21, 2019, and March 2, 2020, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period").  Plaintiff seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased PharmaCielo securities
during the class period, you have until May 5, 2020, to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.

PharmaCielo, through its subsidiary, PharmaCielo Colombia Holdings
S.A.S., purports to cultivate, process, produce, and supply
medicinal-grade cannabis oil extracts and related products in
Colombia and internationally.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about PharmaCielo's
business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors that: (i) PharmaCielo engaged in
undisclosed related party transactions with General Extract LLC
("General Extract"); (ii) PharmaCielo engaged in misleading
transactions and loans with General Extract; (iii) PharmaCielo had
significantly overstated the efficacy and competitiveness of the
Company's business and operations in South America, including Peru
and Colombia; (iv) PharmaCielo's Research Technology and Processing
Centre was never on-schedule and is delayed; (v) the Rionegro
facility is located on a floodplain and contaminated with mold and
pesticides from its previous tenants; (vi) PharmaCielo's Cauca
Department land has never been utilized by the Company and is idle;
and (vii) as a result, Defendants' public statements were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.

On January 9, 2020, Marijuana Business Daily ("MBD") published an
article entitled "New medical cannabis sales opportunities in Peru
face downward price pressure after winning company's very low bid"
(the "MBD Article").  According to that article, "[t]he price
offered by the winner of the first bidding process to supply
medical cannabis in Peru came in well below that of other
applicants," including PharmaCielo, which, "[t]o comply with the
purity requirement . . . offered CBD isolate in powder form," and
was disqualified "because the company didn't make an offer in
'liquid' form as required."

On this news, shares of PharmaCielo fell $0.122 per share, or
4.80%, to close at $2.42 per share on January 10, 2020.  However,
PharmaCielo's shares continued to trade at artificially inflated
prices as a result of the Defendants' continued misrepresentations
and misstatements throughout the rest of the Class Period.

On March 2, 2020, Hindenburg Research published a report (the
"Report") explaining that PharmaCielo had failed to disclose: (i)
transactions with related parties; (ii) misleading business
transactions and loans with General Extract and XPhyto Therapeutics
Corp.; (iii) the delayed state of its Research Technology and
Processing Centre's construction; and (iv) the poor state of its
Rionegro Growing Facility.

On this news, shares of PharmaCielo fell $0.5132 per share over the
next two trading days, or 36.14%, to close at $0.9068 per share on
March 3, 2020, damaging investors.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later,
the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established,
fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has
recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of
class members.

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


PHOENIX TREE: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on disclosed that it filed a class
action seeking to represent purchasers of Phoenix Tree Holdings
Limited (NYSE:DNK) American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") pursuant
and/or traceable to prospectuses and registration statements issued
in connection with the Company's January 22, 2020 initial public
offering ("IPO"). This action was filed in the Southern District of
New York and is captioned Wandel v. Gao, No. 20-3259.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Phoenix Tree ADSs during the Class Period to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Phoenix Tree securities
class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
class members in directing the Phoenix Tree securities class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the Phoenix Tree securities class action lawsuit. An
investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the
Phoenix Tree securities class action lawsuit is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff
in the Phoenix Tree securities class action lawsuit, you must move
the Court no later than 60 days from April 27, 2020. If you wish to
discuss the Phoenix Tree securities class action lawsuit or have
any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact plaintiff's counsel, Brian E. Cochran of Robbins
Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at
bcochran@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a copy of the complaint as filed
at
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-phoenix-tree-securities-class-action-lawsuit.html.

The Phoenix Tree securities class action lawsuit charges Phoenix
Tree, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters
of the IPO with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Phoenix
Tree is a Cayman Islands holding company that leases and manages
apartments in China, which it rents to tenants under the Danke
Apartment and Dream Apartment brands. Phoenix Tree generates
revenue primarily from rents and service fees. As of September 30,
2019, it operated in 13 cities in China, including Wuhan, where a
portion of its 5,000-plus employees worked.

On October 28, 2019, Phoenix filed with the SEC a Registration
Statement in connection with the IPO, which, after amendment, was
declared effective on January 16, 2020. On January 17, 2020,
Phoenix filed the Prospectus for the IPO, which incorporated and
formed part of the Registration Statement (together, the "Offering
Materials"). The Offering Materials were used to sell 9.6 million
ADSs, representing 96 million Class A ordinary shares, at $13.50
per share. The underwriters also exercised their option to purchase
an additional 304,933 ADSs. As a result, the Company received total
net proceeds of approximately $128.4 million. The IPO was completed
on January 22, 2020.

The complaint alleges that the Offering Materials issued in
connection with the IPO omitted or otherwise misrepresented the
nature and level of renter complaints the Company had received
before and as of the IPO, as well as the demand in the Chinese
residential rental market and the Company's exposure to significant
adverse developments resulting from the onset of the coronavirus in
China -- particularly in Wuhan -- at the time of the IPO. After the
IPO, reports emerged indicating that Phoenix was experiencing
ongoing problems due to the coronavirus, which was causing
financial and other harm to tenants.

On March 25, 2020, when Phoenix announced its unaudited financial
results for the fourth quarter and fiscal year ended December 31,
2019, it told investors that it expected the coronavirus to
adversely affect its financial performance for the nearly completed
first quarter of 2020. Information regarding ongoing renter
complaints also reached the market after the IPO, adversely
affecting the Company. As of April 24, 2020, Phoenix Tree ADSs were
trading at prices below $7.00 per ADS.

The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- is
one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in
securities litigation. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins
Geller has obtained many of the largest securities class action
recoveries in history. For seven consecutive years, ISS Securities
Class Action Services has ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50
Report as one of the top law firms in the world in both amount
recovered for shareholders and total number of class action
settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys have helped shape the
securities laws and have recovered tens of billions of dollars on
behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing financial recoveries
for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also specializes in
implementing corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the
financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys
are consistently recognized by courts, professional organizations
and the media as leading lawyers in the industry. [GN]


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Trujillo Alleges Violation under FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates LLC. The case is styled as Jesus Chinea Trujillo,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC and John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-22215-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 27, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as P.I.: Other
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC provides debt recovery and
collection services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin E. Zeig, Esq.
   Zeig Law Firm, LLC
   3595 Sheridan Street, Suite 103
   Hollywood, FL 33021
   Tel: (754) 217-3084
   Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com



PRIMOHOAGIES: Faces Class Action Over Payment Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Jim Walsh, writing for Cherry Hill Courier-Post, reports that a
Westville-based chain of hoagie shops faces a class action lawsuit
from customers affected by a data security breach.

The suit contends PrimoHoagies Franching Inc. failed to protect
customers against the theft of "highly sensitive and personal
payment card information.'

It contends the breach will cause victims "to undertake expensive
and time-consuming efforts, including placing 'freezes' and
'alerts' with credit reporting agencies."

PrimoHoagies has said the breach allowed one or more hackers to
steal payment card information for online customers between July
15, 2019, and Feb. 18, 2020.

The affected information "may have included names, addresses,
payment card numbers, expiration dates, and security codes,"
PrimoHoagies said in an April 17 announcement.

The lawsuit estimates the number of affected customers is "likely
in the millions."

It seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages on their
behalf, as well as at least three years of identity-theft and
credit card-monitoring services.

The suit was brought by Edward D. Hozza III, who is described as a
PrimoHoagies customer from Lehigh County, Pennsylvania.

It says Hozza's credit card company issued a new card after his
account was used for fraudulent purchases in September 2019.

Hozza's attorney, Anthony Christina of West Conshohocken, Pa.,
could not be reached for comment.

A representative also could not be reached at PrimoHoagies, which
franchises more than 80 restaurants between New Jersey and
Florida.

The suit was filed on April 23 in Camden federal court. [GN]


QANTAS: Slater & Gordon Mulls Class Action Over Travel Vouchers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jerome Doraisamy, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that major
airlines, including Qantas and Jetstar, may have breached legal
obligations by offering travel voucher schemes that disadvantage
customers, says Slater and Gordon.

Plaintiff firm Slater and Gordon is looking into launching actions
on behalf of tens of thousands of Australians who the firm says are
being "short-changed" by the airlines, travel agents and tour
companies, in the wake of flight disruptions brought about by the
global coronavirus pandemic.

Slaters believes that such major travel providers have potentially
breached their legal obligations by putting in place travel voucher
schemes that significantly disadvantage their customers.

According to Slaters practice group leader Andrew Paull, affected
customers may be able to participate in a class action against
their travel providers.

The firm has spoken with holidaymakers, he said, who "have been
left thousands of dollars out of pocket and holding vouchers that
they may never be able to use", while others, he continued, feel
they were forced to cancel ahead of airline announcements to get
back a portion of their fares, only to be hit with hefty
cancellation fees.

"We understand that everyone is doing it tough at present,
including the major airlines and travel companies, but that doesn't
give them an excuse to take advantage of their customers. Nor is it
acceptable for Qantas shareholders to treat the money it owes to
ordinary Australians like its own," Mr Paull said.

"We believe cash refunds should be returned to customers, who
almost certainly need that money right now, rather than in bank
accounts gathering interest for airline shareholders. We call on
businesses like Qantas and Jetstar to do the right thing and honour
their obligations to their customers. If they won't do so, then
it's only reasonable for those customers to look at recovering
their money through a class action."

In a statement, Slaters outlined that airlines have been: issuing
ticket holders on cancelled flights with travel vouchers rather
than cash refunds (in potential breach of airline conditions),
relying on blanket "no refund" clauses in its terms and conditions
in spite of ACCC warnings that such clauses are not always binding,
and convincing customers to exchange their tickets for restricted
travel vouchers.

Moreover, the airlines have continued to offer and accept payment
for international flights, the firm said. This includes flights to
Bali, departing in June, despite government advice that current
travel bans will remain in place "for the long-term". [GN]


RADIUS GLOBAL: Palmer Alleges Violation under FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Radius Global
Solutions LLC. The case is styled as Carissa Palmer, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Radius
Global Solutions LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-00722 (D. Conn., May 26, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as P.I.: Other
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Radius Global Solutions LLC provides debt recovery services and
customer contact solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
   Stein Saks PLLC
   285 Passaic st
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (347) 668-9326
   Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com



RING: Kelley Drye Attorneys Discuss CCPA Consumer Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alysa Zeltzer Hutnik, Esq. -- ahutnik@kelleydrye.com -- Lauri
Mazzuchetti, Esq. -- lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com -- & Paul A.
Rosenthal, Esq. -- paulrosenthal@kelleydrye.com -- of Kelley Drye,
in an article for Ad Law Access, report that recent putative
consumer class action cases filed against Ring and Zoom raise
allegations under the California Consumer Privacy Act ("CCPA") and
are likely to be the first battlegrounds over the CCPA's potential
hostility to consumer arbitration clauses.  The continued
applicability of arbitration agreements is likely to be a
significant (and hard-fought) issue with far-reaching implications
for consumer litigation under, and involving, the CCPA.  This post
reviews recent precedent concerning prior attempts by California to
bar arbitration or otherwise ignore federal preemption in the
context of privacy statutes in an effort to predict how the courts
will navigate the CCPA's attempted restriction on arbitration.

CCPA On Arbitration

The CCPA provides consumers with a private right of action when
they are affected by a data breach of certain types of personal
information.  Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1798.150.  The law permits
recovery of statutory damages between $100 to $750 per consumer,
per incident, and explicitly envisions actions proceeding on an
individual or class-wide basis.  Id. at (b).  In addition to
monetary damages, private consumers may seek injunctive relief
under the CCPA.   1798.150(a)(1)(B).  These statutory damages and
right to collective action make the CCPA a ripe target for consumer
class actions.  That is further bolstered by the CCPA's apparent
limitation of parties' ability to contract around public class
actions.  Specifically, the CCPA directs that:

Any provision of a contract or agreement of any kind that purports
to waive or limit in any way a consumer's rights under this title,
including, but not limited to, any right to a remedy or means of
enforcement, shall be deemed contrary to public policy and shall be
void and unenforceable.

Section 1798.192 (emphasis added).  Thus, the CCPA would not permit
a company to force an individual arbitration based on a consumer
contract where a class-wide CCPA claim is asserted.  But is that
enforceable?

California's History of Trying to Limit Arbitration

California's history of seeking to limit parties' rights to compel
arbitration has, for years, been at the center of the dispute over
the strength and reach of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C.
Sec. 1 et seq. ("FAA").  The landmark case on this issue is AT&T
Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011).  In Concepcion,
the United States Supreme Court addressed a clash between the FAA
and California's declaration that arbitration waivers were
unconscionable and, thus, unenforceable.  The FAA won.  Based on
the FAA, the Court found California could not reject arbitration
agreements, even if such clauses required consumers to arbitrate
individually.

In the ensuing decade, the Court has re-confirmed the Concepcion
decision against subsequent challenges, including from California.
Of particular relevance, in 2015, the Court confirmed that class
action waiver clauses in consumer agreements are enforceable, even
in the face of contrary California state law.  DirecTV, Inc. v.
Imburgia, 577 U.S. __, 136 S.Ct. 463, 468, 193 L.Ed.2d 365 (2015).
The Court also confirmed that arbitration agreements with a class
action waiver remain valid, even where consumers are presented with
the practical hurdle that a plaintiff's costs of individually
arbitrating might far exceed the potential individual recovery
available.  American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 570
U.S. 228 (2013).

In 2017, the California Supreme Court held that arbitration clauses
that left individual consumers without the ability to obtain public
injunctive relief were unenforceable.  McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 2
Cal. 5th 945 (2017).  Currently pending before the United States
Supreme Court is a petition for a writ of certiorari on the
question of "whether California's public-policy rule conditioning
the enforceability of arbitration agreements on acquiescence to
public-injunction proceedings is preempted by the FAA."  AT&T
Mobility LLC v. McArdle, No. 19-1078.

Privacy Laws Cannot Overcome Federal Preemption

Given the unique nature of the privacy protections of the CCPA and
lack of parallel federal privacy protections, it is instructive to
see how courts have approached preemption of prior California
privacy statutes.  In 2012, California's Attorney General brought
suit against Delta Airlines alleging that the lack of a
clearly-disclosed privacy policy in the "Fly Delta" app violated
the California Online Privacy Protection Act (CalOPPA), Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code Secs. 22575-22579.  Delta challenged the state's ability
to bring consumer protection claims against commercial airlines
given the federal Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-504,
49 U.S.C. Sec. 1371, et seq.  The court dismissed, finding that the
federal statute preempted the statutory requirements of CalOPPA.
State of California v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., Case No.
CGC-12-526741 (Cal. Sup. Ct. May 9, 2013).  The decision was
affirmed by the California Court of Appeals.  Case No. A139238,
2016 WL 3001805 (Cal. Ct. App. May 25, 2016).

Conclusion

Recent precedent supports the continuing viability of arbitration
clauses, including as part of consumer contracts that waive class
actions.  It further confirms that California's attempts to
circumvent federal law, including in the privacy space, are likely
to be struck down based on preemption.  Thus, all signs point
towards the continued ability of companies to compel arbitration,
including individual arbitration, over CCPA claims.

That said, it remains to be seen how far the California courts
(federal or state) might permit or force litigants to proceed
before that likely outcome is reached.  Thus, despite potential
contract terms that include an otherwise valid arbitration clause
and class action waiver, CCPA defendants such as Ring and Zoom may
need to engage in multiple rounds of motion practice and appeals
before getting clarity on the forum in which their cases will even
be heard.

Another consideration:  until there is a decision that the CCPA is
preempted by the FAA, the CCPA litigation occurring now may be the
only cases to provide clarification as to some of the vague
provisions of the CCPA (evident by the inconsistent interpretations
and compliance applications in the marketplace).  Once CCPA claims
are addressed mainly through arbitration, guidance will be left to
the California Attorney General's Office and the more limited
number of cases initiated by that Office. [GN]


ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Withouski Suit Transferred to N.D. Ca.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Stanley Withouski, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Robinhood Financial LLC,
Robinhood Markets, Inc. and Robinhood Securities, LLC, Defendants,
was moved from the San Mateo County Superior Court with the
assigned Case No. 20-civ-01730 to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on May 27, 2020, and assigned Case
No. 4:20-cv-03550-DMR.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other Fraud.

Robinhood Financial LLC operates as an institutional brokerage
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
   Bottini and Bottini, Inc.
   7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
   La Jolla, CA 92037
   Tel: (858) 914-2001
   Fax: (858) 914-2002
   Email: achang@bottinilaw.com

     - and -

   Francis A. Bottini , Jr., Esq.
   Bottini & Bottini, Inc.
   7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
   La Jolla, CA 92037
   Tel: (858) 914-2001
   Fax: (858) 914-2002
   Email: fbottini@bottinilaw.com

     - and -

   Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
   Bottini and Bottini, Inc.
   7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
   La Jolla, CA 92037
   Tel: (858) 914-2001
   Fax: (858) 914-2002
   Email: sammirati@bottinilaw.com

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Eric D. Monek Anderson, Esq.
   Farella Braun Martel LLP
   235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
   San Francisco, CA 94104
   Tel: (415) 954-4400
   Fax: (415) 954-4480
   Email: EMonekAnderson@fbm.com

     - and -

   Carl Brandon Wisoff, Esq.
   Farella Braun & Martel LLP
   235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
   San Francisco, CA 94104
   Tel: (415) 954-4400
   Fax: (415) 954-4480
   Email: bwisoff@fbm.com


SAN DIEGO, CA: NLCHP's Class Action Over Ordinance Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Cara Bayles, writing for Law360, reports that it's been longer than
a month since Colorado Gov. Jared Polis issued a stay-at-home order
requiring that residents self-isolate to stem the spread of the
novel coronavirus. But the phrase "stay at home" is fraught for the
estimated 9,600 Coloradans struggling with homelessness.

