---

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

              Friday, June 7, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 114

                            Headlines

180 CONCRETE DESIGN: Ramirez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
69 LAFAY REST: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
ABB INC: Kimbriel Sues Over Data Security Breach
ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Faces St. Clair County Employees' Suit
ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Pays $3.1MM in Suit v Pioneer Behavioral Health

ADVANCED INDUSTRIAL: Sanchez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: Aug. 13 Final Settlement Approval Hearing
ALLSTATE CORP: Class Certification of Illinois Suit under Appeal
ALLSTATE CORP: Still No Trial Date in Jimenez Lawsuit
ALLSTATE VEHICLE: Lampert Files Suit in M.D. Georgia

AMARIN CORP: Faces Sharma and Borghesi Class Suits
AMERICAN NATIONAL: Instructor Seeks Expense Reimbursements
APOLLO GLOBAL: Continues to Defend IDT IPO-Related Class Suits
APOLLO GLOBAL: Seeks to Dismiss McEvoy Class Suit
APOLLO GLOBAL: Settlement in PERS Mississippi Case Underway

APPLE INC: Lawrence Suit Asserts Phone App Monopoly, Price-fixing
ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Nayman Named as Lead Plaintiff
B RILEY FINANCIAL: Appeal in Freedman Suit v. Unit Ongoing
B RILEY FINANCIAL: Suit Against MLV & Co. Still Ongoing
BAUSCH HEALTH: Afexa-Related Class Action Ongoing

BAUSCH HEALTH: Consolidated RICO Class Suit May Proceed
BAUSCH HEALTH: Contact Lens Antitrust Suit Removed From Calendar
BAUSCH HEALTH: Generic Drug Pricing Antitrust Class Suit Ongoing
BBX CAPITAL: BVU Faces Wijesinha TCPA Class Action
BBX CAPITAL: Landon et al. Class Action Underway

BBX CAPITAL: Mediation in Hernandez & Michael Suit v. BVU Ongoing
BBX CAPITAL: Settlement Reached in Paxton and Reeser Suit v. BVU
BBX CAPITAL: Still Defends Vacation Ownership Interests Suit
BLOOMFIELD, MI: Appeals Ruling in Youmans Suit to Mich. App. Ct.
BOK FINANCIAL: Bondholders' Suit v. Unit Ongoing in New Jersey

BOK FINANCIAL: Unit Still Defends Oklahoma Class Suit
BRIDGE PROPERTY: Limson Sues Over Unfair Business Practices
CAPITALA FINANCE: Bid to Dismiss Paskowitz Suit Still Pending
CELTIC SERVICES: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CHATHAM LODGING: Still Defends Ruffy and Doonan Labor Suits

CLIENT SERVICES: Mills Sues Over Debt Collection Practice
CREDIT CONTROL: Jesus Molina Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. California
CREDIT CONTROL: Molina Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. California
CREDIT ONE: DiCarlo Sue Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
CURO GROUP: Continues to Defend Yellowdog Partners Class Suit

CVS PHARMACY: Tashjian Files Suit Over Unlawful Business Practices
DEL TACO: Discovery Underway in Former Calif. Employee's Suit
DIRECTORY DISTRIBUTING: Krawczyk Sues Over Unpaid Compensation
DIRECTORY DISTRIBUTING: Krawczyk Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri
DIXIE GROUP: Class Settlement in Garcia Suit Finally Approved

DRYBAR HOLDINGS: Henry Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing
EMERY FEDERAL: Sued Over Illegal Kickback, Price Fixing Scheme
ENCOMPASS HEALTH: Bid for Rehearing in Nichols Class Suit Denied
EQUITY BANCSHARES: Sued Over Share Drop from Credit Rel. Downgrade
FIRST CAPITAL: Gonzalez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA

FISHER-PRICE INC: Nabong Files Suit Over Dangerous Sleeper
FISHER-PRICE INC: Shaffer Files Sues Over Dangerous Sleeper
GARMIN USA: McVetty Files Suit Over Deceptive Business Practices
GENERAL MOTORS: Welch Sues Over Oil Consumption Engine Defect
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Burkhart Class Suit Pending

GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Skochin Class Suit Pending
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: TVPX ARX Inc. Suit in Virginia Dismissed
GEO MAINTENANCE: Does not Pay Overtime Wages, Saldivia Suit Says
GRANA & MONTERO: Bid to Dismiss NY Consolidated Class Suit Pending
HESKA CORP: Fauley Class Action Concluded

HFF INC: Pennington Files Suit Over Jones Lang Merger Deal
HOMEADVISOR INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Bittlingmeyer Says
HUDSON CLOTHING: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
I AM BEYOND: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
INSURANCE LINE: Moore Sues Over Intrusive Telemarketing Practices

JAMIE'S CIGAR BAR: Does not Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Mejia Says
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Appeal in British Columbia Settlement Ongoing
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Continues to Defend INVOKANA(R) Related Suits
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Continues to Defend PINNACLE(R) Related Suits
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Delgado Suit Moved to C.D. California

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Di Girolamo Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Divine Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Dixon Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Fahimi Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Foreman Suit Moved to C.D. California

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Fowler Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Galloway Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Galloways Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Gil et al. Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Green Suit Moved to C.D. California

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Interlocutory Appeal in Lens Suit Pending
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Patricia Dickens Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Hoang Suit to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Strobel Suit to E.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Von Salzen Suit to C.D. California

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Settlement Reached in US Xarelto(R) Suits
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Suits Over Ethicon Pelvic Mesh Devices Ongoing
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Talc-Related Class Suit Ongoing in NJ
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Trial in AWP Suit in Illinois Ongoing
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: XARELTO Class Suit Underway in Louisiana

KITON CORPORATION: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
L.L. BEAN: Pershouse Files Appeals in Suit
LANDS' END: Decrescentis Sues Over Contaminated Uniforms
LATINO REGAL: Jaramillo Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation
LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Bid to Dismiss Smith Class Action Underway

LIGHTHOUSE INSURANCE: Core Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
LINCOLN NATIONAL: 2017 COI Rate Litigation Still Ongoing
LINCOLN NATIONAL: COI Litigation in Pennsylvania Ongoing
LINCOLN NATIONAL: TVPX ARS' Suit in Pennsylvania Ongoing
LIV FITNESS CLUBS: Naranjo Suit Asserts Invasion of Privacy

LIVANOVA PLC: 3T Device Suits in US State Courts & Outside Ongoing
LIVENT CORPORATION: Nikolov Files Suit Over Share Price Drop
LOUISIANA: Landry Files Wage and Hour Class Action
MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending
MDL 2741: Burns v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated

MDL 2741: Crump v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Delesline v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Hudson v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Pease v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Sutliff et al v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated

MDL 2741: Sutton et al v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Walsh v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Whitaker v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
METLIFE INC: Appeal in Martin Class Action Still Pending
METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend Newman Class Action

METLIFE INC: Non-Certification Affirmed by Ontario Appeals Court
METLIFE INC: Owens Class Action in Georgia Still Ongoing
METLIFE INC: Still Defends Julian & McKinney Class Action
MJB ALE HOUSE: Santiago Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums, Damages
MKS INSTRUMENTS: Parties in ESI Litigation Agree to Settle

MONSANTO COMPANY: Benzels Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Bourgeoises Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Brenans Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Joneses Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
NABORS INDUSTRIES: Wins Dismissal of Texas Class Suit

NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS: Manna Sues Over Share Price Drop
NATIONAL BANCORP: Albrecht Sues Over TCPA Violation
NATIONAL GENERAL: Agreement Reached in Consolidated Suit in Calif.
NEW JERSEY: C.P. Files Suit v. Dept of Educ.
NEWLINK GENETICS: Appellees' Brief in Nguyen Due June 21

NISOURCE INC: Deal Reached in Suits over Greater Lawrence Fire
NITE OWL: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Mays Suit Says
NORTH AMERICAN: Lewis Sues Over WARN Act Violation
NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY: Kioutas Files Suit Over Insurance Dispute
OCHER REALTY: Gotham Seeks Balance Payment Under Work Deal

