---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, July 11, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 139

                            Headlines

MDL 3111: Six Suits Consolidated in Capital One 360 Savings Row
MDL 3113: 10 Suits Consolidated in Apple Antitrust Row
MDL 3114: 12 Suits Consolidated in AT&T Data Breach Row
MDL 3115: Seven Suits Transferred to N.D. Ga.
ROYAL BANK: $1.9MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 17


                            *********

MDL 3111: Six Suits Consolidated in Capital One 360 Savings Row
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district action captioned "In re: Capital One 360
Savings Account Interest Fee Litigation," MDL No. 3111, Judge Karen
K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transfers two cases from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and one each from the
Central District of California, District of New Jersey, Eastern
District of New York and the Southern District of Ohio, all to the
Eastern District of Virginia, and, with the consent of that court,
assigned to Judge David J. Novak for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.

The actions share common questions of fact arising from allegations
that Capital One misled holders of its 360 Savings Account into
believing that they were earning a higher interest rate than they
were, in large part by offering, since September 2019, the
similarly-named 360 Performance Savings account, which paid a
higher interest rate than the 360 Savings account. The actions will
involve common questions of fact relating to Capital One's
marketing of the savings accounts and its policies and practices
for setting the interest rates for the accounts. All actions are
putative nationwide or statewide class actions on behalf of current
or former 360 Savings account holders, and all plaintiffs assert
similar claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and violation of
state consumer protection laws. Discovery will overlap extensively,
and centralization will avoid the risk of inconsistent rulings on
pretrial issues, including class certification and preemption under
the National Bank Act, ruled the panel.

With a total of seven actions pending in six districts,
centralization will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses, and conserve judicial resources, the panel added.
Capital One is headquartered in McLean, Virginia, within the
district, and Capital One states that much of the relevant evidence
and many of the relevant witnesses will be found there.

A full-text copy of the court's June 7, 2024 transfer order is
available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3111-Transfer_Order-5-24.pdf


MDL 3113: 10 Suits Consolidated in Apple Antitrust Row
------------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district action captioned "In re: APPLE INC.
SMARTPHONE ANTITRUST LITIGATION," MDL No. 3113, Judge Karen K.
Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation transfers six cases from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California and four from the District of New
Jersey, all to the District of New Jersey and, with the consent of
that court, assigned them to Judge Julian X. Neals for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Defendant Apple Inc. and
nearly all responding plaintiffs either support or do not oppose
centralization, although they differ as to the appropriate
transferee district.

The actions share common questions of fact arising from allegations
that Apple has monopolized or attempted to monopolize the
smartphone market by controlling the creation and distribution of
apps compatible with the iPhone and suppressing technologies that
would make the iPhone more compatible with competitors' devices.
Specifically, plaintiffs allege that Apple's practices and conduct
have impeded users from purchasing non-Apple products.

Plaintiffs seek certification of overlapping nationwide and
statewide classes of iPhone. purchasers and, in some instances,
Apple Watch purchasers. Plaintiffs variously assert virtually
identical claims under the Sherman Act, state antitrust and
consumer protection laws.

The panel held that in view of the number of involved actions,
districts, and plaintiffs' counsel, centralization will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses, and conserve judicial
resources. Centralization is particularly merited here, as these
overlapping cases are highly complex and likely will involve
time-consuming fact and expert discovery. Further, centralization
will avoid the possibility of inconsistent pretrial rulings,
particularly with respect to class certification.

The District of New Jersey is an appropriate transferee district
for this litigation as 26 of the 41 total actions are pending there
before Judge Julian X. Neals, and Apple and most of the responding
plaintiffs request centralization in that district. Judge Neals
also presides over a related civil antitrust enforcement action
recently brought by the U.S. Department of Justice and the
attorneys general of fifteen states and the District of Columbia.
Centralization of the private litigation in the District of New
Jersey before Judge Neals will provide opportunities for
coordination with the government action, avoid duplicative
discovery, and minimize the risk of inconsistent rulings on
overlapping issues, ruled the panel.

A full-text copy of the court's June 7, 2024 transfer order is
available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3113-Transfer_Order-5-24.pdf

MDL 3114: 12 Suits Consolidated in AT&T Data Breach Row
-------------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district action captioned "In re: AT&T Inc. Customer
Data Security Breach Litigation," MDL No. 3114, Judge Karen K.
Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation transfers eleven cases from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas and one from the Western District of
Oklahoma, all to the Northern District of Texas and, with the
consent of that court, assigned them to Judge Ada E. Brown for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiffs in all
actions and defendants AT&T Inc. and AT&T Mobility unanimously
support centralization, with the disagreement limited to the
appropriate transferee district.

These putative class actions present common factual questions
concerning an alleged data security breach announced by AT&T in
March 2024 concerning the personal information of over 70 million
former and current AT&T customers released on the dark web. These
include how and when the breach occurred, AT&T's data security
practices with respect to safeguarding personal information, the
investigation into the breach, the alleged delay in disclosing the
breach, and the nature of any alleged damages.

According to the panel, centralization will eliminate duplicative
discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with
respect to class certification and expert witness issues and
conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the
judiciary.