Sue Sanders is one of them. When she learned of the order, she'd
been living in her car for two years.

"I wasn't sure what to think," she said in an interview with
Law360. "I kept thinking, 'Stay at home. Well, my home is my car,
so I'll stay in there.'"

But it was cold and snowing in the city of Centennial, and the
recreation center where Sanders often showered had closed. She
considered staying at a shelter, but she's immunocompromised, and
the prospect of sharing space with others seemed dangerous even
before the pandemic.

Now, it's dangerous for everyone. Shelter beds are spaced only
three feet apart, not the six-foot distance recommended by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and bathrooms and
dining spaces are small and shared. That's according to a writ of
mandamus filed against the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment. The court filing called Colorado's shelters
coronavirus hot spots.

Jason Flores-Williams, the attorney representing five advocacy
groups and two homeless individuals who filed the writ in April,
said his clients want the state to find safe housing for its
homeless population. As things stand now, he said, "there is an
equal protection violation lurking here," because it's easier for
housed residents to obey Colorado's stay-at-home order.

"It shows this blatant hole in the government's thinking, that they
would simply issue a law, and there is a whole class of people who
do not have the ability to comply," he told Law360. "They're
saying, 'Everybody has to self-quarantine,' and then you've got
shelters all across the state where people are crammed in like
sardines. The law is creating a disparate impact."

If people who are homeless want to socially distance, he said,
their only option is to sleep outside. But that makes recommended
hygiene practices like hand-washing difficult, and encampment
denizens are subject to police sweeps, move-along orders or
citations.

Advocates across the country have long argued that local laws
barring public camping and living in a vehicle only serve to
criminalize homelessness and poverty. But the problem is
exacerbated during coronavirus. The homeless population is
vulnerable to the disease, both from public health and legal
standpoints.

Now attorneys are arguing cities and states ought to provide
housing to those who don't have it, to stop the spread of the virus
and ensure the homeless enjoy equal protection under the law.

Flores-Williams - who previously won a class action settlement for
Denver's homeless population that changed how the city enforces its
urban camping ban - said the public health crisis has created an
opportunity.

"Having these state and national states of emergency declared opens
up a window for all sorts of legal strategies," he said.

Now, impact litigation across the country is using novel legal
arguments, invoking state-created danger doctrine, the Fourteenth
Amendment and the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to
Sara Rankin, a law professor at Seattle University.

"There's going to be a very interesting suite of legal challenges,"
she said.

Some local governments have suspended laws that target homeless
communities. Washtenaw County, Michigan, and San Francisco have put
a moratorium on clearing homeless encampments. Seattle and
Washington, D.C., have eased parking restrictions that can affect
people living in their cars. Ohio expressly exempted the homeless
from its stay-at-home order.

Advocacy groups like the National Law Center on Homelessness &
Poverty (NLCHP) have embarked on campaigns to encourage more
communities to follow suit. They've also pursued impact litigation
to suspend punitive laws, especially ones that displace people who
are housing insecure, according to Eric Tars, NLCHP's legal
director.

"These ordinances criminalize the basic life-sustaining activities
that you and I do every day. We eat, we sleep, we shelter
ourselves, we sit down, we go to the bathroom. All these things are
perfectly acceptable and necessary to sustaining life if you do
them inside," Tars said in an interview. "But they are used by
communities to criminalize the act of living outdoors."

Such laws have been on the rise, according to an annual survey
conducted by the NLCHP, Dechert LLP, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP and
Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

Last year, 72% of 187 surveyed U.S. cities had at least one law on
the books restricting camping in public. Since 2006, 33 new laws
barring camping citywide have been enacted, marking a 92% increase,
according to the 2019 report.

That only serves to criminalize people struggling with
homelessness, Tar said.

"They're getting fines and fees that they can't pay or they're
being put in jail, where we've seen these outbreaks of COVID-19,"
Tars said. "Jail is the last place you'd want them to go right
now."

Those laws continue to be enforced, and that jeopardizes public
safety during an epidemic, Rankin said.

"Some jurisdictions are reacting to COVID-19 by increasing sweeps,
which have been shown to increase the rate of transmission," she
said. "The Centers for Disease Control admonishes jurisdictions
against doing that unless you have a place to send people. It's a
real threat to public health."

The homeless and housing insecure are also more vulnerable to
COVID-19. According to a new study from the University of
Pennsylvania, people who are homeless are twice as likely to
require hospitalization, and two to three times as likely to die
from the COVID-19 than the general population.

That's given fresh urgency to impact litigation over homelessness.

Take for example a case filed against the city and county of Los
Angeles by the LA Alliance for Human Rights, a coalition of
business owners, residents and homeless people on Skid Row.

The suit alleged local government officials hadn't done enough to
address a 75% surge in the local homeless population, outbreaks of
"medieval diseases" within encampments, and a staggering fatality
rate of three deaths per day.

The plaintiffs, represented by Matthew Umhofer --
matthew@spertuslaw.com -- of Spertus Landes & Umhofer LLP, invoked
the ADA, nuisance law and environmental law. They sought injunctive
relief in the form of more shelter beds.

Umhofer began building the case a year ago, long before the novel
coronavirus outbreak. But weeks after the complaint was filed on
March 10, U.S. District Court Judge David Carter was ordering the
installation of 50 toilets and sanitation systems near Skid Row,
noting "if left unchecked, it is likely that the coronavirus will
both devastate the vulnerable homeless population and exacerbate
the existing public health crisis."

When some cities expressed concern about Project Roomkey, a state
program to put vulnerable homeless populations in empty hotel
rooms, Judge Carter held a status conference -- in an off-site
ballroom, to encourage social distancing -- and addressed the
reluctant towns' concerns.

"It presents an opportunity," Umhofer said of the virus. "If we can
get people into some form of housing, even just a motel for 30 to
60 days, we can move them then into more sustainable forms of
shelter. And that's the plan here that Judge Carter has laid out."

Umhofer said he also believes the virus may have hastened the
government's response to the litigation. Less than two months into
the case, the city council voted to enter into settlement talks.
Umhofer called that "lightning speed" for litigation like his.

Another federal lawsuit, put together by NLCHP and others, targets
two San Diego ordinances that outlaw staying in vehicles overnight.
The putative class action brought by housing insecure residents
alleges the laws allow the city to impound and tow cars, leaving
many residents completely homeless. The suit was filed in 2017, but
Tars plans to seek a temporary restraining order on enforcement in
light of the pandemic.

"That vehicle is your means of sheltering in place," he said.
"You're destabilizing somebody at a time when you're ordering
people to be as stable as possible."

The litigation in Colorado aims to knock down another type of local
ordinance that harms people with limited housing options — limits
on how long people can stay at hotels.

In April, Sue Sanders found living in her car during the Colorado
winter was making her feel rundown and vulnerable. She managed to
get a voucher, then charitable donations to stay at a Motel 6 in
the town of Greenwood Village. But thanks to an ordinance limiting
stays in rooms without kitchens to 29 days, she was forced to
leave.

Neza Sarkari, who manages the motel, said she wanted Sanders to
stay. She also tried coordinating with the city of Denver for a
program similar to California's Project Roomkey, that would allow
vulnerable homeless residents to stay in her rooms. But Greenwood
Village wouldn't allow it.

"It's stopped me from contacting charitable agencies," Sarkari
said. "There are no homeless resources available in Greenwood
Village, so when we have to push people out due to the ordinance,
we are literally sending them to the streets."

Such individual local laws could be put on hold under the state's
declared emergency, according to Flores-Williams. He hopes to force
the state's hand with the writ of mandamus.

"All they have to do is issue an order saying, 'These ordinances,
for the purposes of this crisis, we are lifting them.' All of a
sudden there would be all this safe housing," he said.

Whatever happens with the Colorado suit, both homelessness and the
pandemic show no signs of abating, according to Benjamin Dunning,
an organizer with Denver Homeless Out Loud, one of the litigation's
plaintiffs. In fact, he says, the two crises are feeding one
another.

"What do you think is going to happen with all these folks filing
for unemployment in three to six months?" he said. "A good
percentage of them are going to end up out on the street." [GN]


SCENIC TOURS: High Court Allows Appeal in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Hetherington, Esq. -- stuart.hetherington@cbp.com.au -- and
Saba Shirazi, of Colin Biggers & Paisley, in an article for Mondaq,
report that cruise ship operators should consider the High Court's
decision in the Scenic Tours class action, particularly in light of
risks posed by
COVID-19.

This is an update on the February 2020 article about this case:
Scenic Tours class action - High Court hears appeal.

The High Court has unanimously allowed the appeal from the NSW
Court of Appeal.

The Court held that section 16 of the Civil Liability Act (NSW),
(which limits the amount of non- economic loss damages that can be
awarded in personal injuries claims, unless the non- economic loss
is at least 15% of the most extreme case) did not apply to preclude
Mr Moore from recovering damages for loss of enjoyment, stress and
disappointment of the cruise.

The Court held that damages for loss not consequential on physical
or psychiatric injury are not covered by section 16. The Court did
not find it necessary to consider whether section 16 applied to
loss suffered outside NSW, the basis on which the first instance
Judge had found that section 16 did not apply to Mr Moore.

The case has been remitted to the first instance Judge to determine
whether members of the group, on behalf of whom the proceedings
were commenced, may also recover damages for disappointment and
distress.

In endorsing the earlier decision of the High Court, which preceded
the Civil Liability Act, (Baltic Shipping v Dillon (1993) 176 CLR
344) arising from the sinking of the "Mikhail Lermontov" the
plurality of six (of the seven) Justices who wrote the leading
judgment said:

every member of the Court accepted that a claim for disappointment
and distress "caused by the breach of a contract . . . the object
of the contract being to provide pleasure and relaxation" is a
compensable head of loss separate and distinct from injured
feelings compensable under the rubric of pain and suffering and
loss of amenities of life associated with personal injury.

This decision will have considerable relevance in relation to the
quantum of damages possibly available against cruise ship operators
where proceedings are brought by passengers, either individually or
through threatened class actions, by reason of the present
coronavirus pandemic. [GN]


SI-BONE INC: Settlement Executed in Fromer Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
SI-BONE, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the parties in the
case, Eric B. Fromer Chiropractic, Inc. v. SI-BONE, Inc. (Civil
Action No. 5:19-cv-633-SVK) have executed a definitive settlement
agreement.

On February 6, 2019, a putative class action captioned Eric B.
Fromer Chiropractic, Inc. ("Plaintiff") v. SI-BONE, Inc. (Civil
Action No. 5:19-cv-633-SVK), was filed in the U.S. District Court,
Northern District of California. The complaint alleges violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") on behalf of
an individual and a putative class of persons alleged to be
similarly situated.

The complaint alleges that the Company sent invitations to an
educational dinner event to health care providers by way of
facsimile transmission.

The TCPA prohibits using a fax machine to send unsolicited
advertisements not including proper opt-out instructions or to send
unsolicited advertisements to persons with whom the sender did not
have an established business relationship.

The plaintiff sought various forms of relief, including statutory
damages of $500 for each violation of the TCPA or, in the
alternative, treble damages of up to $1,500 for each knowing and
willful violation of the TCPA and a permanent injunction
prohibiting the Company from sending or having sent advertisements
by way of facsimile transmission.

On December 23, 2019 the parties filed a joint stipulation of
dismissal of the case in the District Court in the Northern
District of California and on January 14, 2020, the parties
executed a definitive settlement agreement (the "Settlement
Agreement") pursuant to which, the Company agreed to settle all
disputes regarding the advertising faxes to the settlement class.

SI-BONE said, "As this lawsuit is being resolved through a
negotiated settlement and class resolution process, the Company
believes that it will incur a loss associated with resolution of
the claims against it. The Company has accrued litigation expense
of $3.2 million during the year ended December 31, 2019 within
general and administrative expenses in the consolidated financial
statements. The accrual reflects the estimable and probable costs
that the Company may incur based on estimated claims submitted by
members of the settlement class, as defined in the Settlement
Agreement. As of March 31, 2020, the total accrued litigation
expense remained the same as of December 31, 2019. The final
disposition of the lawsuit may result in a loss in excess of the
aggregate recorded amount."

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

SI-BONE, Inc., a medical device company, develops and
commercializes a proprietary minimally invasive surgical implant
system in the United States and Internationally. It offers iFuse,
an implant system to fuse the sacroiliac joint to treat sacroiliac
joint dysfunction that causes lower back pain. The company was
founded in 2008 and is headquartered in Santa Clara, California.


SOULBOUND STUDIOS: Wash. AG Responds to Chronicles of Elyria Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Remember Chronicles of Elyria?", writes Poorna Shankar, writing
for MMORPG. Backers of the game had contacted the Washington
Attorney General for potential action. It looks like there's an
update.

The update was posted on the effort's Discord and reads, "As of
04/27/2020, we've received a response from the Washington Attorney
General on Soulbound Studio's status. Specifically, Caspian has
typed up a general FaQ in response to the most commonly asked
questions on the status of Chronicles of Elyria and presented it to
the department for distribution. This FaQ will supposedly be posted
to the site later on April 27, but we wanted to present the version
that's been given to the legal departments without any potential
modifications or changes."

It continues, citing that the document essentially states that
Soulbound Studios is technically still in operation, and Chronicles
of Elyria is technically still in development with only one
developer from the company. That developer, of course, is Caspian
who announced that the game was shuttering.

It also explains that there are around five to six volunteers
staying on. As the Discord post puts it, "This is the justification
they're giving Xsolla and the Attorney General for not issuing
refunds on the game, as the project the funds were supposedly used
for is still in development. In addition, factors such as this
community and the moderators/developers who were let go are being
blamed for the delays and shutdown in communications."

The post concludes indicating that efforts will not be stopped to,
"bring a satisfactory conclusion to this debacle." [GN]

SPROUT FARMERS: Settlement Reached in Phishing Scam Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Sprouts Farmers Market said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 29, 2020, that an agreement in
principle has been reached in the class action suit related to
phishing scam.

In April 2016, four complaints were filed, two in the federal
courts of California, one in the Superior Court of California and
one in the federal court in the District of Colorado, each on
behalf of a purported class of the Company's current and former
team members whose personally identifiable information ("PII") was
inadvertently disclosed to an unauthorized third party that
perpetrated an email "phishing" scam against one of the Company's
team members.

The complaints alleged the Company failed to properly safeguard the
PII in accordance with applicable law.

The complaints sought damages on behalf of the purported class in
unspecified amounts, attorneys' fees and litigation expenses.

On March 1, 2019, a number of individual plaintiffs filed
arbitration demands. On May 15, 2019, certain other plaintiffs
filed a second amended class action complaint in the District of
Arizona, alleging that certain subclasses of team members are not
subject to the Company's arbitration agreement and attempted to
pursue those team members’ claims in federal court.

In late August 2019, the Company reached an agreement in principle
to settle the majority of these claims, which were funded in the
fourth quarter of 2019.

Primary funding for the settlement came from the Company's cyber
insurance policy, and the settlement did not have a material impact
on the consolidated financial statements.

A small group of three (3) individual claimants will proceed with
arbitration of their claims in the fourth quarter of 2020.  

The Company intends to defend the arbitrations vigorously, but it
is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of,
or any potential liability from, the arbitrations.

Sprouts Farmers Market operates as a healthy grocery store that has
made healthy living accessible to shoppers for nearly two decades
by offering affordable, fresh, natural and organic products. True
to its farmers market heritage, Sprouts is known for pioneering our
unique grocery model by offering a welcoming store layout featuring
fresh produce at the center of the store, an expansive bulk foods
section, and a vitamin department focused on overall wellness. The
company is based in Phoenix, Arizona.


STATE AUTO: Dino Palmieri Salon Leads Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
A big name in the beauty industry is the lead plaintiff in a class
action lawsuit filed against State Auto Mutual Insurance Company,
an Ohio-based insurer. Like many businesses in Ohio, including all
hair salons, Dino Palmieri has been forced to shutter all ten of
his locations. But when he sought to collect on the Salons'
business interruption coverage, State Auto refused to pay.

The Ohio law firms of Spangenberg, Shibley & Liber, LLP and Rutter
& Russin, LLC brought the suit on behalf of Palmieri, and all other
businesses in Ohio that were denied coverage under State Auto's
policy. The Spangenberg and Rutter firms previously filed the first
coronavirus coverage lawsuits in Ohio on behalf of the restaurant
group that owns and operates the Marble Room in downtown Cleveland
and J3 Clothing Company, a prominent men's fashion retailer on the
east side. Marble Room and J3 filed on behalf of all businesses in
Ohio that were denied coverage for coronavirus-related business
interruption losses against Cincinnati Insurance Company and the
Lightning Rod Mutual Insurance Company, respectively, both
Ohio-based insurers.

With no way of generating revenue to pay employees, rent,
utilities, and necessary expenses, Palmieri turned to his business
interruption coverage, but was denied. "Year after year we pay for
business interruption insurance, but now, when we need the
coverage, the insurance company says no. It's infuriating," says
Palmieri.

Lawyers Nick DiCello and Bobby Rutter represent and are
investigating claims for hundreds of businesses in Ohio and across
the country that have been denied business interruption coverage.
"Mr. Palmieri feels the same way as all of our clients. These
business owners paid for insurance to protect them and they feel
like the carriers are not holding up their end of the deal," said
DiCello, a partner at the Spangenberg firm. A restaurant owner
himself, Rutter and his father have been representing policyholders
against insurance companies for decades and know how critical
business interruption coverage is. "The insurance carriers that
issued these policies should be paying these claims. Period," says
Rutter.