OHIO STATE TEACHERS: Sued for Terminating Retirement Benefits
OMEGA FLEX: Missouri Class Action Ongoing
OOMA INC: Reid Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
PANERA LLC: Philpott Suit Removed to E.D. California
PATENAUDE & FELIX: Acosta Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California

PBF ENERGY: Bid for Class Certification in Goldstein Suit Denied
PBF ENERGY: Continues to Defend Kendig Class Action
PETER CONLEY: Rubencayuqueo Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
POTBELLY CORP: Awaits Court OK to Amend Assistant Managers' Suit
PRICESMART INC: Harari Files Securities Class Suit Over Share Drop

PRICESMART INC: Rosen Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
QUADISCO INC: Lap Distributors Sues Over Unwanted Fax Advertisement
QUALCOMM INC: Bid to Dismiss Calif. Consolidated Class Suit Denied
QUALCOMM INC: Calif. Consumer Action Still Stayed Pending Appeal
QUALCOMM INC: Securities Suit over Broadcom Merger Ongoing

QUALITY LIVE: Ponce-Marquez Sues Over Unpaid Wages
QUANTA SERVICES: Court Awards $7.5MM in Benton Class Suit
RAINBOW SANDALS: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ROADRUNNER TRANS: Continues to Defend Gomez Class Suit in Calif.
ROADRUNNER TRANS: Stipulation of Settlement Submitted in WI Suit

RUMBLE FITNESS: Andrews Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Deka Class Action Still Stayed
SEQUANS COMMUNICATIONS: Bid to Dismiss Reener Class Suit Pending
SEVEN POINT ENERGY: Crigler Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SHUTTERFLY INC: Awaits Arbitrator's Decision in Taylor Class Suit

SHUTTERFLY INC: Claims in Monroy Class Action Dismissed
SHUTTERFLY INC: Lifetouch Faces Davis Class Suit
SHUTTERFLY INC: Notice of Appeal Filed in Vigeant Class Suit
SI FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Bushanksy Class Action
SI FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Raul Class Action in S.D.N.Y.

SI FINANCIAL: Parshall Class Action Underway in Baltimore
SI-BONE INC: Wants Fromer Chiropractic's Suit Tossed or Stayed
SIMPLEHUMAN LLC: Kiler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SKECHERS U.S.A.: Wilk Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
SKY SOLAR: New York Court Dismisses A. Barilli Securities Suit

SMA DELI GROCERY: Does not Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Rodriguez Says
SOUTHERN CO: Georgia Power Continues to Defend Franchise Fees Suit
SOUTHERN CO: Mississippi Power Still Defends Turnage Suit
SP PLUS: Pierre-Louis Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
STATE STREET: Court Approves $4.9 Million Class Settlement

STATE STREET: Still Defends Suit Over Invoicing Practices
SUN TOWER SUITES: Honeywell Files ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
SYNCHRONY BANK: Tucker Sues for Invasion of Privacy
TABLEAU SOFTWARE: Continues to Defend Scheufele Class Suit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Zheng-Lawson et al Seek to Certify Class & Subclasses

TRANSDIGM GROUP: Consolidated Class Suit in Ohio Still Ongoing
TWILIO INC: Continues to Defend Bauman TCPA Class Suit in Nevada
TYSON FOODS: Bid to Dismiss Pork Purchasers' Suit Pending
TYSON FOODS: Bid to Drop Broiler Chicken Grower Suit Still Pending
TYSON FOODS: Faces Cattle Feeds Price Fixing Suit in Illinois

TYSON FOODS: Faces Suit over Slaughter Capacity in Minnesota
TYSON FOODS: PH Supreme Court Reviews Suit v. Hillshire Brands
TYSON FOODS: Still Defends Broiler Chicken Antitrust Suit
UNITED COLLECTION: Ormaza Sues Over FDCPA Violation
UNUM GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated TN Class Suit Underway