The panel concluded that the Northern District of Texas is an
appropriate transferee district because defendant AT&T Inc. has its
headquarters in Dallas, Texas, where common witnesses and other
evidence likely will be found. Most of the related actions are
pending there, and defendants and many plaintiffs support this
district as their first or second choice for the transferee venue.

A full-text copy of the court's June 5, 2024 transfer order is
available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3114-Transfer_Order-5-24.pdf

MDL 3115: Seven Suits Transferred to N.D. Ga.
---------------------------------------------
In the multi-district action captioned "In Re: Consumer Vehicle
Driving Data Tracking Litigation," MDL No. 3115, Judge Karen K.
Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation transfers two cases from the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California and Eastern District of Michigan and
one each from the Southern District of Florida, Southern District
of New York and the Middle District of Pennsylvania, all to the
Northern District of Georgia and, with the consent of that court,
assigned them to Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

No responding party opposed centralization of the actions, but
there was some disagreement on the transferee district and the
scope of the litigation.

These actions involve common questions of fact, and the panel has
determined that centralization in the Northern District of Georgia
will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote
the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These putative
class actions share complex factual questions arising from
allegations that General Motors equipped its vehicles with sensors
and computer modules to collect information about personal driving
behavior, and that it sold that information to data analytics
companies, which then created reports of individuals' driving
history and sold them to automobile insurance providers.

Common factual questions include how the technology in the subject
vehicles gather personal driving data, their policies and
procedures surrounding gathering and sharing that data and whether
defendants disclosed or obtained informed consent from drivers
before collecting and disseminating driver data. 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,
ruled the panel.

Moreover, the Northern District of Georgia is an appropriate
transferee district for this litigation as Defendant LexisNexis is
headquartered in this district, the panel notes. Relevant documents
and witnesses, therefore, will be found there. This district is in
an easily accessible, metropolitan area, and it is supported by
both some defendants and some plaintiffs, it added.

A full-text copy of the court's June 7, 2024 transfer order is
available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3115-Transfer_Order-5-24.pdf

ROYAL BANK: $1.9MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 17
----------------------------------------------------------
There is a Settlement with The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc
(n/k/a NatWest Group plc), British Bankers' Association, BBA
Enterprises Ltd., BBA Trent Ltd. (f/k/a BBA LIBOR Ltd.),
Coöperatieve Rabobank U.A. (f/k/a Coöperatieve Centrale
Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A.), Lloyds Banking Group plc and HBOS
plc (together, "Lloyds"), The Norinchukin Bank, Portigon AG (f/k/a
WestLB AG), Westdeutsche Immobilien Servicing AG (f/k/a
Westdeutsche ImmobilienBank AG), and Royal Bank of Canada
(collectively, "Settling Defendants") that impact lending
institutions headquartered in the United States, including its
fifty (50) states and United States territories, that originated
loans, held loans, held interests in loans, owned loans, owned
interests in loans, purchased loans, purchased interests in loans,
sold loans, or sold interests in loans with interest rates based
upon U.S. Dollar LIBOR, which rates adjusted at any time between
August 1, 2007, and May 31, 2010.

The litigation alleges that certain banks (see list of Defendant
banks on settlement website) unlawfully suppressed U.S. Dollar
LIBOR, which caused lending institutions to lose money in
connection with loans they held and their loan transactions.
Plaintiffs assert claims for common-law fraud and conspiracy to
commit fraud. Settling Defendants deny all claims of wrongdoing.
The Court denied a motion to dismiss the fraud claims asserted by
the plaintiffs, the Court has denied the plaintiff The Berkshire
Bank's motion to certify a litigation class, and the Court of
Appeals has denied the plaintiff's petition to review the Court's
denial of class certification prior to a final judgment. At the
time this Class Settlement was reached, the plaintiffs were
continuing to pursue their individual claims.

Am I included?

You are included in the Settlement if you (lending institution)
are:

Headquartered in the United States; and

Originated loans, held loans, held interests in loans, owned loans,
owned interests in loans, purchased loans, purchased interests in
loans, sold loans, or sold interests in loans with interest based
upon U.S. Dollar LIBOR, which rate adjusted at any time between
August 1, 2007, and May 31, 2010.
What does the Settlement provide?

The Settlement will create a $1,900,000 Settlement Fund that will
be used to pay eligible Class Members who submit valid claims.

How can I get a payment?

You must submit a proof of claim to get a payment. You can submit a
proof of claim online or by mail. The deadline to submit a proof of
claim is September 12, 2024. You are entitled to receive a payment
if you have a qualifying U.S. Dollar LIBOR-based loan. At this
time, it is unknown how much each Class Member who submits a valid
claim will receive.

What are my rights?

Even if you do nothing, you will lose your right to sue Settling
Defendants for the alleged conduct and will be bound by the Court's
decisions concerning the Settlement. If you want to keep your right
to sue Settling Defendants you must exclude yourself from the
Settlement Class by September 26, 2024. If you stay in the
Settlement Class, you may object to the Settlement by September 26,
2024.

The Court will hold a hearing on October 17, 2024, to consider
whether to approve the Settlement and approve Class Counsel's
request of attorneys' fees of up to one-third of the Settlement
Fund, plus reimbursement of costs and expenses. You or your own
lawyer may appear and speak at the hearing at your own expense.

For more information about the Settlement, visit
www.LendersLiborSettlements.com or call 1-833-609-9716.



                            *********

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 2024. 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 ***