With decades of experience litigating and trying cases against the
insurance industry, the Spangenberg and Rutter firms represent and
are being sought out by businesses across the country to evaluate
their claims for coronavirus-related business interruption
coverage. The firms are actively litigating cases against multiple
different carriers in different states.

If your business has been negatively affected by the pandemic,
please call Nick DiCello at 877-976-7829 or email him at
ndicello@spanglaw.com. [GN]


SUNRUN INC: Kuhnast Balks at Illegal Telemarketing Conduct
----------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD KUHNAST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SUNRUN, INC., Defendant, Case No.
8:20-cv-01193 (M.D. Fla., May 26, 2020) is a putative class action
arising from Defendant's knowing and willful violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, Defendant calls unsuspecting parties on
their cellular telephones with pre-recorded messages in order to
sell them goods and services as part of its marketing strategy.

Defendant caused thousands of pre-recorded messages to be sent to
the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and Class Members, causing
them injuries, including invasion of their privacy, aggravation,
annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal
conduct. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of
himself and Class Members and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of
Defendant.

Sunrun, Inc. is a San Francisco, California-based solar company
that markets and installs solar panel systems in numerous states
throughout the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Eisenband, Esq.
          EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
          515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 533-4092
          Email: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com

               - and -   

          Ignacio Hiraldo, Esq.
          IJH LAW
          1200 Brickell Ave. Suite 1950
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (786) 496-4469
          Email: IJHiraldo@IJHLaw.com

SVM MGMT: Count III in Joiner Unlawful Penalties Suit Reinstated
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHANDRA JOINER et al., Appellants, v. SVM MANAGEMENT,
LLC, Appellee, Case No. 124671 (Ill.), the Supreme Court of
Illinois (i) reaffirmed decisions in Wheatley v. Board of Education
of Township High School District 205, Barber v. American Airlines,
Inc., and Ballard RN Center, Inc. v. Kohll's Pharmacy & Homecare,
Inc., (ii) affirmed the dismissal of Count II with prejudice, and
(iii) reinstated Count III.

Plaintiffs Chandra Joiner and William Blackmond rented an apartment
from defendant SVM Management LLC.  They paid a security deposit to
defendant to secure against potential unpaid rent or other damages.
After they moved out, Defendant returned their security deposit
but failed to pay interest on that deposit, as required by the
Security Deposit Interest Act (Deposit Act) (765 ILCS 715/0.01 et
seq. (West 2016)).  

The Plaintiffs' three-count complaint was commenced in the circuit
court of Cook County.  In Count I, Plaintiffs alleged, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated (Class A), that the
Defendant violated the Deposit Act by failing to pay interest on
its tenants' security deposits.  In Count II, Plaintiffs alleged,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated (Class B),
that the Defendant violated the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices
Act by way of various allegedly unlawful lease and rider
provisions.  Finally, in Count III, Plaintiffs alleged,
individually, that the Defendant violated the Rental Property
Utility Service Act by failing to provide the required notices or
disclosures relating to the Plaintiffs' payment of a common-area
utility, namely that one or more parking lot lights were connected
to the Plaintiffs' electrical meter.

The Defendant responded by tendering the Plaintiffs' requested
damages and attorney fees on one count and later moving to dismiss
the other two.  The Plaintiffs refused that tender.  The circuit
court dismissed the first amended complaint as deficient for
lacking the written instruments on which the claims were founded
pursuant to section 2-606 of the Code.  The circuit court also
dismissed Count II for failing to state a claim for violation of
the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.  The
motion for reconsideration was set for hearing and later denied.
The Plaintiffs elected to stand on their pleadings, and the circuit
court dismissed the entire cause with prejudice, making it final
and appealable.

Defendant argued that its tender made that cause of action moot
pursuant to the Illinois Supreme Court's decisions in Barber v.
American Airlines, Inc., 241 Ill.2d 450 (2011), and Ballard RN
Center, Inc. v. Kohll's Pharmacy & Homecare, Inc., 2015 IL 118644.


Plaintiffs now ask the Illinois Supreme Court to revisit the
decisions in Barber v. American Airlines and Ballard RN Center v.
Kohlls Pharmacy in light of evolving federal precedent and the
United States Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, 577 U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 663 (2016).  They argue that Barber
is no longer good law and that the circuit court erred in
dismissing all counts based on the Defendant's tender as to only
the first count.

Before the Illinois Supreme Court, the Plaintiffs argued, like they
do in the circuit court, that the decision in Barber was no longer
good law in light of Campbell-Ewald and, if Barber was still good
law, that the circuit court erred in holding that Barber permitted
dismissal of all counts when defendant only tendered on one count.
Plaintiffs also argued that the circuit court erred by preventing
them from conducting discovery on the basis of the Defendant's
tender and that the circuit court erred in dismissing the remaining
causes of action.

The Illinois Supreme Court found that the Defendant made a valid
tender before noting that only the Illinois Supreme Court can
overturn the Court's precedent.  Therefore, the Illinois Supreme
Court held that Barber was still good law in Illinois and the
circuit court properly dismissed Count I as moot.  The Illinois
Supreme Court next held that the circuit court did not abuse its
discretion in staying discovery.  The Illinois Supreme Court
examined the sufficiency of the pleadings regarding Count II; noted
that the Plaintiffs did not argue for reversal of the circuit
court's section 2-615 dismissal for failure to state a claim; and
affirmed dismissal.  Finally, the Illinois Supreme Court found that
Count III was not based on a written instrument, such that the
claim was insufficient without the instrument attached, and
reinstated Count III.  The Illinois Supreme Court granted the
Plaintiffs leave to appeal.

The Illinois Supreme Court agrees that to decide the case, it must
reexamine Barber and Ballard in light of the approach now used by
the Seventh Circuit and the United States Supreme Court.  The
Illinois Supreme Court however disagrees that the circuit court
dismissed all counts based on the tender.  Rather, only count I was
dismissed on the tender.

The Plaintiffs' request for relief asks the Illinois Supreme Court
to reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County and the
First Appellate District in its entirety.  To the extent the
plaintiffs seek review of the dismissal of count II, which was
dismissed as failing to state a cause of action, the Illinois
Supreme Court finds that they forfeited such an argument.  To the
extent they request that, Illinois Supreme Court reverses the
appellate court's reinstatement of count III -- which reinstatement
was in their favor -- they have not argued that issue either, and
Illinois Supreme Court declines to consider it.

Having addressed the issues that are not before the Court, the
Illinois Supreme Court turns to those that were argued and that it
considers.  Count I was dismissed under section 2-615 of the Code.
The Illinois Supreme Court's review, therefore, is de novo.

Having carefully reviewed Barber, it is clear that Barber contains
no explicit requirement for the class certification motion, other
than the timing of its filing.  The Illinois Supreme Court agrees
with the appellate court that a contentless "shell" motion, or
otherwise frivolous pleading, would be insufficient to preclude a
mootness finding under Barber but held that the motion filed by the
plaintiff in that case was sufficient because it identified
defendant, the applicable date or dates, and the general outline of
plaintiff's class action allegations.  Only after the Court found
that the focus of Barber is on the timing of the plaintiff's filing
and not the merits of a motion for class certification did it note
that such focus was also consistent with the approach taken in the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

In Campbell-Ewald, a sufficient tender therefore provides the
plaintiff with the relief she seeks, not just a promise to provide
that relief, as well as an admission of liability.  Because an
effective tender is unconditional, no return consideration is
given.  A lack of consideration means that the tender does not form
a contract and a tender should not be construed as a contract.  The
Plaintiffs' argument that Campbell-Ewald's holding is not limited
to Rule 68 but is based on contract law is therefore unavailing,
the Illinois Supreme Court holds.

In Wheatley, an issue is moot if no actual controversy exists.
When a defendant admits liability and provides the plaintiff with
all relief requested -- as she does with a tender -- no controversy
exists.  Before a named plaintiff files her motion for class
certification, only her claims are before the court.  Once a
representative plaintiff is granted the desired relief, he is no
longer a member of the class because his interests are not
consistent with the interests of the other class members.

The Illinois Supreme Court reaffirms Ballard, Barber, and Wheatley.
When a defendant tenders the relief sought by a named plaintiff
prior to a motion for class certification, it does not force the
plaintiff to accept a settlement against her will, as the
Plaintiffs argue, but admits liability and satisfies the
plaintiff's demand.  A live controversy therefore no longer exists,
and the court must dismiss the case if no other plaintiff steps
into the named plaintiff's shoes to represent the class.

Ultimately, Illinois Supreme Court holds that future tenders made
to satisfy a demand, if made after filing of suit, should be made
to the court.  If the tender fully satisfies the plaintiff's demand
absent costs and attorney fees, the court could then hold a hearing
on costs and, if applicable, attorney fees before dismissing the
case contingent upon payment of costs and fees.  Particular to the
instant case, the Illinois Supreme Court holds that the Defendant
must pay the tendered funds to the circuit court pending a hearing
on costs and attorney fees and dismissal.

The Illinois Supreme Court reaffirmed Wheatley, Barber, and
Ballard.  It held that an effective tender made before a named
plaintiff purporting to represent a class files a
class-certification motion satisfies the named plaintiff's
individual claim and moots her interest in the litigation.  The
Illinois Supreme Court distinguished the U.S. Supreme Court's
decision in Campbell-Ewald and the Seventh Circuit's decision in
Chapman in that those cases deal with an offer of judgment under
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which the Court found to be
an offer of settlement, as opposed to a tender that completely
satisfies a plaintiff's demand.

On remand, the Defendant is to deposit the tender with the circuit
court.  The court is to determine the Plaintiffs' costs and
reasonable attorney fees before dismissing count I contingent upon
payment of those costs and fees.  Count II remains dismissed with
prejudice, and Count III is reinstated.

A full-text copy of the Illinois Supreme Court's Feb. 21, 2020
Opinion is available at https://is.gd/6UKmnf from Leagle.com.


TENNESSEE VALLEY: Bid to Dismiss Kingston Ash Spill Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company's motion to
dismiss the class action suit related to the 2008 Kingston Ash
Spill is pending.

In response to the 2008 ash spill at Kingston, TVA hired Jacobs
Engineering Group, Inc. ("Jacobs") to oversee certain aspects of
the cleanup.

On November 7, 2019, a resident of Roane County, Tennessee, filed a
proposed class action lawsuit against Jacobs and TVA in the Eastern
District.

The complaint alleges that the class representative and all other
members of the proposed class were damaged as a result of the 2008
ash spill at Kingston and the resulting cleanup activities.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that (1) TVA was
negligent in its construction and operation of the Kingston CCR
facility, (2) TVA and Jacobs failed to take proper measures to
mitigate environmental and health risks during the cleanup
response, and (3) TVA and Jacobs misled the community about health
and environmental risks associated with exposure to coal fly ash.

The complaint seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief in the
form of an order requiring the defendants to establish a blood
testing program and medical monitoring protocol and to remediate
damage to the properties of the proposed class.

On April 22, 2020, TVA moved to dismiss the complaint.

Tennessee Valley Authority, a government-owned corporation,
produces electricity. The Company provides power to large
industries and 155 power distributors that serve approximately 9
million consumers in seven southeastern states. Tennessee Valley's
power system is self financed. The company is based in Knoxville,
Tennessee.


TERKELL LAW: Katz Files Breach of FDCPA in New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Terkell Law Firm
P.C.  The case is styled as Chaim Katz, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Terkell Law Firm
P.C. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-04033
(S.D.N.Y., May 26, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as P.I.: Other
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Terkell Law Firm, P.C. is a firm serving New City, NY.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
   Stein Saks PLLC
   285 Passaic st
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (347) 668-9326
   Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com


TEXAS: Death Row Inmates Join Class Action Over COVID-19 Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Ketterer, writing for Houston Chronicle, reports that
death row inmates at a Livingston-area prison have asked to join a
lawsuit against the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, claiming
health and safety concerns put them at risk of contracting
COVID-19.

The Texas Innocence Network on May 1 filed the class-action motion
on behalf of the 208 death-sentenced men at the Allan B. Polunsky
Unit, who allege they have been denied access to soap, clean
towels, hand sanitizer and masks. [GN]


THERANOS INC: Ninth Cir. Appeal Filed in BP Medical Battery Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Ramesh Balwani filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled B.P., et al. v. Ramesh Balwani, et al., Case No.
2:16-cv-2138-HRH WO, Consolidated with Case Nos. 2:16-cv-2373-HRH,
2:16-cv-2660-HRH, 2:16-cv-2775-HRH and 2:16-cv-3599-HRH, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge H.
Russel Holland of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' request
to dismiss the Plaintiffs' second amended consolidated class action
complaint ("SAC").

The Plaintiffs are A.R., B.B., B.P., D.L., L.M., M.P., R.C., R.G.,
S.J., and S.L. Plaintiff A.R. is alleged to be a resident of
California. The other Plaintiffs are alleged to be residents of
Arizona. The Defendants are Theranos; Elizabeth Holmes; Ramesh
Balwani; Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc.; and Walgreen Arizona Drug
Co. In 2003, Theranos was founded by Holmes. Balwani was the
President and CEO of Theranos until he resigned in 2016.

Theranos initially focused on development of a hand-held device
that would use a tiny needle to obtain a small drop of blood for
analysis.  By 2008, the project had grown into attempting to
develop what is now known as the 'Edison' device. The Edison device
was supposedly able to take a few drops of blood from a patient's
finger placed into a 'nanotainer' capsule, and reliably conduct
hundreds of blood tests, all outside a lab. However, the project
did not apparently get that far because the blood drawn from
clients such as the Plaintiffs was actually tested at
laboratories.

The appellate case is captioned as B.P., et al. v. Ramesh Balwani,
et al., Case No. 20-15974, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by June 18, 2020;

   -- Transcript is due on July 20, 2020;

   -- Appellant Ramesh Balwani's opening brief is due on
      August 28, 2020;

   -- Appellees A.R., B.B., B.P., D.L, R.G., S.J. and S.L.'s
      answering brief is due on September 28, 2020; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after\
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees B.P., et al., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Thomas David Copley, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Email: dcopley@KellerRohrback.com

               - and -

          Roger N. Heller, Esq.
          Michael Sobol, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Email: rheller@lchb.com
                 msobol@lchb.com
              
               - and -

          Mark Dudley Samson, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
          3101 North Central Avenue
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 230-6323
          Email: msamson@KellerRohrback.com

               - and -

          Tanya Korkhov, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1140 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (646) 380-6693
          Email: tkorkhov@KellerRohrback.com

               - and -

          Linda Marie Fong, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          350 Sansome Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772-4700
          Email: lfong@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Laurence David King, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (415) 772-4700
          Email: lking@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED
          14646 N. Kierland Blvd.
          Scottsdale, AZ 85254
          Telephone: (480) 348-6400
          Facsimile: (480) 348-6415
          Email: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com

Defendant-Appellant RAMESH BALWANI is represented by:

          Frederick B. Burnside, Esq.
          Stephen M. Rummage, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98104-1610
          Telephone: (415) 276-6516
          Email: fredburnside@dwt.com
                 steverummage@dwt.com


TRANSUNION LLC: Womble Bond Discusses 9th Cir. FCRA Case Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jason D. Wyman, Esq. -- jason.wyman@wbd-us.com -- of Womble Bond
Dickinson (US) LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that on February 27, 2020, in a 2-1 decision, the Ninth
Circuit in Ramirez v. TransUnion, LLC held that every member of the
class must have standing in order to recover damages at the final
judgment stage.  Judge McKeown filed a partial dissent.

Ramirez involves TransUnion's "OFAC Advisor" product, which added
an alert to a consumer's credit report indicating whether the
individual was a Specially Designated Nationals ("SDNs") on the
list maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC").
SDNs are prohibited from transacting business in the United States
due to national security reasons, and a company can face a fine for
transacting business with an SDN.  TransUnion used a third-party
company, Accuity, Inc., to obtain the information about whether a
consumer was on the OFAC list.  Accuity's software would return a
"hit" based on a simple "name-only" search.

The lead plaintiff, Sergio Ramirez, attempted to buy a car in 2011.
After negotiating the terms, the dealership ran a joint credit
report on Mr. Ramirez and his wife.  The credit report, which was
prepared by TransUnion, contained an alert on the first page that
Sergio Ramirez's matched a name on the OFAC list.  The dealership
refused to sell the car to Ramirez because his name appeared on "a
terrorist list."  The report listed the names and birthdates of the
two individuals who appeared on the OFAC list.  Based on the names
and dates of birth, it was clear that the Plaintiff was not the
same "Sergio Ramirez" who appeared on the list.

Ramirez contacted TransUnion after his experience at the dealership
and requested a copy of his credit report.  Importantly, the copy
of the credit report sent to the Plaintiff did not contain the OFAC
alert.  TransUnion's policy was to redact the OFAC report when a
consumer requested their credit report.  TransUnion sent two
letters in response to Plaintiff's request.  The first letter
enclosed a copy of his credit report, and included information on
how to dispute information contained on the credit report along
with an FRCA "Summary of Rights" form.  The second letter (the
"OFAC Letter") alerted Plaintiff that his name was considered a
potential match to the OFAC list.  Importantly, the OFAC Letter did
not contain a summary of rights form nor give any instructions on
how to dispute the OFAC information.