UP THAI CORP: Campos Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
UTGR, INC: Ramer et al Seek to Certify Two FLSA Classes
VERIZON NEW YORK: Jones Files Suit Over Damaged Water Pipes
VIBERG BOOT MFG: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
WABASH NATIONAL: Notice of Appeal Filed in Indiana Class Suit

WHITESTONE REIT: Sold Shares at Artificially Inflated Prices
WYNDHAM VACATION: Pagh Suit Removed to C.D. California
XPO LOGISTICS: Continues to Defend Labul Class Action
ZEDRIC'S LLC: West Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ZIMMER BIOMET: Shah Class Action Ongoing

ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Awaits Court Ruling on Evans v. CB&T Appeal
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Gregory & Springer Suit Underway in Utah
[*] JND Appoints Jonathan Paul as Mass Tort Senior Consultant

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos A Major Concern for Aboriginal Community
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Job Abandoned At Ex-Westinghouse Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Global Had 53,000 Open Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECONY Accrues $7MM Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleavage Fragments Discussion Repeats in J&J Trial

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Accrues $8MM Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Spent $16MM for Manhattan Incident
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 28,498 Pending Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro Had $11.3MM Asbestos Coverage at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Ignored Expert Advice, Report Finds

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Camp Manager Files Asbestos Negligence
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Generation Had $77MM Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules LLC Had $272MM Reserve at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules LLC Had 12,000 Open Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Still Defends Lawsuits over Asbestos Talc

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lack of Evidence Dooms Death Suit, Judge Says
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Still Faces Falk PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord's Prager Unit Still Subject to PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord's Zurn Had 6,000 Pending Suits at Mar. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sydney Counsel Issues Legal Threat Over Claims



                            *********

180 CONCRETE DESIGN: Ramirez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Rene Ramirez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. 180 CONCRETE DESIGN, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 5:19-cv-00555-DAE (E.D. Tex., May 23, 2019) is an action for
Defendant's failure to pay overtime compensation brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The Defendant paid Rene Ramirez and those similarly situated on an
hourly basis. Rene Ramirez and all those similarly situated were
non-exempt employees and they consistently worked over forty hours
per week. However, Defendant failed to pay them overtime premiums
for any hours worked over forty per week, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Rene Ramirez was employed by Defendant as a lead
installer.

Defendant installs decorative concrete for both commercial and
residential customers in and around San Antonio, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


69 LAFAY REST: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALFREDO LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. 69 LAFAY REST. CORP. d/b/a ACADEMY
RESTAURANT, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03089 (E.D. N.Y., May 23,
2019) is an action seeking equitable and legal relief for
Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL").

While employed with Defendant, Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee
pursuant to the FLSA and the NYLL, and was entitled to overtime
compensation. However, despite routinely working for more than 40
hours per week, Plaintiff was not paid overtime compensation of one
and one-half times his regular hourly rate of pay for the hours he
worked over 40 per week. Furthermore, Plaintiff did not receive,
with each wage payment, statements listing his regular and overtime
rates of pay, the number of regular and overtime hours worked,
gross wages, deductions, and anything otherwise required by NYLL.
The Defendant did not maintain records of the hours Plaintiff
worked, nor did it require Plaintiff to record his time.

The Defendant violated federal and state law by willfully failing
to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees overtime
compensation owed to them; by failing to pay Plaintiff spread of
hours wages owed to him; and by failing to provide Plaintiff with
statutory payroll notices and wage statements, says the complaint.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a griller from in or around 2006
until on or around February 25, 2019.

Academy Restaurant is a diner that serves American food.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Nicole Grunfeld, Esq.
     Katz Melinger PLLC
     280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 460-0047
     Email: ndgrunfeld@katzmelinger.com


ABB INC: Kimbriel Sues Over Data Security Breach
------------------------------------------------
RICKEY KIMBRIEL and PAULA KIMBRIEL, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ABB INC., and BALDOR
ELECTRIC COMPANY N/K/A ABB MOTORS AND MECHANICAL INC., Defendants,
Case No. 5:19-cv-00215-BO (E.D. N.C, May 22, 2019) is a case about
a substantial data security breach, affecting nearly 18,000
employees and their family members who are participants in the ABB
health benefits plan (the "Plan").