Ramirez filed suit on behalf of himself and the 8,184 other
consumers who requested a copy of their credit report and also
received the OFAC Letter.  The case proceeded to a jury trial on
three claims: (1) willful failure to follow reasonable procedures
to ensure the accuracy of the OFAC alerts, (2) willful failure to
disclose their entire credit reports due to redacting the OFAC
alert, and (3) willful failure to provide a summary of rights due
to the failure to include it with the OFAC letter.  The jury
returned a verdict in favor of the class and awarded $8 million in
statutory damages and $52 million in punitive damages.

TransUnion advanced several arguments on appeal, including that
each class member -- besides Ramirez -- could not satisfy the
Article III standing requirements.  The majority first addressed
the standing and held, as a matter of first impression, that "each
member of a class certified under Rule 23 must satisfy the bare
minimum of Article III standing at the final judgment stage of a
class action in order to recover monetary damages in federal
court."

In Robins v. Spokeo, Inc., 867 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir. 2017)
("Spokeo III"), following remand form the United States Supreme
Court, the Ninth Circuit adopted a two-part test to determine
whether the violation of a statutory right constitutes a concrete
injury:  (1) whether the statutory provisions were established to
"protect concrete interests (as opposed to purely procedural
rights)"; and (2) whether the party was actually harmed or there is
a material risk of harm based on the alleged violations.

Applying this new standard to the Ramirez class's reasonable
procedures claim, the majority determined that all class members
"suffered a material risk of harm to their concrete interests."
First, the Ninth Circuit easily determined that the Ramirez class
satisfied step one based on the stated purpose of the FCRA.  As to
the second part, the majority concluded that all class members had
standing because of the severity of the error by stating that a
consumer appeared on the OFAC list.  TransUnion argued that the
vast majority of the class did not have standing because their
credit report was never published to a potential creditor.  The
majority rejected this argument as "too narrow" of a reading on
Spokeo III.  Spokeo III did not reach the question of whether a
plaintiff could satisfy the concrete injury requirement if the
information was never published.  In Ramirez, the majority
determined that the potential to disclose such damaging incorrect
information was sufficient to establish that every class member
suffered a material risk of harm.  The majority opinion left open
the issue of whether publication will be required in every case.

The majority reached the same conclusion on standing on the
disclosure claims based on similar rationale.  Namely, every class
member had a material risk of harm based on the policy of redacting
the OFAC alert on the requested consumer report and failure to
include a summary of rights with the OFAC letter.

Responding to TransUnion's argument that the violations were not
willful, the court easily rejected that argument based on the Third
Circuit's opinion in Cortez v. TransUnion, LLC, 617 F.3d 688 (3d
Cir. 2010), which affirmed a jury award based on the same product
at issue.  In the Ninth Circuit's view, "TransUnion was provided
with much of the guidance it needed to interpret its obligations
under the FCRA with respect to OFAC Alerts in 2010 when Cortez was
decided.  Despite this warning, TransUnion continued to use
problematic matching technology and to treat OFAC information as
separate from other types of information on consumer report."

TransUnion's only successful argument was that the punitive damages
award was grossly excessive.  The majority remanded the case for a
reduction of the punitive damages award to the constitutionally
permissible 4 to 1 ratio.

Judge McKeown dissented on the standing issue.  Based on Judge
McKeown's view of the record, there was no evidence presented of
any harm or damages to the remaining class members whose credit
reports were not published.  Rather, the trial focused on Ramirez
and his unique circumstances because it presented a great trial
narrative. In her view, the trial court erred by allowing the jury
to speculate that the absent class members suffered damages similar
to Ramirez.  In her view, "Speculation can complete a story but it
cannot" be used to "cure the infirmity" of the necessary evidence
to establish that each class member suffered a concrete injury.

The Ninth Circuit recently granted the parties' joint motion to
stay the mandate pending the filing of a petition for certiorari to
the United States Supreme Court. [GN]


TREASURY WINE: Faces Another Class Action of Deceptive Conduct
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth Hogan, writing for Inside FMCG, reports that Treasury Wine
Estates (TWE) has been served with another class action alleging
the business engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct.

The lawsuit, filed by Maurice Blackburn, on behalf of plaintiff
Steven Napier, centres around TWE's declining performance in its US
wine business since mid 2018, and losses suffered by shareholders
after its full-year results announcement in January 2020, in which
the FY20 EBITS growth forecast was downgraded from an anticipated
rate of 15-20 per cent to 5-10 per cent.

"There was a significant market reaction to this announcement. Over
the following two days, Treasury's share price dropped by
approximately 20 per cent in total, with a drop of 25 per cent on
29 January 2020 alone," a statement from Maurice Blackburn Lawyers
read.

The class action claims TWE breached its continuous disclosure
obligations in the period from June 30, 2018 to January 28, 2020.

The lawsuit, also filed in the Supreme Court of Victoria, follows
one from law firm Slater and Gordon filed in early April and a
previous action taken by Maurice Blackburn settled in 2017 for $49
million.

TWE said in a statement to the ASX on May 1 that it "strongly
denies any and all allegations of wrongdoing and intends to
vigorously defend the further proceeding."

TWE proposed potentially spinning off its Penfolds label, which
would see the brand listed as a separate business on the ASX by the
end of 2021. [GN]


TREASURY WINE: Needs Temporary Reprieve From Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Hewett, writing for The Australian Financial Review,
reports that Michael Clarke has plenty to worry about during the
COVID-19 crisis given the importance of China and US markets to
Treasury Wine Estates' dwindling profitability. But he also has to
worry about the prospect of at least three different class actions
against the company.

Businesses want Federal Treasurer Josh Frydenberg to offer a
temporary reprieve from class actions.  

Two of the lawsuits were filed in April by the two biggest class
action law firms in Australia, Slater & Gordon and Maurice
Blackburn. The next seems likely to come from the Rosen Law Firm in
New York.

And why not? Australia, after all, has become about the most
attractive country worldwide for class action lawsuits, largely
thanks to the extremely lucrative returns available to law firms
and litigation funders.

According to analysis by Freehills, 61 per cent of the class action
compensation awarded in Australia last year went to litigation
funders and lawyers, up from 41 per cent in 2016, leaving just
under 40 per cent for the plaintiffs.

Given payouts are often in the tens of millions of dollars or even
hundreds of millions of dollars, the business model is
irresistible.

Treasury Wine's woes predate the real impact of the coronavirus, of
course. The lawsuits are centred on its surprise profit downgrade
of late January, alleging breach of continuous disclosure
obligations due to the company's knowledge of the effects of a wine
glut in California. The company rejects this.

The uncertainty about the virus makes it almost impossible to
provide guidance that could not be challenged later.

But Australian corporates, already concerned about the rapid rise
of shareholder class actions, now fear the COVID-19 crisis will
lead to a further upsurge just when they are most vulnerable.

The uncertainty about the virus makes it almost impossible to
provide guidance that could not be challenged later -- particularly
given the financial rewards on offer.

The ASX advice for companies to limit their disclosures due to the
uncertainty of the outlook is considered a short term fix at best.

Analysts are not only beginning to make guesses in the absence of
information -- which may need to be corrected – but corporates
need to attract investors. Staying silent is hardly the best way to
do so.

It's why groups like the Australian Institute of Company Directors
and the Business Council of Australia are asking for immediate
action from the government to provide a temporary safe harbour from
potential class action suits related to COVID-19.

According to the AICD's proposal, that risk is a preoccupation for
boards when their focus should be on business continuity and crisis
management.

"The circumstances generate a significant risk of opportunistic
securities class actions, creating another significant board and
company distraction in the current environment," it says.

Business groups insist they are not seeking to water down
continuous disclosure obligations but to ensure any ability to
bring a class action suit about forward looking guidance is limited
to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission over this
six-month period.

Christian Porter wants to refer the extraordinary returns to
litigation funders to a parliamentary committee. SMH

The aim is to eliminate the commercial interest of lawyers and
litigation funders in taking advantage of the extreme business
conditions.

Attorney General Christian Porter had already flagged he wants a
parliamentary committee to "examine the extraordinary profits being
made by the booming litigation funding industry."

But his planned referral in March was delayed due to the rush ahead
of the Senate rising and then overwhelmed by COVID-19.

He will try again when parliament sits next week, adding a new
COVID-19 clause to the terms of reference.

"We also recognise the potential for profit-motivated litigation
funders to try and exploit the current pandemic, putting further
pressure on struggling businesses as we seek to regrow the
economy," he said on May 7.

But companies also want Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, to urgently
amend the Corporations Law -- at least temporarily -- given the
risks of future litigation facing them right now. COVID-19
litigation has already taken off in the US.

The AICD says companies would still need to disclose information to
update the market on issues like debt covenants or the loss of
material contracts and that forward-looking information would need
to be made "in good faith". The BCA wants the law to be amended to
ensure "due diligence" is permitted as a defence.

Business groups remain hopeful the government will move on changes
in the next few weeks, given the immediate risks.

But even a six-month reprieve, while welcome, won't resolve the
broader issue of the massive increase in shareholder class actions.
This has also made directors and officers insurance prohibitively
expensive if it is even available.

Although, so few of these shareholder class actions actually make
it to a court judgment with most insurers and companies preferring
to settle to avoid the protracted distraction and legal risk.

The shareholder action against Myer, finally dismissed by the
Federal Court with parties ordered to pay their own costs, was the
first to get to judgment.

But despite the results for Myer plaintiffs, it's unlikely to deter
more shareholder class actions, particularly given the propensity
to settle beforehand.

Just under half of the total number of shareholder actions ever
initiated are only now in the pipeline, according to the AICD.

Most litigation funders active in Australia are based overseas but
Omni Bridgeway (previously IMF Bentham) has established a highly
lucrative position as an ASX listed company, backed by foreign
capital.

Its results show the two funds it set up for class actions in
Australia in 2017 have delivered a return on invested capital of
302 per cent and an internal rate of return of 924 per cent,
multiples higher than its funds in the US.

Another group, UK based Balance Capital, raised a $100 million fund
in March, mainly for Australia. Right now, getting a good return on
that money looks one of the safest business bets around. [GN]


TRIPLE J: Gray Suit Seeks Overtime Pay for Sod Layers Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
TYRONE GRAY, NATHAN LIAS, JR., DAVID GEORGE, WILLIE JAMES CURTIS,
and EDWARD GIBSON v. TRIPLE J GRASSING, LLC, PAMELA KOLLMANN and
KEVIN KOLLMANN, Case No. 2:20-cv-00352-SPC-NPM (M.D. Fla., May 14,
2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of
the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees, who were
unlawfully denied overtime wages.

The Plaintiffs contend that they were entitled to time and one-half
of their regular rates of pay for hours worked over 40 hours per
week. But the Defendants did not pay them for overtime hours worked
in violation of the FLSA, they add.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as a sod layer.

Triple J provides subcontracting of trucking, sodding,
hydroseeding, and rrosion control services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Todd W. Shulby, Esq.
          TODD W. SHULBY, P.A.
          1792 Bell Tower Lane
          Weston, FL 33326
          Telephone: (954) 530-2236
          Facsimile: (954) 530-6628
          E-mail: tshulby@shulbylaw.com


TUFIN SOFTWARE: June 5 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm,
reminds investors in Tufin Software Technologies Ltd. ("Tufin" or
the "Company") (NYSE: TUFN) of the June 5, 2020 deadline to seek
the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action
that has been filed against the Company.

If you invested in Tufin stock or options pursuant and/or traceable
to the Company's registration statement and related prospectus
(collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection
with Tufin's April 2019 initial public offering (the "IPO" or
"Offering") and would like to discuss your legal rights, click
here: www.faruqilaw.com/TUFN. There is no cost or obligation to
you.

You can also contact us by calling Richard Gonnello toll free at
877-247-4292 or at 212-983-9330 or by sending an e-mail to
rgonnello@faruqilaw.com.

CONTACT:
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Attn: Richard Gonnello, Esq.
rgonnello@faruqilaw.com
Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330

The lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of all those who purchased
Tufin securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
Registration Statement issued in connection with the Company's
April 2019 IPO. The case, William J. Allen v. Tufin Software
Technologies Ltd. et al., No. 2:20-cv-03188 was filed on April 6,
2020, and has been assigned to Judge Fernando M. Olguin.

The lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives
violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading
statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1) Tufin's customer
relationships and growth metrics were overstated, particularly with
respect to North America; (2) Tufin's business was deteriorating,
primarily in North America; (3) as a result, Tufin's
representations regarding its sustainable financial prospects were
overly optimistic; and (4) as a result, the Offering Documents were
materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information
required to be stated therein. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

On January 9, 2020, Tufin announced preliminary unaudited revenue
and non-GAAP operating loss estimates for the fourth quarter ended
December 31, 2019. Tufin announced that it expected to report total
revenue in the range of $29.5 million to $30.1 million, compared to
its previous guidance of total revenue in the range of $34.0
million to $38.0 million, and that Tufin anticipated non-GAAP
operating loss in the range of $1.1 million to $2.6 million,
compared to the Company's previous guidance of non-GAAP operating
profit in the range of $0.0 million to $3.0 million.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell from $17.22 per share
on January 8, 2020 to $13.08 per share on January 9, 2020: a $4.14
or 24.04% drop.

The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Tufin's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.

Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this
advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. [GN]


TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Faces Shareholder Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issued the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following
publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in the
following companies during the dates listed are encouraged to
contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment.
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any
recovery.

Tupperware Brands Corporation (TUP)

Investors Affected: January 30, 2019 - February 24, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Tupperware Brands Corporation. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Tupperware lacked effective
internal controls; (2) as a result, Tupperware would need to
investigate the accounting and liabilities of one of its brands,
Fuller Mexico; (3) consequently, Tupperware would be unable to
timely file its annual report on Form 10-K for its fiscal year
2019; (4) Tupperware did not properly account for its accounts
payable and accrued liabilities at Fuller Mexico; (5) Tupperware
provided overvalued earnings per share guidance; (6) Tupperware
would need relief from its $650 million Credit Agreement; and (7)
as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false
and/or misleading at all relevant times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/tupperware-brands-corporation-loss-submission-form/?id=6199&from=1

XP Inc. (XP)

Investors Affected: or otherwise acquired XP's securities pursuant
and/or traceable to the registration statement and related
prospectus issued in connection with XP's December 2019 initial
public offering.

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
XP Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) XP engaged in undisclosed related party transactions; (2) XP
failed to disclose its common and large system failures and
connected losses; (3) XP's aggressive IFA strategy was and is
tenuous; (4) XP had material weaknesses; (5) XP fired its previous
accounting firm due to that firm finding and disclosing material
weaknesses; and (6) as a result, Defendants' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/xp-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=6199&from=1

Servicemaster Global Holdings, Inc. (SERV)

Investors Affected: February 26, 2019 - November 4, 2019

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Servicemaster Global Holdings, Inc. The filed complaint alleges
that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (a) ServiceMaster had failed to
properly inspect and treat for Formosan termite activity; (b) as a
result thereof, the Company was and continued to experience a
material adverse trend of costly litigation from injured customers
which was not disclosed to investors; (c) in an unsuccessful
attempt to mitigate this trend, Defendants had been taking remedial
measures since at least 2018, including drastically raising prices
for termite treatments in Mobile, Alabama to deter contract
renewals; and (d) as a result of the foregoing, ServiceMaster's
financial results were reasonably likely to be impacted, and would
continue to impact the Company into 2020.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/servicemaster-global-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=6199&from=1

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]


TWITTER INC: Jury Trial Set for June 22 in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Twitter, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that a jury trial is
scheduled to commence on June 22, 2020, in the consolidated class
action suit pending before the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  

Beginning in September 2016, multiple putative class actions and
derivative actions were filed in state and federal courts in the
United States against the Company and the Company's directors
and/or certain former officers alleging that false and misleading
statements, made in 2015, are in violation of securities laws and
breached fiduciary duty.

The putative class actions were consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

On October 16, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part
the Company's motion to dismiss. On July 17, 2018, the court
granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the
consolidated securities action.

The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on September 13,
2019, which was denied on April 17, 2020 and a jury trial is
currently scheduled to commence on June 22, 2020.

Twitter said, "The outcome of this litigation is, and any potential
losses therewith are, inherently uncertain, and the Company is,
therefore, not able to estimate a reasonable range of possible
loss, if any. The Company disputes the claims and intends to
continue to defend the lawsuits vigorously."

Twitter, Inc. operates as a platform for public self-expression and
conversation in real time. The company offers various products and
services, including Twitter that allows users to consume, create,
distribute, and discover content; and Periscope, a mobile
application that enables user to broadcast and watch video live
with others. Twitter, Inc. was founded in 2006 and is headquartered
in San Francisco, California.


TWITTER INC: User Setting-Related Class Suit in California Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Twitter, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a putative class action suit related to its announcements
that it had discovered and taken steps to remediate issues related
to certain user settings.  

Beginning in October 2019, putative class actions were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against
the Company and certain of the Company's officers alleging
violations of securities laws in connection with the Company's
announcements that it had discovered and taken steps to remediate
issues related to certain user settings designed to target
advertising that were not working as expected and seeking
unspecified damages.

The Company disputes the claims and intends to defend the lawsuit
vigorously.

Twitter, Inc. operates as a platform for public self-expression and
conversation in real time. The company offers various products and
services, including Twitter that allows users to consume, create,
distribute, and discover content; and Periscope, a mobile
application that enables user to broadcast and watch video live
with others. Twitter, Inc. was founded in 2006 and is headquartered
in San Francisco, California.