Prior to August 25, 2017, hackers, utilizing a well-known
"phishing" or scam email scheme, compromised Plan accounts
containing participants' personally identifying information
("PII"). This PII included sensitive information such as names,
addresses, plan member IDs, birth dates, social security numbers,
FMLA information, and direct deposit information. ABB did not
publicly acknowledge the data breach or begin notifying the Plan
participants until on or after September 7, 2017. According to its
Form 5500 filed with the United States Department of Labor, there
were approximately 17,996 active participants in the Plan as of the
end of 2016. All of those 17,996 Plan participants had their PII
compromised by the data breach.

The data security breach was caused by ABB's knowing violation of
its obligation to secure its employees' and their family members'
personal information. ABB failed to comply with security standards
and allowed the Plan participants' PII to be compromised. As a
result of this breach, Plaintiffs and the class members whose
personal information was not safeguarded have suffered identity
theft and have been forced to expend substantial time and money to
protect themselves from the substantial risk of further injury from
identity theft, credit and reputational injury, false tax claims,
or even extortion they now face, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Rickey Kimbriel works for Baldor Electric Company in
Ozark, Arkansas and has been a participant in the Plan since at
least 2015. Plaintiff Paula Kimbriel is Rickey Kimbriel's spouse.

Defendant ABB, Inc. ("ABB") is an industrial technologies company
incorporated in Delaware, with its principal place of business in
Cary, North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Narendra K. Ghosh, Esq.
     PATTERSON HARKAVY LLP
     100 Europa Dr., Suite 420
     Chapel Hill, NC 27517
     Phone: (919) 942-5200
     Email: nghosh@pathlaw.com

          - and -

     Joe P. Leniski Jr., Esq.
     BRANSTETTER STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
     The Freedom Center
     223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200
     Nashville, TN 37203
     Phone: (615) 254-8801
     Email: joeyl@bsjfirm.com

          - and -

     James A. Streett, Esq.
     STREETT LAW FIRM, P.A.
     107 West Main
     Russellville, AR 72801
     Phone: (479) 968-2030
     Email: Alex@StreettLaw.com
            James@StreettLaw.com

          - and -

     Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
     COHEN & MALAD, LLP
     One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
     Indianapolis, IN 46204
     Phone: (317) 636-6481
     Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com



ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Faces St. Clair County Employees' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company has been
named as a defendant in a consolidated class action suit entitled,
St. Clair County Employees' Retirement System v. Acadia Healthcare
Company, Inc., et al.

On April 1, 2019, a consolidated complaint was filed against the
Company and certain former and current officers in the lawsuit
styled St. Clair County Employees' Retirement System v. Acadia
Healthcare Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00988, which is
pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons (other than defendants) who purchased
securities of the Company between April 30, 2014 and November 15,
2018, and alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Acadia Healthcare said, "At this time, we are not able to quantify
any potential liability in connection with this litigation because
the case is in its early stages."

Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. develops and operates inpatient
psychiatric facilities, residential treatment centers, group homes,
substance abuse facilities, and outpatient behavioral healthcare
facilities to serve the behavioral health and recovery needs of
communities in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Puerto
Rico. The company was founded in 2005 and is headquartered in
Franklin, Tennessee.


ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Pays $3.1MM in Suit v Pioneer Behavioral Health
------------------------------------------------------------------
Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the Company has paid
$3.1 million in connection with a class action lawsuit filed in
2011 on behalf of the shareholders of PHC, Inc. d/b/a Pioneer
Behavioral Health ("PHC") related to the merger of the Company with
PHC.

The payment was made on January 15, 2019.

Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. develops and operates inpatient
psychiatric facilities, residential treatment centers, group homes,
substance abuse facilities, and outpatient behavioral healthcare
facilities to serve the behavioral health and recovery needs of
communities in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Puerto
Rico. The company was founded in 2005 and is headquartered in
Franklin, Tennessee.


ADVANCED INDUSTRIAL: Sanchez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Gregorio Sanchez, as an individual, and on behalf of all similarly
situated employees, and, Plaintiffs, v. ADVANCED INDUSTRIAL
SERVICES, INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-at-00384 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern
Cty., May 22, 2019) seeks recovery of unpaid wages, including but
not limited to, overtime wages and waiting time penalties in the
State of California, for Defendant's failure to provide rest
periods, to reimburse for necessary job-related expenses, for
failing to keep accurate payroll records, and waiting time
penalties, and for not paying wages and due and owing at the time
of their termination.

Plaintiff and proposed class members are all current and former
non-exempt employees who Defendant failed to pay minimum and
overtime wages, failed to provide timely and uninterrupted meal and
rest periods or premium compensation in lieu thereof, failed to
keep accurate payroll records, and failed to pay owed wages upon
the end of employment, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from May 21, 2016 through April
15, 2017, as a painter and sandblaster.

ADVANCED INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC. (AIS) is a privately held
California corporation providing commercial and industrial coating
series including but not limited to painting, and blasting.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
     Katherine Odenbreit, Esq.
     Alexander Perez, Esq.
     MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
     249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
     Long Beach, CA 90802
     Phone: (562) 590-5550
     Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
     Email: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
            kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net
            aperez@mahoney-law.net


ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: Aug. 13 Final Settlement Approval Hearing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the final approval
hearing for the settlement of a class action lawsuit pursuant to
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act is scheduled for August 13,
2019.

On December 30, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, or the Court, alleging violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA.

The complaint does not allege that Alarm.com itself violated the
TCPA, but instead seeks to hold the company responsible for the
marketing activities of one of the company's service providers as
well as calls made by one of this service provider's sub-dealer
agents under principles of agency and vicarious liability.

On August 30, 2018, the company reached an agreement in principle
to settle the case for total cash consideration of $28.0 million.
On October 25, 2018, the company entered into a definitive
settlement agreement, or Settlement Agreement, and submitted it to
the Court for approval. In entering into the definitive settlement
agreement, the company is making no admission of liability.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, among other things, (1) the
company agreed to pay total cash consideration of $28.0 million
into a settlement fund, (2) the company agreed to implement certain
business practice changes to increase awareness of TCPA compliance,
(3) each party to the Settlement Agreement agreed to a mutual
release of claims relating to any claim or potential claim relating
to the marketing activities described in the complaint, and (4)
each party covenanted not to sue the other with regard to the
released claims. In addition, the company has agreed to no longer
allow the service provider identified in the litigation as
purportedly violating the TCPA to continue activating new accounts
for Alarm.com products and services after preliminary Court
approval of the Settlement Agreement.

On December 19, 2018, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement and certified the
class for settlement purposes. Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval
Order, the administrator provided notice of the settlement to class
members, and class members had to file claims, opt out of the
settlement or object to the settlement by April 16, 2019. The Final
Approval Hearing is currently scheduled for August 13, 2019.

Alarm.com made an initial payment of $5.0 million to the settlement
administrator on January 2, 2019, and the remaining payment will
take place ten business days after the effective date of the
Settlement Agreement, which is five business days following the
later of the following events: (1) the date upon which the time
expires for filing a notice of appeal of the Court's Final Approval
Order and Judgment; or (2) if there is an appeal or appeals of the
Final Approval Order and Judgment, and the appellate court enters
an order either dismissing the appeal(s) or affirming the Final
Approval Order and Judgment without material modification, the date
upon which the time expires for seeking review of that order. The
release of claims includes all alleged damages incurred related to
the lawsuit. Any attorneys' fees awarded by the Court and all costs
of notice and claims administration will be paid from the
settlement fund.

Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. provides cloud-based software platform
solutions for smart residential and commercial properties in the
United States and internationally. Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Tysons, Virginia.


ALLSTATE CORP: Class Certification of Illinois Suit under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that defendants in the case
entitled, In re The Allstate Corp. Securities Litigation, have
sought permission from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to appeal a
lower court's ruling granting plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

In re The Allstate Corp. Securities Litigation is a putative 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 putative 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 7th Circuit Court of
Appeals a petition for permission to appeal this ruling pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (f).