U.S. SPECIALTY: Egg Works Files Business Interruption Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Caitlin Lilly, writing for FOX5, reports that Las Vegas eatery Egg
Works has filed a class action lawsuit against two insurance
companies due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to a news release, Egg Works was "forced to file a
lawsuit against two insurance companies which refused to cover
standard business interruption expenses."

Brad Burdsall, owner of Egg Works, filed a business interruption
class action lawsuit against U.S. Specialty Insurance/Tokio Marine
and Acuity, alleging the insurers unjustly denied its business
interruption claims, the release said.

"I've built this restaurant chain from the ground up and invested
my life's blood into its success," Burdsall said. "This insurance
was bought to best position the Egg Works to resume normal business
operations as soon as possible. If I am forced to close up shop it
impacts not just my customers but 100s of local jobs. It's the same
all through Nevada. Insurance companies are paid substantial
premiums by their insurers to be there for businesses and save jobs
of hardworking wonderful people. It's offensive these insurance
companies are not meeting their obligations."

According to the release, Burdsall purchased restaurant recovery
insurance from U.S. Speciality and Tokio Marine in September 2019.
The insurance, according to the statement, "should have protected
the restaurant chain against a loss of business income due to a
suspension of each restaurant's operations."

Burdsall says that due to Gov. Sisolak's order to close
nonessential businesses, the eateries were forced to business as
usual and operate only curbside and take out options, "neither of
which are practicable to meet the high standards for local food
quality, service and dining experience for which all Egg Works
locations have been so we'll known for years."

As a result, according to the release, this led to "serious loss of
business sales and unexpected expenses." Burdsall says that "in
spite of clear policy language these insurance companies refused to
pay any losses and expenses."

Egg Works, which was established in 1998, now has nine locations
throughout the Las Vegas Valley. [GN]


UFC: Mark Hunt Supports Class Action
------------------------------------
Shakiel Mahjouri, writing for Bloody Elbow, reports that Mark Hunt
vs. UFC is far from over.

Hunt has voiced his strong support for a class-action lawsuit
against the UFC with the goal of introducing the Muhammad Ali
Boxing Reform Act to mixed martial arts.

"Things will change when you bring the Ali Act in," Hunt told
Duello Channel (h/t MMA Junkie). "It totally changes things around.
I'm with these guys that are part of this lawsuit class action.
Once this comes, it'll change the whole landscape of fighting. The
fighters get paid more money, which is better for the employees.
They'll start living properly."

The remainder of Hunt's own 2017 lawsuit against the UFC was
dismissed by a U.S. district court in Nevada in Nov. 2019. Clearly,
however the former interim heavyweight title contender isn't about
to back away from his criticism of the promotion.

"These bosses and guys that own the company, these [expletive] like
Dana will say all this . . .  'We've got to do this and that. All
these things will work out.' At the end of the day, he's just a
grub," Hunt said. "He's a thieving little grub. That's all he is."

The "Super Samoan" hopes to help young fighters earn a better
living competing in MMA.

"They're getting ripped off." I know how they do it," Hunt said.
"That's why we're in a couple of these lawsuits. It's a sad thing
to see these fighters coming through -- young fighters thinking
they can get some good money. They just fall to the side like the
rest of them. When you get the champions asking for more money, you
know there's something wrong. When a guy like Stipe [Miocic] or the
other champions ask for more money -- he's the champion of this
company. Why is he asking for more money? Something to think
about."

"Most of the fighters are just scared to talk about it," he added.
"A lot of the fighters are scared to speak up about it. You're
actually fighters not just in the octagon, but everywhere. To get
guys like this to come around to kiss-ass these (expletive) guys
like Dana White, it's a joke. He's just a joke. He's an idiot."
[GN]


UNITED STATES: Lawsuit Filed on Behalf of Calhoun ICE Detainees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Carmody, writing for Michigan Radio, reports that the
American Civil Liberties Union has filed a federal class action
lawsuit aimed at winning the release of immigrants housed at the
Calhoun County jail.

The ACLU estimates there are approximately 130 immigrants being
held at the jail for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
According to the ACLU, it's the largest number of ICE detainees at
a facility in Michigan.

The lawsuit argues the detainees are at high risk for serious
illness or death in the event of COVID-19 infection. The suit
claims the communal living environment at the jail is not conducive
to "social distancing."

"Many people who are detained at Calhoun County Jail have been in
the U.S. for years. Some came to escape the violence of their
homeland and for a better life," says Jeannie Rhee, lead counsel
for the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. "ICE
must act now and release medically vulnerable people from detention
so that their hope of living, working and being with their families
in the U.S. does not become a death sentence."

The suit also wants the court to determine how many people can be
held in the jail, consistent with social distancing requirements,
and order releases unless ICE reduces the jail population to that
level.

In the past, ICE has made decisions on release on a case-by-case
basis.  The agency says the decisions are based on immigration
history, criminal records, ties to the community and other
factors.

Correctional facilities in Michigan have been hotbeds for
coronavirus infections, with hundreds of inmates testing positive
and several dozen deaths. [GN]


UNITED STATES: New Yorkers Class in Global Entry Case Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clint Henderson, writing for The Points Guy, reports that hundreds
of thousands of New Yorkers have officially joined the ongoing war
with the Trump White House over the government's ban on
participation by New York State residents in the Trusted Traveler
program, including Global Entry. Acting Homeland Security Secretary
Tom Wolf suspended their participation in February.

Now a New York federal court has certified those New Yorkers as
participants in a class action lawsuit against the federal
government. All New Yorkers who had planned to, had enrolled in, or
were trying to extend their Global Entry permissions are eligible
as plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging the ban.

The lawsuit argues the new policy was unconstitutional retribution
against citizens for the state's so-called sanctuary policies.
Those policies are designed to protect undocumented immigrants in
the state from overzealous enforcement measures by federal
immigration authorities.

The lawsuit is being brought by the New York Civil Liberties Union.
In a statement first reported by Law360, Civil Liberties Union
attorney Anthony Gemmell said, "The certification of the class of
New Yorkers banned from Global Entry is an assuring step forward in
our litigation . . . The ban is arbitrary and discriminatory, and
we're confident our litigation will bring it to an end."

The Trump Administration argues that New York's cutoff of federal
access to DMV records prevents proper screening of applicants for
the Global Entry, SENTRI, NEXUS and FAST programs. New York gives
licenses to immigrants and is refusing to share that data with the
feds.

Lawyers and advocates point out that the data is available from
other sources, including federal databases. New York Attorney
General Letitia James says 13 other states have enacted similar
sanctuary laws and haven't had their travel programs suspended.

James sued separately on behalf of the State of New York in
February, saying, "The Trump Administration's new policy not only
negatively impacts travelers, workers, commerce, and our economy,
but it jeopardizes public safety. No one should ever use our
nation's security as a political weapon, let alone the
commander-in-chief."

The Trump Administration has asked the courts to throw out both
lawsuits.

More than a quarter of a million New York residents had their
applications in the trusted-traveler programs thrown out or will
see their memberships end this year. There is some good news for
New Yorkers: They are still being allowed to enroll in PreCheck
although the COVID-19 pandemic has complicated that too.

If you are a New Yorker who has been affected, consider downloading
and using Mobile Passport. [GN]


UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Class Suit Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
----------------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA and THE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-04172 (C.D. Cal., May 7, 2020) is a
class action against the Defendants for breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, conversion, and violation of the California Business
and Professions Code.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated college students who enrolled and paid tuition
fees for the Spring 2020 semester at University of Southern
California (USC), alleges that the Defendants refused to provide
pro-rated tuition refunds for the Spring 2020 semester despite the
fact that students no longer have access to services that they paid
for including face-to-face faculty interaction and access to
Defendants' facilities and/or housing services following closures
due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiff and Class members
suffered significant losses and detrimental changes in their
bargained for academic experience since the transition of USC to an
online-only environment.

University of Southern California is an institution of higher
learning located in Los Angeles County, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq.
         HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
         301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 203
         Pasadena, CA 91101
         Telephone: (213) 330-7150
         Facsimile: (213) 330-7152
         E-mail: christopherp@hbsslaw.com

               - and –
         
         Steve W. Berman, Esq.
         HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
         1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Telephone: (206) 623-7292
         Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
         E-mail: 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
         Telephone: (708) 628-4949
         Facsimile: (708) 628-4950
         E-mail: dank@hbsslaw.com
                 whitneys@hbsslaw.com

               - and –
         
         Jennifer Duffy, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF JENNIFER DUFFY
         28649 S. Western Avenue, Suite 6571
         Los Angeles, CA 90734
         Telephone: (310) 714-9779
         E-mail: jennifer@usclassactions.com

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Weiss Files Suit in Florida
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against University Of Miami.
The case is styled as Michael Weiss, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. University Of Miami,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-22203-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 27, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract:
Other.

The University of Miami is a private research university in Coral
Gables, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Manuel A. Arteaga-Gomez, Esq.
   Grossman Roth Yaffa Cohen
   2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1150
   Coral Gables, FL 33134
   Tel: (305) 442-8666
   Fax: (305) 285-1668
   Email: aag@grossmanroth.com




UNUM GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Tenn. Securities Class Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Unum Group said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the class action
suit entitled, In re Unum Group Securities Litigation, is pending.

Three alleged securities class action lawsuits have been filed
against Unum Group and individual defendants:

     * On June 13, 2018, an alleged securities class action lawsuit
entitled Cynthia Pittman v. Unum Group, Richard McKenney, John
McGarry, and Daniel Waxenberg was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

The plaintiff seeks to represent purchasers of Unum Group publicly
traded securities between January 31, 2018 and May 2, 2018. The
plaintiff alleges the Company caused its shares to trade at
artificially high levels by failing to disclose information about
the rate of long-term care policy terminations and long-term care
claim incidence resulting in misleading statements about capital
management plans and long-term care reserves.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and seeks
compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

The Company strongly denies these allegations and will vigorously
defend the litigation.

     * On July 13, 2018, an alleged securities class action lawsuit
entitled Scott Cunningham v. Unum Group, Richard McKenney, John
McGarry, and Daniel Waxenberg was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

The allegations, class period, and damages claimed mirror those in
the Pittman matter.

The Company strongly denies these allegations and will vigorously
defend the litigation.

     * On July 25, 2018, an alleged securities class action lawsuit
entitled City of Taylor Police and Fire Retirement System v. Unum
Group, Richard McKenney, John McGarry, Steve Zabel, and Daniel
Waxenberg was filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee.

The plaintiff seeks to represent purchasers of Unum Group publicly
traded securities between October 27, 2016 and May 1, 2018. The
allegations and damages claimed mirror those in the Pittman matter.


The Company strongly denies these allegations and will vigorously
defend the litigation.

On November 9, 2018, the court consolidated the Pittman,
Cunningham, and City of Taylor Police and Fire Retirement System
cases into one matter entitled In re Unum Group Securities
Litigation, appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's
counsel, and directed the plaintiff to file a consolidated amended
complaint.

On January 15, 2019, the plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and seeks
compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial as well as
costs, expenses, and attorney's fees.

On March 18, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. On November 4, 2019 the court heard
oral argument on the motion.

Unum said, "We are awaiting the court's ruling."

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

Unum Group, together with its subsidiaries, provides financial
protection benefit solutions in the United States, the United
Kingdom, and internationally. It operates through Unum US, Unum
International, Colonial Life, and Closed Block segments. The
company was founded in 1848 and is based in Chattanooga,
Tennessee.


USC: Settlement in Health Center Suit Gets Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------
Judge Stephen V. Wilson of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final
Settlement Approval in IN RE: USC STUDENT HEALTH CENTER LITIGATION,
Case No. 2:18-cv-04258-SVW, Consolidated with No.
2:18-cv-04940-SVW-GJS, No. 2:18-cv-05010-SVW-GJS.,
2:18-cv-05125-SVW-GJS, 2:18-cv-06115-SVW-GJS (C.D. Cal.).

Upon careful consideration, Judge Wilson determined that the
Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.

The Court certified, for settlement purposes only, the following
Class:  All women who were seen for treatment by Dr. George M.
Tyndall at the University of Southern California student health
center during the period from Aug. 14, 1989 to June 21, 2016: (a)
for Women's Health Issues; or (b) whose treatment included an
examination by him of her breast or genital areas; or (c) whose
treatment included the taking of photographs or videotapes of her
unclothed or partially clothed body.

The Court appointed as the Class Representatives: Plaintiffs Jane
Doe R.B., Jane Doe A.T., Jane Doe J.L., Jane Doe M.S., Shannon
O'Conner, Jane Doe L.K., Jane Doe 5, Jane Doe M.V., Jane Doe K.M.,
Jane Doe A.S., Jane Doe A.F., Joyce Sutedja, Jane Doe M.G., Jane
Doe D.D., Jane Doe M.D., Jane Doe A.D., Jane Doe K.Y., Meggie
Kwait, Jane Doe M.M., Jane Doe P.A., Jane Doe S.A., Jane Doe L.R.,
Jane Doe R.K., Jane Doe H.R., Jane Doe 1HB, Jane Doe J.P., Jane Doe
1LC, Jane Doe C.N., Jane Doe J.L., Vanessa Carlisle, Jane Doe J.C.,
Jane Doe F.M., Jane Doe J.K., Jane Doe C.L., Jane Doe S.R., Jane
Doe K.P., Jane Doe 2, Betsayda Aceituno, Jane Doe D.C., Jane Doe
N.K., Jane Doe C.C., Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe C.B., Jane Doe 3, Jane
Doe J.W., Mehrnaz Mohammadi, Jane Doe A.N., Jane Doe L.Y., Jane Doe
A.H., and Elisabeth Treadway.

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Girard Sharp LLP, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein LLP, are appointed as the Co-Lead Class Counsel
and Sauder Schelkopf LLC, and Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C. as the
Additional Class Counsel.

The Hon. Irma Gonzalez is appointed as the Special Master.

Without affecting the finality of the judgment, the Court reserves
and continues jurisdiction with respect to the Plaintiffs' motion
for service awards to the Plaintiffs and attorneys' fees, costs,
and expenses to Class Counsel, and in order to determine any issues
relating to the attorneys' fees and expenses.  The Class Counsel's
request for attorney's fees and reimbursement of expenses may not
exceed $25 million.  All attorneys' fees and expenses will be paid
separately by Defendants, in addition to and without any reduction
of the Settlement Fund.  Any service awards the Court approves will
be paid from the Settlement Fund.

The Class Counsel's motion for service awards, attorneys' fees,
costs, and expenses will be posted on the Settlement website as
soon as it is filed.  The Settlement Class Members will have the
opportunity to object to the motion.  Without affecting the
finality of the judgment, the Court reserves and continues
jurisdiction with respect to the implementation and enforcement of
the terms of the Settlement, Claims Process, distribution of Claim
Awards, and over the Order.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 25, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/6jINP7 from Leagle.com.

Joyce Sutedja, Jane Doe R.B., Jane Doe K.Y., Mehrnaz Mohammadi,
Jane Doe M.G. & Jane Doe M.D., Plaintiffs, represented by Annika K.
Martin, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP, pro hac vice,
Daniel C. Girard, Girard Sharp LLP, Emily Brown, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Evan Joseph Ballan, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann and Bernstein LLP, Jonathan D. Selbin, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann and Bernstein LLP, Jonathan Shub, Kohn Swift and Graf PC,
Shelby R. Smith, Hagens Berman Sobol and Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice,
Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice, Whitney K. Siehl -- whitneys@hbsslaw.com --
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Christopher Pitoun
-- christopherp@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Shannon Lee O'Conner, Plaintiff, represented by Annika K. Martin,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP, Daniel C. Girard, Girard
Sharp LLP, Elizabeth A. Kramer, Girard Sharp LLP & Steve W. Berman
-- taralee@quinnemanuel.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Jane Doe, Movant, represented by Kevin T. Barnes, Law Offices of
Kevin T. Barnes.

University of Southern California, Defendant, represented by John
B. Quinn, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan LLP, Michael E.
Williams, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan LLP, Stephen C.
Fraser -- sfraser@fwcllp.com -- Fonda and Fraser LLP, Shon Morgan
-- shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and
Sullivan LLP & Tara Melissa Lee, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and
Sullivan LLP.

Board of Trustees of the University of Southern California,
Defendant, represented by John B. Quinn, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and
Sullivan LLP, Michael E. Williams, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and
Sullivan LLP, Stephen C. Fraser, Fonda and Fraser LLP & Shon
Morgan, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan LLP.

George Tyndall, M.D., Defendant, represented by Cherie L.
Lieurance, Taylor DeMarco LLP & N. Denise Taylor, Taylor DeMarco
LLP.

Aegis Law Firm, PC, Interested Party, represented by Ali Sarah
Carlsen, Aegis Law Firm PC.

Los Angeles Times Communications LLC, Intervenor, represented by
Karl Olson, Cannata, O'Toole, Fickes & Olson LLP.


VISTRA ENERGY: Price-Fixing Suits Ongoing in Wisconsin and Kansas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vistra Energy Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company remains a
defendant in two consolidated putative class actions (Wisconsin)
and one individual action (Kansas) both pending in federal court in
those states.

The company through its subsidiaries, and other energy companies
are named as defendants in several lawsuits claiming damages
resulting from alleged price manipulation through false reporting
of natural gas prices to various index publications, wash trading
and churn trading from 2000-2002.

The plaintiffs in these cases allege that the defendants engaged in
an antitrust conspiracy to inflate natural gas prices during the
relevant time period and seek damages under the respective state
antitrust statutes.

Vistra said, "We remain as defendants in two consolidated putative
class actions (Wisconsin) and one individual action (Kansas) both
pending in federal court in those states."

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

Vistra Energy Corp. is a Texas-based energy company focused on the
competitive energy and power generation markets. The company is
based in Irving, Texas.


VOCUS GROUP: Court Approves $35MM Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Leon Spencer, writing for ARN, reports that Vocus Group has been
given the go ahead by the Federal Court of Australia to proceed
with the $35 class action million settlement it flagged late last
year.

Vocus was served with a class action proceeding in the Federal
Court in April last year, well over a year after law firm Slater
and Gordon said it would bring an action against the telco on
behalf of shareholders.

In September 2017, Slater and Gordon said it would allege in its
action that Vocus misled shareholders over its 2017 financial year
guidance, saying it had "no reasonable grounds for the original
FY17 guidance issued in November 2016".

The move came after Vocus released unaudited results in August 2017
for the 2017 financial year, bringing in a net profit after tax
(NPAT) of $152.3 million, well below the company's guidance range
of $160 million to $165 million.

According to the Australian telco, the downgrade was primarily due
to higher than forecast net finance costs and a higher effective
tax rate at 33.4 per cent.

This followed the company's move in May to wipe off $100 million
from its revenue target for the financial year ending 2017, blaming
the forecast downgrade on lower than expected billings in its
enterprise and wholesale business, and re-jigged terms on a number
of large projects.

"Our investigations to date suggest Vocus had unreasonable
expectations about the costs involved in integrating its newly
acquired platforms and technology systems," Slater and Gordon
principal lawyer Mathew Chuk said at the time.

"The company expanded significantly since 2015 by acquiring other
businesses such as Amcom and Nextgen Networks, as well as merging
with M2 Group Ltd," he added.

Roughly eight months after being served with the class action, in
late December last year, the publicly listed telco told
shareholders that it had reached an agreement to settle the class
action.

"The settlement of the class action, which is without admission of
any liability, is subject to Federal Court approval," the company
told shareholders at the time, adding that the settlement amount
was $35 million, inclusive of interest and costs.

Vocus said it would contribute $3.5 million to the settlement,
which would be reported as a significant item below its underlying
pre-tax earnings (EBITDA). The remainder of the settlement was
fully insured, the telco assured shareholders.

Now, with the Federal Court approving the settlement of the
securities class action, Vocus is finally in a position to put the
matter behind it -- nearly three years after the spectre of a class
action first raised its head. [GN]


WAGNER COLLEGE: Refuses COVID-19 Tuition Refunds, Student A Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
STUDENT A, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WAGNER COLLEGE, Case No. 1:20-cv-02170 (E.D.N.Y., May
13, 2020), is brought on behalf of all people, who paid tuition and
fees for the Spring 2020 academic semester at Wagner, and who,
because of Defendant's response to COVID-19 pandemic, lost the
benefit of the education for which they paid, and the services or
facilities for which their fees were paid, without having their
tuition and fees refunded to them.

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, says the complaint.

On March 16, 2020, Wagner, through a published notice, announced
that because of the global COVID-19 pandemic, all in-person classes
would be suspended, and that online classes would begin on March
23, 2020. The College announced that the rest of Spring 2020
semester coursework would be offered solely online.

The Plaintiff seeks the Defendant's disgorgement of the pro-rated
portion of tuition and fees, proportionate to the amount of time
that remained in the Spring Semester 2020 when classes moved online
and campus services ceased being provided.

Wagner is a private liberal arts college in New York City, with a
total enrollment of approximately 2,200 students.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
          Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com
                  swestcot@bursor.com


WALGREENS BOOTS: Files 9th Cir. Appeal in BP Medical Battery Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., and Walgreens Arizona
Drug Company filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
styled B.P., et al. v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:16-cv-2138-HRH, Consolidated with Case Nos. 2:16-cv-2373-HRH,
2:16-cv-2660-HRH, 2:16-cv-2775-HRH and 2:16-cv-3599-HRH, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge H.
Russel Holland of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' request
to dismiss the Plaintiffs' second amended consolidated class action
complaint ("SAC").

The Plaintiffs are A.R., B.B., B.P., D.L., L.M., M.P., R.C., R.G.,
S.J., and S.L. Plaintiff A.R. is alleged to be a resident of
California. The other Plaintiffs are alleged to be residents of
Arizona. The Defendants are Theranos; Elizabeth Holmes; Ramesh
Balwani; Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc.; and Walgreen Arizona Drug
Co. In 2003, Theranos was founded by Holmes. Balwani was the
President and CEO of Theranos until he resigned in 2016.

Theranos initially focused on development of a hand-held device
that would use a tiny needle to obtain a small drop of blood for
analysis.  By 2008, the project had grown into attempting to
develop what is now known as the 'Edison' device. The Edison device
was supposedly able to take a few drops of blood from a patient's
finger placed into a 'nanotainer' capsule, and reliably conduct
hundreds of blood tests, all outside a lab. However, the project
did not apparently get that far because the blood drawn from
clients such as the Plaintiffs was actually tested at
laboratories.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Theranos Defendants knew that the
Edison technology was still in development and not
ready-for-market, and that none of the testing services were
reliable or certified, but that in 2012, Theranos entered into a
partnership agreement with Walgreens, under which Walgreens
invested $140 million in Theranos, and agreed to place and operate
clinics, which it called 'Wellness Centers,' at Walgreen Pharmacies
in Arizona and California. Through the Wellness Centers, Walgreens,
along with Theranos, sold blood and other clinical testing services
to individuals. The Plaintiffs allege that Walgreens entered into
this agreement with Theranos even though Walgreens was aware of
numerous serious red flags about the blood tests that put it on
notice about the unreliability of the tests.

The appellate case is captioned as B.P., et al. v. Walgreens Boots
Alliance, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-15976, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by June 18, 2020;

   -- Transcript is due on July 20, 2020;

   -- Appellants Walgreens Arizona Drug Company and Walgreens
      Boots Alliance, Inc.'s opening brief is due on August 28,
      2020;

   -- Appellees A.R., B.B., B.P., D.L, R.G., S.J. and S.L.'s
      answering brief is due on September 28, 2020; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees B.P., et al., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Thomas David Copley, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Email: dcopley@KellerRohrback.com

               - and -

          Roger N. Heller, Esq.
          Michael Sobol, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Email: rheller@lchb.com
                 msobol@lchb.com
              
               - and -

          Mark Dudley Samson, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
          3101 North Central Avenue
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 230-6323
          Email: msamson@KellerRohrback.com

               - and -

          Tanya Korkhov, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1140 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (646) 380-6693
          Email: tkorkhov@KellerRohrback.com

               - and -

          Linda Marie Fong, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          350 Sansome Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772-4700
          Email: lfong@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Laurence David King, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (415) 772-4700
          Email: lking@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED
          14646 N. Kierland Blvd.
          Scottsdale, AZ 85254
          Telephone: (480) 348-6400
          Facsimile: (480) 348-6415
          Email: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com

Defendants-Appellants WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC. and WALGREENS
ARIZONA DRUG COMPANY are represented by:

          David Ryan Carpenter, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 West 5th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 896-6679
          Email: drcarpenter@sidley.com

               - and -

          Lawrence Fogel, Esq.
          Robert N. Hochman, Esq.
          Kara Lynn McCall, Esq.
          Kristen R. Seeger, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          1 South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-7000
          Email: lawrence.fogel@sidley.com
                 rhochman@sidley.com
                 kmccall@sidley.com
                 kseeger@sidley.com


WAYFAIR INC: Bid to Dismiss Massachusetts Class Action Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wayfair Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that telephonic oral arguments on the motion
to dismiss a class action lawsuit were held on April 29, 2020.

On January 10, 2019 and January 16, 2019, putative securities class
action complaints were filed against the Company and three of its
officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

The two complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, relating to
certain prior disclosures of the Company.

Each plaintiff seeks to represent a class of shareholders who
purchased or acquired stock of the Company between August 2, 2018
and October 31, 2018 and seeks damages and other relief based on
allegations that the defendants' conduct affected the value of such
stock.

The Company intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously.

On August 30, 2019 the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint with prejudice.

Telephonic oral arguments on the motion were held on April 29,
2020.

Wayfair said, "At this time, based on available information
regarding this litigation, the Company is unable to reasonably
assess the ultimate outcome of these cases or determine an
estimate, or a range of estimates, of potential losses."

Wayfair Inc., incorporated on August 8, 2014, offers browsing,
merchandising and product discovery for a range of products from
various suppliers. The Company operates through two segments: U.S.
and International. The U.S. segment consists of amounts earned
through product sales through the Company's five sites in the
United States and through sites operated by third parties in the
United States. The company is based in Boston, Massachusetts.


WELLS FARGO: $20.8MM Settlement Reached in ATM Access Fee Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the Company has reached
a settlement in principle pursuant to which the Company will pay
$20.8 million to resolve the ATM Access Fee related suit, subject
to final documentation of the settlement agreement.

In October 2011, plaintiffs filed a putative class action, Mackmin,
et al. v. Visa, Inc. et al., against Wells Fargo & Company, Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., Visa, MasterCard, and several other banks in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Plaintiffs allege that the Visa and MasterCard requirement that if
an ATM operator charges an access fee on Visa and MasterCard
transactions, then that fee cannot be greater than the access fee
charged for transactions on other networks, violates antitrust
rules.

Plaintiffs seek treble damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and
attorneys' fees where available under federal and state law.

Two other antitrust cases that make similar allegations were filed
in the same court, but these cases did not name Wells Fargo as a
defendant.

On February 13, 2013, the district court granted defendants'
motions to dismiss the three actions. Plaintiffs appealed the
dismissals and, on August 4, 2015, the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the district
court's decisions and remanded the three cases to the district
court for further proceedings.

On June 28, 2016, the United States Supreme Court granted
defendants' petitions for writ of certiorari to review the
decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia.

On November 17, 2016, the United States Supreme Court dismissed the
petitions as improvidently granted, and the three cases returned to
the district court for further proceedings.

On March 18, 2020, the Company reached a settlement in principle
pursuant to which the Company will pay $20.8 million to resolve the
cases, subject to final documentation of the settlement agreement.


Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community
Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and
debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and
small business loans. Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


WELLS FARGO: Approval of GAP Case Settlement Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that an appeal has been
taken from the court order granting final approval of a settlement
in the class action related to guaranteed automobile protection
(GAP).

A putative class of shareholders filed a securities fraud class
action against the Company and its executive officers alleging
material misstatements and omissions of the collateral protection
insurance (CPI)-related information in the Company's public
disclosures.

In January 2020, the court dismissed this action as to all
defendants except the Company and a former executive officer and
limited the action to two alleged misstatements.

In addition, the Company is subject to a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California alleging that customers are entitled to refunds related
to the unused portion of guaranteed automobile protection (GAP)
waiver or insurance agreements between the customer and dealer and,
by assignment, the lender.

Allegations related to the CPI and GAP programs are among the
subjects of shareholder derivative lawsuits pending in federal and
state court in California. The court dismissed the state court
action in September 2018, but plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
in November 2018.

The parties to the state court action have entered into an
agreement to resolve the action pursuant to which the Company will
pay plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and undertake certain business and
governance practices.

The state court granted final approval of the settlement on January
15, 2020, and a notice of appeal has been filed.

Wells Fargo said, "These and other issues related to the
origination, servicing, and collection of consumer automobile
loans, including related insurance products, have also subjected
the Company to formal or informal inquiries, investigations, or
examinations from federal and state government agencies."

Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community
Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and
debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and
small business loans. Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action Over PPP Loan Applications
----------------------------------------------------------
Dalvin Brown, writing for USA Today, reports that a
California-based company filed a class-action lawsuit against Wells
Fargo citing unfair actions against some small businesses seeking
government-sponsored coronavirus relief under the Paycheck
Protection Program.

In March, the Treasury Department announced the $349 billion
forgivable loan plan for small businesses that helps them pay
employees during the ongoing COVID-19 crisis. The fund ran out of
money on April 17.

The lawsuit filed on behalf of small business owners on April 19
alleges that Wells Fargo unfairly prioritized businesses seeking
large loan amounts, while the government's small business agency
has said that PPP loan applications would be processed on a
first-come, first-served basis.

The move by Wells Fargo meant that the bank would receive millions
more dollars in processing fees, according to the lawsuit.

"Making matters worse, Wells Fargo concealed from the public that
it was reshuffling the PPP applications it received and
prioritizing the applications that would make the bank the most
money," the lawsuit filed in California alleged.

Wells Fargo has said that fees generated through the program will
be distributed as charitable grants to nonprofits that support
small businesses.

The filing against Wells Fargo is one in a series of lawsuits
lodged against big banks on behalf of small businesses late on
April 19. Wells Fargo denied USA TODAY's request for comment on the
lawsuit.

The big bank said on April 5 that it was committed to serving small
businesses with fewer than 50 employees under the PPP, which is
intended to incentivize American small businesses to avoid laying
off workers by offering up to $10 million in forgivable loans.

"While all businesses have been impacted by this crisis, small
businesses with fewer than 50 employees and nonprofits often have
fewer resources," Wells Fargo CEO Charlie Scharf said in a press
release earlier in April. "Therefore, we are focusing our efforts
under the Paycheck Protection Program on these groups."

The plaintiff alleges that evidence of Wells Fargo's foul play lies
in data released by the U.S. Small Business Association. The SBA
report outlines the PPP loans that were processed and indicates
when the transactions occurred.

The plaintiffs call into question a comparison between loans
processed at the start of the program -- April 3 to April 13 --
versus loans processed just before the program ran out of money
between April 13 and April 16.

"In the last three days of the PPP-banks processed loan
applications for $150,000 and under at twice the rate of larger
loans," the lawsuit said.

This would allegedly suggest that banks front-loaded applications
for the largest loans, otherwise "the percentage change of
applications submitted in the last three days of the program would
be consistent among all application types," the plaintiffs said.

The lawsuit comes just days after the sweeping business rescue
program ran out of money on
April 17, less than two weeks after launching, as businesses raced
toward a lifeline to avoid collapsing under the financial issues
caused by the pandemic.

Before running dry, the program approved more than 1.6 million
applications for employers. [GN]


WELLS FARGO: Faces Suits Over Paycheck Protection Program
----------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company has been
named as a defendant in putative class action suits related to its
paycheck protection program.

Plaintiffs have filed putative class actions in state and federal
court in Texas, California, and Colorado against the Company.

The actions seek damages and injunctive relief related to the
Company’s offering of Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans
under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act.

The Company has also received formal and informal inquiries from
federal and state governmental agencies regarding its offering of
PPP loans.

Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community
Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and
debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and
small business loans. Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


WELLS FARGO: Plaintiffs Ask 11th Cir. to Revive Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that plaintiffs have taken
an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit from the district court's order granting the company's
motion to dismiss the order of posting-related suit.

Plaintiffs filed a series of putative class actions against
Wachovia Bank, N.A., and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as well as many
other banks, challenging the "high to low" order in which the banks
post debit card transactions to consumer deposit accounts.

Most of these actions were consolidated in multi-district
litigation proceedings (MDL proceedings) in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The court in the MDL proceedings has certified a class of putative
plaintiffs, and Wells Fargo moved to compel arbitration of the
claims of unnamed class members.

The court denied the motions to compel arbitration in October 2016,
and Wells Fargo appealed this decision to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

In May 2018, the Eleventh Circuit ruled in Wells Fargo's favor and
found that Wells Fargo had not waived its arbitration rights and
remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.

On September 26, 2019, the district court entered an order granting
Wells Fargo's motion and dismissed the claims of unnamed class
members in favor of arbitration.

Plaintiffs appealed this decision to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community
Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and
debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and
small business loans. Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


WELLS FARGO: Still Faces Lawsuits over Retail Sales Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to face various suits related to its retail sales practices.

A number of bodies or entities, including (a) federal, state, and
local government agencies, including the Department of Justice, the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the
United States Department of Labor, (b) state attorneys general,
including the New York Attorney General, and (c) Congressional
committees, have undertaken formal or informal inquiries,
investigations, or examinations arising out of certain retail sales
practices of the Company that were the subject of settlements with
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Office of the Los
Angeles City Attorney announced by the Company on September 8,
2016.

These matters are at varying stages. The Company has responded, and
continues to respond, to requests from a number of the foregoing.

In October 2018, the Company entered into an agreement to resolve
the New York Attorney General's investigation pursuant to which the
Company paid $65 million to the State of New York.

In December 2018, the Company entered into an agreement with all 50
state Attorneys General and the District of Columbia to resolve an
investigation into the Company's retail sales practices, CPI and
GAP, and mortgage interest rate lock matters, pursuant to which the
Company paid $575 million.

On February 21, 2020, the Company entered into an agreement with
the Department of Justice to resolve the Department of Justice's
criminal investigation into the Company's retail sales practices,
as well as a separate agreement to resolve the Department of
Justice’s civil investigation.

As part of the Department of Justice criminal settlement, no
charges will be filed against the Company provided the Company
abides by all the terms of the agreement. The Department of Justice
criminal settlement also includes the Company's agreement that the
facts set forth in the settlement document constitute sufficient
facts for the finding of criminal violations of statutes regarding
bank records and personal information.

On February 21, 2020, the Company also entered into an order to
resolve the SEC's investigation arising out of the Company's retail
sales practices. The SEC order contains a finding, to which the
Company consented, that the facts set forth include violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder.

As part of the resolution of the Department of Justice and SEC
investigations, the Company has agreed to make payments totaling
$3.0 billion. In addition, as part of the settlements and included
in the $3.0 billion amount, the Company has agreed to the creation
of a $500 million Fair Fund for the benefit of investors who were
harmed by the conduct covered in the SEC settlement.

In addition, a number of lawsuits have been filed by
non-governmental parties seeking damages or other remedies related
to these retail sales practices. First, various class plaintiffs,
purporting to represent consumers who allege that they received
products or services without their authorization or consent, have
brought separate putative class actions against the Company in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California and various other jurisdictions.

In April 2017, the Company entered into a settlement agreement in
the first-filed action, Jabbari v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., pursuant
to which the Company will pay $142 million to resolve claims
regarding certain products or services provided without
authorization or consent for the time period May 1, 2002 to April
20, 2017.

The district court issued an order granting final approval of the
settlement on June 14, 2018.

Several appeals of the district court's order granting final
approval of the settlement have been filed with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Second, Wells Fargo shareholders brought a consolidated securities
fraud class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California alleging certain misstatements and
omissions in the Company's disclosures related to sales practices
matters. The Company entered into a settlement agreement to resolve
this matter pursuant to which the Company paid $480 million.

The district court issued an order granting final approval of the
settlement on December 20, 2018.

Third, Wells Fargo shareholders have brought numerous shareholder
derivative lawsuits asserting breach of fiduciary duty claims
against, among others, current and former directors and officers
for their alleged involvement with and failure to detect and
prevent sales practices issues.

These actions are currently pending in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California and California state
court as coordinated proceedings.

An additional lawsuit, which asserts similar claims and is pending
in Delaware state court, has been stayed.

The parties have entered into settlement agreements to resolve the
shareholder derivative lawsuits pursuant to which insurance
carriers will pay the Company approximately $240 million for
alleged damage to the Company, and the Company will pay
plaintiffs’ attorneys' fees.

The federal court granted final approval of the settlement for its
action on April 7, 2020. The state court granted final approval of
the settlement for its action on January 15, 2020, and a notice of
appeal has been filed.

Fourth, multiple employment litigation matters are pending against
Wells Fargo, including (a) a purported Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) class action in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of 401(k) plan
participants; this action has been dismissed and is now on appeal;
and (b) multiple single-plaintiff Sarbanes-Oxley Act complaints and
state law whistleblower actions filed with the United States
Department of Labor or in various state courts alleging adverse
employment actions for raising sales practice misconduct issues.

Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community
Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and
debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and
small business loans. Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


WESTERN UNION: 10th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Smallen Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the United States Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of the
class action suit entitled, Lawrence Henry Smallen and Laura Anne
Smallen Revocable Living Trust et al. v. The Western Union Company
et al., Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00474-KLM (D. Colo.).

On February 22, 2017, the Company, its President and Chief
Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer, and a former
executive officer of the Company were named as defendants in two
purported class action lawsuits, both of which asserted claims
under section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange
Commission rule 10b-5 and section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On May 3, 2017, the two cases were consolidated by the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado under the
caption Lawrence Henry Smallen and Laura Anne Smallen Revocable
Living Trust et al. v. The Western Union Company et al., Civil
Action No. 1:17-cv-00474-KLM (D. Colo.).

On September 6, 2017, the Court appointed Lawrence Henry Smallen
and Laura Anne Smallen Revocable Living Trust as the lead
plaintiff. On November 6, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint that, among other things, added two other former
executive officers as defendants, one of whom subsequently was
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs.

The Amended Complaint asserts claims under section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission rule 10b-5 and
section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and alleges that, during the
purported class period of February 24, 2012, through May 2, 2017,
the defendants made false or misleading statements or failed to
disclose purported adverse material facts regarding, among other
things, the Company's compliance with anti-money laundering ("AML")
program and anti-fraud regulations, the status and likely outcome
of certain governmental investigations targeting the Company, the
reasons behind the Company's decisions to make certain regulatory
enhancements, and the Company's premium pricing.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on January
16, 2018, and on March 27, 2019, the Court dismissed the action in
its entirety with prejudice and entered final judgment in the
defendants' favor on March 28, 2019.

On April 26, 2019, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. On June 24,
2019, plaintiffs filed their opening brief on appeal and oral
argument was held on January 22, 2020. Plaintiffs did not appeal
the dismissal of one former executive officer and only appealed the
district court's conclusion that the remaining defendants did not
make statements concerning the Company's compliance programs with
the requisite intent.

On February 25, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the case.

The Western Union Company provides money movement and payment
services worldwide. The company operates in two segments,
Consumer-to-Consumer and Business Solutions. It serves primarily
through a network of agents. The Western Union Company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.


WESTERN UNION: Frazier Class Suit Still Stayed Pending Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the class action suit
entitled, Frazier et al. v. The Western Union Company et al.,
remains stayed pending individual arbitrations with the named
plaintiffs.

On April 26, 2018, the Company, its Western Union Financial
Services, Inc. (WUFSI) subsidiary, its President and Chief
Executive Officer, and various "Doe Defendants" (purportedly
including Western Union officers, directors, and agents) were named
as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit asserting claims
for alleged violations of civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act and the Colorado Organized Crime Act, civil
theft, negligence, unjust enrichment, and conversion under the
caption Frazier et al. v. The Western Union Company et al., Civil
Action No. 1:18-cv-00998-KLM (D. Colo.).

The complaint alleges that, during the purported class period of
January 1, 2004 to the present, and based largely on the admissions
and allegations relating to the Deferred Prosecution Agreement
(DPA), the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Consent
Order, and the New York State Department of Financial Services
(NYDFS) Consent Order, the defendants engaged in a scheme to
defraud customers through Western Union's money transfer system.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 17, 2018. The
amended complaint is similar to the original complaint, although it
adds additional named plaintiffs and additional counts, including
claims on behalf of putative California, Florida, Georgia,
Illinois, and New Jersey subclasses for alleged violations of the
California Unfair Competition Law, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act, the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act, the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

On August 28, 2018, the Company and the other defendants moved to
stay the action in favor of individual arbitrations with the named
plaintiffs, which defendants contend are contractually required.

On March 27, 2019, the Court granted that motion and stayed the
action pending individual arbitrations with the named plaintiffs.

To date, no such individual arbitration requests have been filed.

Western Union said, "Due to the stage of the matter, the Company is
unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of
loss, if any, which could be associated with it. The Company and
the other defendants intend to vigorously defend themselves in this
matter."

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

The Western Union Company provides money movement and payment
services worldwide. The company operates in two segments,
Consumer-to-Consumer and Business Solutions. It serves primarily
through a network of agents. The Western Union Company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.


WINGS OVER: Class in Wilson Suit Conditionally Certified Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JACOB WILSON, et al., individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. WINGS OVER
HAPPY VALLY MDF, LLC d/b/a WINGS OVER HAPPY VALLEY, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00915-YK (M.D. Pa.), Judge Yvette Kane
of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(i) denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification pursuant
to Rule 23, but (ii) granted the Plaintiffs' motion to
conditionally certify a collective class under the FLSA.

The Plaintiffs filed the complaint in the Pennsylvania Court on May
24, 2017, seeking to represent a class of workers alleging that
Defendants Wings Over Happy Valley and Steven C. Moreira violated
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and various state wage
and hour laws.  They subsequently filed a motion for leave to file
an amended complaint removing Plaintiff Wilson and adding Wings
Over Happy Valley LLC as Defendant, which was granted on Feb. 12,
2019.

The Court then authorized limited discovery for purposes of
briefing the issue of class certification.  The Plaintiffs' counsel
filed a motion to certify a class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23
and motion to conditionally certify a collective class under the
FLSA on Oct. 1, 2018.

The Plaintiffs' claims stem from their allegation that the
Defendants operated an illegal tip pool for delivery drivers at the
Defendants' restaurant.  Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that the
FLSA and Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act require employers to pay
employees a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, with the exception of
tipped employees, who may be paid at a rate below the minimum wage
so long as all tips received by such employee have been retained by
the employee.

Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants routinely required all
delivery drivers to provide a portion of their tips to kitchen
workers at the restaurant.  Plaintiffs note that the Defendants'
kitchen workers are not employees who customarily and regularly
receive tips and argue that, therefore, any practice that required
delivery drivers to share tips with kitchen workers operated in
violation of the FLSA and corollary state law.

As for the Motion to Certify Class Pursuant to Rule 23, the
Plaintiffs argue that they readily traverse the legal thresholds
warranting class certification.  Plaintiffs claim the class is
sufficiently numerous because the Defendants have confirmed that
the number of delivery drivers at the Restaurant exceeds 200
individuals.  The Plaintiffs contend that commonality is satisfied
because the Defendants: (i) applied the same compensation policies
to each member of the class of delivery drivers, (ii) paid each
delivery driver less than the minimum wage, and (iii) implemented
the same invalid tip pool to all delivery drivers.  As to
typicality, the Plaintiffs assert that they and the absentee class
members all assert the same claim -- the Defendants' violation of
the PMWA and WPCL -- based on the Defendants' common conduct of
subjecting delivery drivers to an invalid tip pool.

The Plaintiffs further argue that their interests are aligned with
the class and not in conflict, common issues predominate because
the Defendants forced their delivery drivers to participate in an
invalid tip pooling arrangement, and that a class action
adjudication is superior in the case because the class members
would probably lack the incentive to bring individual suits against
Defendants and class treatment would promote judicial economy.

The Defendants primarily argue that the Court should deny Rule 23
certification because the Plaintiffs cannot establish commonality
and predominance.  Specifically, Defendants argue that the
Plaintiffs cannot establish: (1) that delivery drivers were
uniformly notified about the alleged tip-out policy; (2) that there
was a consistent amount that delivery drivers were allegedly
required to tip-out; (3) that there was enforcement of the alleged
policy; and (4) that the alleged policy remained consistent across
the entire class period.

The Defendants further assert that the only written document that
the Plaintiffs contend supports the existence of a universal policy
was not widely distributed or followed by other managers.  In
support of their arguments, the Defendants point to various
evidence in the record, including affidavits from Defendant Moreira
and General Manager Jonathan Stree.

In response to the Defendants' arguments about the adequacy of the
Plaintiffs' evidence and need for individualized inquiries, the
Plaintiffs argue that the Court should simply ignore contradictory
evidence as biased or irrelevant.  The Plaintiffs additionally
insist that there are no timing issues at bar, or, if a policy
change occurred within the proposed class period, the proper
procedure is to limit the conditional class.

Upon review of the record, the parties' arguments, and the
applicable law, Judge Kane finds that class certification pursuant
to Rule 23 is not warranted in the case.  As an initial matter, the
Judge acknowledges that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the
numerosity and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a).  And having
reviewed the record in the case, the Judge is persuaded that there
is no conflict of interest between the Plaintiffs and the members
of the proposed class that would render the Plaintiffs inadequate
class representatives or indicate the Plaintiffs' counsel could not
competently litigate the action.  Therefore, the Judge finds that
the Plaintiffs have satisfied the adequacy requirement.

However, it is readily apparent from a thorough review of the
record that the Plaintiffs cannot meet their burdens regarding the
commonality requirement of Rule 23(a) and the predominance
requirement of Rule 23(b).  The Court can only conclude that the
Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden of establishing commonality and
predominance by a preponderance of the evidence under Rule 23.  The
Plaintiffs must be able to satisfy the elements of their claims
through common, rather than individual, proof that the class
members were subjected to the same conduct.  

The Plaintiffs rely almost exclusively on allegations that the
tip-out policy was verbally communicated to class members.  By
necessity then, establishing whether each class member was
subjected to a mandatory, as opposed to a voluntary, tip pool would
require individualized inquiries into what each driver was told,
when, and by whom.  Claims that rely on such individualized
evidence are unsuited to class certification.  Therefore, the Court
will deny the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under Rule
23.

As for the Motion to Conditionally Certify a Collective Class, the
Plaintiffs argue that they have "easily" met their burden at this
stage of the certification process.  Specifically, Plaintiffs note
that they have alleged in their pleadings that the Defendants
maintain a company-wide policy of taking a tip credit for all hours
worked by the Plaintiffs and all other delivery drivers and that
the Plaintiffs were "subjected to an illegal tip pool" and have
produced discovery and deposition testimony to support those
assertions.  The Plaintiffs argue that they and potential opt-in
Plaintiffs are similarly situated by virtue of being subjected to
the Defendants' improper compensation scheme as well as with regard
to their job duties.  The Plaintiffs assert that there can be no
reasonable dispute about whether the Defendants maintained a policy
under which delivery drivers tipped out to kitchen workers and
that, therefore, conditional certification of a collective action
is appropriate.

By contrast, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have failed
to produce evidence of an illegal company tip-out policy or
practice.  Specifically, Defendants argue that any violation of the
FLSA was caused by individual supervisors, not any common policy or
practice and that, therefore, conditional certification of a
collective action is inappropriate.  Finally, the Defendants assert
that the Plaintiffs cannot seek to certify a collective action
beyond February 2017 because no presently named Plaintiffs were
employed by them after that time.

Judge Kane agrees with the Plaintiffs that conditional
certification is warranted at this time.  The Plaintiffs have
provided sworn deposition testimony that all drivers were trained
to tip-out to kitchen staff at the end of each shift.  They have
further produced other discovery documents they claim support their
assertion that all delivery drivers were subjected to the same
policy.  The Court has identified several cases granting
conditional certification with similar record evidence.

Judge Kane notes that the Plaintiffs seek to certify a collective
class of all delivery drivers who worked for Defendants between May
24, 2014, and the present.  Plaintiffs have requested that
Defendants produce a list of the names and contact information for
all persons employed by the Defendants as delivery drivers during
the last three years.  For purposes of conditional certification,
the Judge finds that Plaintiffs' allegations are sufficient to
warrant notice based on a three-year statute of limitations and
will consider the Defendants' arguments at the final certification
stage.

Judge Kane agrees with the Defendants that the Plaintiffs have
produced no evidence whatsoever that the alleged illegal tip pool
remained in existence beyond February 2017.  Therefore, the Judge
cannot conclude that the Plaintiffs have made even the modest
factual showing required for conditional certification as to the
entire proposed class of delivery drivers.  As such, the Judge will
limit the conditional certification to delivery drivers employed
between May 24, 2014 and Feb. 28, 2017.

Finally, the Judge agrees with the Defendants that it would be
unreasonable to require Defendant Wings Over Happy Valley LLC to
post notice when the Court has limited the collective period to an
end date months prior to the time Defendant Wings Over Happy Valley
LLC purchased the assets of the remaining Defendants.

Thus, for the reasons stated, Judge Kane denied the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23, and granted the
Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify a collective class
under the FLSA.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 21, 2020 Memorandum
is available at https://is.gd/S2OZ16 from Leagle.com.

Ty Carts, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals, Lewis Grove, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated individuals, Colin Krieger,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals & Branden Ronald, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, represented by
David B. Consiglio -- dconsiglio@mkclaw.com -- Campbell, Miller,
Williams, Benson & Consiglio, Inc. & David S. Gaines, Jr. --
dgaines@mkclaw.com -- Campbell, Miller, Williams, Benson &
Consiglio, Inc.

Wings Over Happy Valley MDF, LLC d/b/a Wings Over Happy Valley,
Steven C. Moreira & Wings Over Happy Valley, LLC, Defendants,
represented by Philip K. Miles, III -- pkmiles@mqblaw.com --
McQuaide Blasko Law Offices.

Wings Over Happy Valley MDF, LLC d/b/a Wings Over Happy Valley &
Steven C. Moreira, Counterclaim Plaintiffs, represented by Philip
K. Miles, III, McQuaide Blasko Law Offices.

Jacob Wilson, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals, Counterclaim Defendant, represented by David
B. Consiglio, Campbell, Miller, Williams, Benson & Consiglio, Inc.
& David S. Gaines, Jr., Campbell, Miller, Williams, Benson &
Consiglio, Inc.


WIPRO: Former Employees File Discrimination Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Economic Times reports that five US-based former employees of
Information Technology services provider Wipro have filed a class
action suit against the Bengaluru-headquartered company alleging
"discriminatory employment practices" based on race and
nationality.

The suit was filed in March in the district court of New Jersey.

These employees have sought "injunctive, declaratory, equitable,
and monetary relief for Wipro's systematic pattern and practice of
discriminatory employment practices based upon individuals' race
and national origin.

According to the suit, the five former employees of Wipro, Gregory
MacLean, Rick Valles, Ardeshir Pezeshki, James Gibbs and Ronald
Hemenway, have alleged "discrimination" against who are not of
South Asian and Indian origin.

Four of these employees are of American origin, while one of them
is of Iranian national origin and resident of California.

"Wipro operates under a general policy of discrimination in favor
of South Asians and against individuals who are not South Asian and
not Indian. This general policy of discrimination manifests itself
in the same general fashion with respect to Wipro's hiring,
staffing, promotion, and termination decisions,' alleged the former
employees in the suit.

Meanwhile, Wipro declined to comment on the development saying the
matter is sub judice. [GN]


WOODBOLT DISTRIBUTION: Clausen Suit Transferred to Texas
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Dale Clausen and Timothy Duncan, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
Woodbolt Distribution LLC doing business as: Nutrabolt, Defendant,
was transferred from the Southern District of New York with the
assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-08837 to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas (Austin) on May 26, 2020, and assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-00559.

The nature of the case is stated as Other-Fraud.

Woodbolt Distribution is a health, wellness and fitness company
based out of 1908 Orchard Rd, Hood River, Oregon, United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Andrew Obergfell, Esq.
   Bursor & Fisher, P.A.
   888 Seventh Avenue
   New York, NY 10019
   Tel: (646) 837-7150

     - and -

   Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq.
   Bursor & Fisher, P.A.
   888 Seventh Avenue
   New York, NY 10019
   Tel: (646) 837-7150



ZOOM VIDEO: Hurvitz Suit Transferred from C.D. to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as TODD HURVITZ, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ZOOM VIDEO
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., FACEBOOK and LINKEDIN CORPORATION, Case No.
2:20-cv-03400 (Filed April 13, 2020), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (Oakland) on
May 13, 2020.

The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-03258-DMR to the proceeding. The suit is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Donna M. Ryu.

The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants exploited Zoom users, which
began simultaneously with the installation of Zoom's software
application, especially if they used the iOS operating system--the
system to run to Apple products. At that time, and each time
thereafter that a Zoom user opened or closed the Zoom App, the
Defendant Facebook eavesdropped on, and otherwise read, attempted
to read and learned the contents and meaning of, communications
between Zoom users' devices and Defendant Zoom's server without the
users' knowledge or consent.

Zoom is an American communications technology company headquartered
in San Jose, California. Zoom provides videotelephony and online
chat services through a cloud-based peer-to-peer software platform
and is used for teleconferencing, telecommuting, distance
education, and social relations.

Facebook is an American social media and technology company based
in Menlo Park, California. LinkedIn is an American business and
employment-oriented online service that operates via websites and
mobile apps.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David B. Owens, Esq.
          Mike Kanovitz, Esq.
          Scott R. Drury, Esq.
          LOEVY & LOEVY
          311 N. Aberdeen, 3rd Floor
          Chicago, IL 60607
          Telephone: (312) 243-5900
          Facsimile: (312) 243-5902
          E-mail: david@loevy.com
                  mike@loevy.com
                  drury@loevy.com


ZUORA INC: Hagens Berman Relays Court Opinion in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman issued a press release on a federal court opinion on
a securities class action suit against Zuora, Inc.  The statement
is as follows:

On April 28, 2020, a federal judge's opinion greenlighted a
securities fraud class-action against subscription software
provider Zuora, Inc. (NYSE: ZUO), for misrepresentations about its
flagship products, Billing and RevPro, according to attorneys at
Hagens Berman. The case also names Zuora's chief executive officer
and chief financial officer as defendants.

Hon. Susan Y. Illston, U.S. District Judge for the Northern
District of California denied in its entirety the Zuora defendants'
motion to dismiss the case. The opinion held that investors
sufficiently pled that defendants had violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Zuora defendants
must now file a formal answer with the court, admitting or denying
each of the complaint's allegations.

The order paves the way for the suit's class members -- investors
who purchased Zuora securities between Apr. 12, 2018 and May 30,
2019, inclusive -- to pursue discovery, including the production of
documents and testimony from Zuora and other relevant parties.

In the detailed 21-page opinion, Judge Illston overruled all of
defendants' challenges to investors' claims. Specifically, the
court rejected their argument that their statements were puffery,
finding that the complaint has adequately alleged defendants'
statements, "would give a reasonable investor the 'impression of a
state of affairs that differs in a material way from the one that
actually exists.'"

The Court also rebuffed defendants' assertion that the complaint
did not adequately plead scienter (intent or knowledge of
wrongdoing), given the highly detailed accounts of confidential
witnesses establishing, "that defendants were in possession of
contemporaneous, contradictory information when they made the false
and misleading statements."

Hagens Berman was named lead counsel in the case by Judge Illston,
with Steve Berman, managing partner and co-founder of firm, serving
as the lead trial counsel.

"We are pleased with the court's decision, which upholds the
well-established law that companies mislead investors when they
tout their products' capabilities, but fail to disclose significant
flaws that undercut those capabilities," Berman said. "This ruling
also allows us to begin obtaining discovery and prepare for trial,
so we can hold defendants accountable for the significant losses
they caused investors."

The lawsuit alleges that throughout the class period, defendant
represented Zuora Central acted as an intelligent subscription
management hub that automated, integrated and orchestrated the
entire subscription order-to-cash process, including billing
through Zuora Billing, and revenue recognition through Zuora
RevPro.

According to the complaint, defendants concealed the existence of
significant technical challenges that prevented the successful
integration of Zuora's two core products, ultimately resulting in
reduced revenue growth, missed sales and waning demand for Zuora's
platform and applications.

The truth emerged on May 30, 2019, when defendants disclosed the
integration failure, sales execution issues and disappointing
financial performance and outlook. On this news, Zuora's share
price plummeted 30 percent, erasing nearly $520 million in market
capitalization in a single trading day.

If you have information regarding Zuora's alleged fraud, Hagens
Berman wants to hear from you. Individuals with non-public
information regarding Zuora are encouraged to contact the firm by
emailing ZUO@hbsslaw.com or by calling 510-725-3040.

Find out more about the class-action lawsuit against Zuora.

                      About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents
investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex
litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at
hbsslaw.com. [GN]


[*] 25 Universities Face Lawsuits Over Tuition, Campus Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Collin Binkley, writing for FOX13, reports that they wanted the
campus experience, but their colleges sent them home to learn
online during the coronavirus pandemic. Now, students at more than
25 U.S. universities are filing lawsuits against their schools
demanding partial refunds on tuition and campus fees, saying
they're not getting the caliber of education they were promised.

The suits reflect students' growing frustration with online classes
that schools scrambled to create as the coronavirus forced campuses
across the nation to close in April. The suits say students should
pay lower rates for the portion of the term that was offered
online, arguing that the quality of instruction is far below the
classroom experience.

Colleges, though, reject the idea that refunds are in order.
Students are learning from the same professors who teach on campus,
officials have said, and they're still earning credits toward their
degrees. Schools insist that, after being forced to close by their
states, they're still offering students a quality education.

Grainger Rickenbaker, a freshman who filed a class-action lawsuit
against Drexel University in Philadelphia, said the online classes
he's been taking are poor substitutes for classroom learning.
There's little interaction with students or professors, he said,
and some classes are being taught almost entirely through recorded
videos, with no live lecture or discussion.

"You just feel a little bit diminished," said Rickenbaker, 21, of
Charleston, South Carolina. "It's just not the same experience I
would be getting if I was at the campus."

Other students report similar experiences elsewhere. A complaint
against the University of California, Berkeley, says some
professors are simply uploading assignments, with no video
instruction at all. A case against Vanderbilt University says class
discussion has been stymied and the "quality and academic rigor of
courses has significantly decreased."

In a case against Purdue University, a senior engineering student
said the closure has prevented him from finishing his senior
project, building an airplane. "No online course can simulate the
applicable, real-world experience" he hoped to gain from the
project, the complaint says.

Class-action lawsuits demanding tuition refunds have been filed
against at least 26 colleges, targeting prestigious private
universities, including Brown, Columbia and Cornell, along with big
public schools, including Michigan State, Purdue and the University
of Colorado, Boulder.

Some of the suits draw attention to schools' large financial
reserves, saying colleges are unfairly withholding refunds even
while they rest on endowments that often surpass $1 billion.

Several colleges declined to comment on the lawsuits, but some said
students have continued to get what they paid for.

Ken McConnellogue, a spokesman for the University of Colorado, said
it's disappointing that people have been so quick to file lawsuits
only weeks into the pandemic. He said the suits appear to be driven
by a small number of "opportunistic" law firms.

"Our faculty have been working extremely hard to deliver an
academic product that's got the same high standards, high-quality
academic rigor as what they would deliver in the classroom," he
said. "It's different, no doubt. And it's not ideal. We all would
prefer to have students on our campuses, but at the same time,
we're in the middle of a global pandemic here."

Officials at Michigan State said students are still taking classes
taught by qualified faculty, and the school is still offering
tutoring services, academic advising, faculty office hours and
library services.

"We don't negate that this has been a difficult time for our
university, especially for our students," Emily Guerrant, a
Michigan State spokeswoman, said in a statement. The school has
taken on new costs to move instruction online, she added, but "we
have maintained our commitment to providing meaningful and robust
learning experiences at no additional cost to our Spartans."

Officials at Drexel University said the school has continued to
provide a "broad spectrum of academic offerings and support" while
students learn remotely.

Lawyers representing students, however, say the refunds are a
matter of fairness.

"You cannot keep money for services and access if you aren't
actually providing it," said Roy Willey, a lawyer for the
Anastopoulo Law Firm in South Carolina, which is representing
students in more than a dozen cases. "If we're truly going to be
all in this together, the universities have to tighten their belts
and refund the money back to students and families who really need
it."

Willey said his office has received hundreds of inquiries from
students looking to file suits, and his firm is looking into dozens
of possible cases. Other firms taking on similar cases say they're
also seeing a wave of demand from students and parents who say they
deserve refunds.

Along with tuition, the cases also seek refunds for fees that
students paid to access gyms, libraries, labs and other buildings
that are now closed. All told, the complaints seek refunds that
could add up to several thousand dollars per student at some
schools.

The lawsuits ask courts to answer a thorny question that has come
to the fore as universities shift classes online: whether there's a
difference in value between online instruction and the traditional
classroom. Proponents of online education say it can be just as
effective, and universities say they've done everything they can to
create rigorous online classes in a matter of weeks.

But some of the complaints maintain that the college experience is
about more than course credits. They say there's value to the
personal interaction students get with faculty and classmates, both
in the classroom and out. Willey adds that colleges themselves
often charge lower rates for online classes, which he says is a
reflection of their value.

"The tuition price speaks for itself," he said. "These students
decided to go to in-person, on-campus universities. They could have
chosen to go to online colleges and earn their degree that way, but
they didn't."

Even before the first lawsuits were filed, demands for tuition
refunds had been spreading. Students at dozens of schools have
started petitions calling for refunds as online classes left them
underwhelmed. Scores of schools have returned portions of housing
and dining fees, but few if any have agreed to return any share of
tuition.

At the University of Chicago, hundreds of students signed a letter
saying they will refuse to pay this term's tuition, which was due
April 29, unless the school reduces tuition by 50% and keeps it at
that level during the crisis.

Colleges counter that the coronavirus has put them under sharp
financial strain, too. Some estimate that they could lose up to $1
billion this year as they brace for downturns in student
enrollment, state funding and research grants. Some have already
announced layoffs and furloughs as they work to offset losses.

But the lawsuits say it's not fair to pass those losses on to
students. Jennifer Kraus-Czeisler, a lawyer for the New York firm
Milberg Phillips Grossman, which is representing several students,
said colleges have a duty to return fees for services they aren't
providing.

"We're not disparaging the schools for closing. They did what was
appropriate," she said. "But they're profiting at the expense of
students. It just seems unconscionable." [GN]


[*] Canadian Nursing Homes Face Lawsuits Over Covid-19 Handling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paola Loriggio, writing for National Post, reports that as the
deadly toll of COVID-19 on Canada's nursing homes gives rise to a
growing number of proposed class-action lawsuits, some legal
experts say the cases will turn on what's considered reasonable
care during a pandemic.

The ongoing global health crisis that has disproportionately
affected the elderly poses a unique and unprecedented backdrop for
such civil actions, which have emerged in Ontario and Quebec in
recent weeks, experts say.

While nursing homes can't be blamed for the pandemic, they can be
held accountable for unnecessary and preventable deaths, said
Michael Smitiuch, a Toronto-based lawyer who previously led a
successful negligence lawsuit against a Brampton, Ont. facility for
seniors.

"A crisis like this does not give nursing homes a free pass to
neglect the elderly. So I think what will happen is… we're going
to look back at this through a lens of what was reasonable under
the circumstances," he said.

"The interesting question will be, what is the standard of care
during a pandemic?"

The courts will likely look to the requirements and guidelines
issued by health ministries, the World Health Organization and
other similar bodies in gauging whether any defendants were
negligent, Smitiuch said.

The novel coronavirus has ravaged private and government-run
seniors' homes, particularly in Canada's two largest provinces,
causing a large proportion of the country's more than 3,000
deaths.

Rules and standards for nursing homes have evolved rapidly as
public health officials respond to the crisis, with several
provinces now banning staff from working in multiple facilities.

However, a number of proposed class-action lawsuits allege
negligence on the part of governments or nursing home operators in
their handling of the virus.

In Quebec, the son of a 94-year-old woman who died of COVID-19 at
one of the province's hardest-hit facilities has filed a
class-action application against the government-run CHSLD
Ste-Dorothee.

A Toronto law firm, meanwhile, has served the provincial government
with notice of a proposed class proceeding on behalf of all
Ontarians in long-term care homes.

It alleges the province's failures in overseeing the facilities
have resulted in widespread, avoidable illness and death during the
pandemic.

Another such lawsuit launched by two Ontario men whose mothers died
from COVID-19 targets Revera, a privately owned nursing home
company.

None of the cases have been certified as class actions so far and
their claims have not been tested in court.

Scott Stanley, a personal injury lawyer in Vancouver, said these
lawsuits and any others that surface in the coming months will face
multiple hurdles in meeting the criteria for negligence.

First, he said, it may be difficult for plaintiffs to show the
actions of the operators or government caused the deaths.

"If the theory is, well, workers were able to go from one home to
the other and transmit the virus -- that's a theory, but you have
to show factually that that actually caused other people to be
affected or infected," he said.

It may also be challenging to demonstrate that the care given fell
below established standards, particularly when suing governments,
since they are measured against the standards they created, Stanley
said.

Governments could also introduce legislation to protect themselves
against COVID-19 related lawsuits, although there is a "very live
debate" over whether they can preclude cases involving breaches of
charter rights, he said.

Such laws are generally "very unpopular" politically, he said.

Even if any of the proposed class actions are successful,
plaintiffs may be shocked to find the damages they receive are
minimal, he said.

"People are not compensated for the loss of companionship, the loss
of friendship, from an older person that's deceased," he said.

"You're basically compensating for the loss of economic benefits
they brought to you. And most older people are not in a position
where they're providing economic benefits . . . so in many
instances those claims are actually worth nothing."

In truly egregious cases, a nursing home could face punitive
damages, which are meant to deter certain conduct, said Smitiuch,
the Toronto lawyer.

Governments should also consider an inquiry into how care homes
responded to the crisis, he said.

"It would be something that would be valuable for the future,
because no doubt we'll be facing something like this sometime in
the future," he said.

Three professional orders in Quebec have said they will hold a
joint investigation into the situation at seniors' homes and
long-term care centres since the COVID-19 pandemic struck. [GN]


[*] Class Actions v. Marijuana and CBD Companies Doubled in 2019
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hemp Industry Daily reports that federal class action securities
lawsuits against publicly traded hemp and marijuana businesses
doubled from 2018 to 2019, a trend that's typical in an emerging
industry, according to a new report.

The report, by Boston law firm Goodwin Procter, detailed 13 cases
filed in U.S. federal courts in 2019 compared with six in 2018. The
cases included marijuana and CBD companies.

More than half the suits were filed against Canadian companies that
trade on U.S. stock exchanges.

Most of the claims focused on disclosure issues, specific
transactions, financial guidance, financial restatements and
internal controls, according to the report.

Notably, several lawsuits followed allegations made by short-seller
activist companies, according to Goodwin's report. [GN]




[*] Restauranteur Sues Insurer Over Denied Claim
------------------------------------------------
WOIO reports that nighttown owner Brendan Ring says coronavirus has
done significant harm to his business.

"This virus has damaged us and it's damaged our business the same
way a fire or a flood is a damage to our business," says Ring, who
shut down March 15th, right before his biggest day of the year, St.
Patrick's Day. And he said his insurance company has denied his
claim.

"Business Disruption Insurance basically, if I lock that door up
because of something I had nothing to do with, all my business
expenses will be paid going forward."

He reached out to other restaurateurs on Facebook and said he's
received an overwhelming response.

"By the time we're done, we're going to have hundreds of people on
this class action suit," Ring says. "I don't think it should have
some to this, from our point of view to be told right out of the
gate, you're not covered for this is just not a good answer."

19 News reached out to one of the insurance companies named in the
suit earlier and they told us they don't comment on pending
litigation. [GN]


[*] Salon Owner Sues Insurer Over Business Interruption Insurance
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg McNeill, Esq. -- greg.mcneill@lowndes-law.com -- and Michael
Piccolo, Esq. -- michael.piccolo@lowndes-law.com -- of Lowndes, in
an article for JDSupra, report that a Miami Beach beauty salon
owner initiated a class action lawsuit against its insurer for
failing to pay for losses and expenses caused by the suspension of
its business due to the COVID-19 outbreak.

The salon owner had purchased property insurance, which included
protection against loss of business income and expenses due to a
suspension of the salon's business operations. This type of
coverage is commonly referred to as "business interruption
insurance."

Like so many business owners across Florida, the salon owner was
forced to suspend its business due to the COVID-19 outbreak. Local
authorities have prohibited the salon owner from accessing and
occupying its salon since early March 2020. Consequently, the salon
owner lost out on weeks' worth of vital income and incurred
unanticipated expenses.

When the salon owner looked to its insurer to honor its business
interruption insurance, the insurance company refused to reimburse
the salon owner for its losses. As a result, the salon owner has
filed a class action lawsuit against its insurer alleging that it
breached its insurance policy and seeking the court to declare that
the salon owner, along with other insureds, are entitled to
coverage for the loss of business income and expenses resulting
from the COVID-19 outbreak.

This class action lawsuit is one example of a burgeoning issue that
is sure to play out in courts across the country: whether insurers
will be on the hook for the loss of business income and expenses
resulting from the COVID-19 outbreak.

Given the highly complex nature of insurance contracts and coverage
issues, business owners would be well served to consult their
attorneys about reviewing and, potentially, making claims on their
business interruption policies for any business losses stemming
from the COVID-19 outbreak. [GN]



                            *********

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 ***