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.


ALLSTATE CORP: Still No Trial Date in Jimenez Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that no trial date has been
calendared in the case, Jack Jimenez, et al. v. Allstate Insurance
Company.

The case of Jack Jimenez, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Company was
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California on September 30, 2010.

Plaintiffs allege off-the-clock wage and hour claims and other
California Labor Code violations resulting from purported unpaid
overtime. Plaintiffs seek recovery of unpaid compensation,
liquidated damages, penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs. The
court certified a class that includes all adjusters in the state of
California, except auto field adjusters, from September 29, 2006 to
final judgment.

Allstate's appeals to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and then
to the U.S. Supreme Court did not result in decertification. No
trial date is calendared.

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.


ALLSTATE VEHICLE: Lampert Files Suit in M.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND
PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY. The case is styled MATTHEW E. LAMPERT
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case
No. 5:19-cv-00200-TES (M.D. Ga., May 23, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.

The Allstate Corporation is one of the largest insurance providers
in the United States and one of the largest that is publicly
held.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     ADAM P PRINCENTHAL, ESQ.
     750 HAMMOND DR BLDG 12 STE 200
     SANDY SPRINGS, GA 30328
     Phone: (678) 534-1980
     Email: adam@princemay.com


AMARIN CORP: Faces Sharma and Borghesi Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------
Amarin Corporation plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company has been
named as a defendant in two class action suit entitled, Debendra
Sharma v. Amarin Corporation plc, John F. Thero and Steven Ketchum
and Richard Borghesi v. Amarin Corporation plc, John F. Thero and
Steven Ketchum.

On February 22, 2019, a purported investor in the company's
publicly traded securities filed a putative class action lawsuit
against Amarin Corporation plc, the company's chief executive
officer and chief scientific officer in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey, Debendra Sharma v. Amarin Corporation
plc, John F. Thero and Steven Ketchum, No. 2:19-cv-06601 (D.N.J.
Feb. 22, 2019).

On March 12, 2019, another purported investor filed a substantially
similar lawsuit captioned Richard Borghesi v. Amarin Corporation
plc, John F. Thero and Steven Ketchum, No. 3:19-cv-08423 (D.N.J.
March 12, 2019).

Both lawsuits allege that, during the period September 24, 2018 to
November 9, 2018, the company misled investors by purportedly not
disclosing that the placebo given to patients in the REDUCE-IT
study, mineral oil, may have caused cardiovascular problems in the
patients taking it, thereby misleading investors on the outcome of
the REDUCE-IT study and artificially inflating the price of our
securities.

Based on these allegations, the suits assert claims under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeks unspecified monetary
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

Amarin said, "We believe that we have valid defenses and we will
vigorously defend against the claims, but cannot predict the
outcome. We are unable to reasonably estimate the loss exposure, if
any, associated with these claims. We have insurance coverage that
is anticipated to cover any significant loss exposure that may
arise from this action after payment by us of the associated
deductible obligation."

Amarin Corporation plc, a pharmaceutical company, engages in the
development and commercialization of therapeutics for the treatment
of cardiovascular diseases in the United States. The company was
formerly known as Ethical Holdings plc and changed its name to
Amarin Corporation plc in 1999. Amarin Corporation plc was
incorporated in 1989 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


AMERICAN NATIONAL: Instructor Seeks Expense Reimbursements
----------------------------------------------------------
La Toiya Morrison, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS, a
Congressional Charter Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-02855 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., May 23, 2019) seeks
reimbursement for cell phone business expenses, interest thereon;
other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs,
under California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code.

Plaintiffs and Class Members paid cell phone expenses incurred by
them in the course of their work for Defendant as Instructors, for
which they have not received reimbursement from Defendant.
Plaintiffs, on behalf of herself and Class Members, seeks
restitution of all unpaid enrichment Defendant has obtained from
its failure to reimburse cell phone related business expenses
incurred by Plaintiff and Class Members, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant approximately April 2018
through March 2019 and worked as an Instructor out of Defendant's
Los Angeles, California, regional headquarters office.

AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS is a Congressional Charter Corporation
with its principal place of business in Washington, DC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Julian Hammond, Esq.
     Polina Brandler, Esq.
     Ari Cherniak, Esq.
     HAMMONDLAW, PC
     1829 Reisterstown Rd., Suite 410
     Baltimore, MD 21208
     Phone: (310) 601-6766
     Fax: (310) 295-2385
     Email: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com
            pbrandler@hammondlawpc.com
            acherniak@hammondlawpc.com


APOLLO GLOBAL: Continues to Defend IDT IPO-Related Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend class action suits related to IDT Inc.'s initial public
offering (IPO).

Five shareholders filed substantially similar putative class action
lawsuits in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in
and for Palm Beach County, Florida in March, April, and May 2018,
alleging violations of the Securities Act in connection with the
January 19, 2018 initial public offering (IPO) of ADT Inc. common
stock.

The actions were consolidated on July 10, 2018, and the case was
re-captioned In re ADT Inc. Shareholder Litigation. On August 24,
2018, the state-court plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
naming as defendants ADT Inc., several ADT officers and directors,
the IPO underwriters (including Apollo Global Securities, LLC), AGM
and certain other Apollo affiliates.

Plaintiffs generally allege that the registration statement and
prospectus for the IPO contained false and misleading statements
and failed to disclose material information about certain
litigation in which ADT was involved, ADT's efforts to protect its
intellectual property, and competitive pressures ADT faced.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint on
October 23, 2018, and those motions are fully briefed.

On May 21, 2018, a similar shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Florida, naming as defendants ADT, several officers and
directors, and AGM. The federal action, captioned Perdomo v. ADT
Inc., generally alleges that the registration statement was
materially misleading because it failed to disclose ongoing
deterioration in ADT's financial results, along with certain
customer and business metrics.

On July 20, 2018, several alleged ADT shareholders filed competing
motions to be named lead plaintiff in the federal action. On
November 20, 2018, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, and on
January 15, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
The amended complaint names the same Apollo-affiliated defendants
as the state-court action, along with three new Apollo entities.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss on March 25, 2019, and those
motions are fully briefed.  

Based on the allegations in the complaints, Apollo believes that
there is no merit to any of the claims against AGM or the other
Apollo defendants. Thus, no reasonable estimate of possible loss,
if any, can be made at this time.

Apollo Global Management, LLC is a publicly owned investment
manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and
sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and
individual investors. Apollo Global Management, LLC was founded in
1990 and is headquartered in New York City.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Seeks to Dismiss McEvoy Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company is seeking
dismissal on the class action suit initiated by Michael McEvoy.

On August 3, 2017, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida against AGM, a
senior partner of Apollo and a former principal of Apollo by
Michael McEvoy on behalf of a purported class of employees of
subsidiaries of CEVA Group, LLC ("CEVA Group") who purchased shares
in CEVA Investment Limited ("CIL"), the former parent company of
CEVA Group.

The complaint alleged that the defendants breached fiduciary duties
to and defrauded the plaintiffs by inducing them to purchase shares
in CIL and subsequently participating in a debt restructuring of
CEVA Group in which shareholders of CIL did not receive a recovery.


On February 9, 2018, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District
of New York held that the claims asserted in the complaint were
assets of CIL, which is a chapter 7 debtor, and that the complaint
was null and void as a violation of the automatic stay.

McEvoy subsequently revised his complaint to attempt to assert
claims that do not belong to CIL. The amended complaint no longer
names any individual defendants, but Apollo Management VI, L.P. and
CEVA Group have been added as defendants.

The amended complaint purports to seek damages of approximately
€30 million and asserts, among other things, claims for
violations of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, breach of
fiduciary duties, and breach of contract.

On December 7, 2018, after receiving permission from the Bankruptcy
Court, McEvoy filed his amended complaint in the District Court in
Florida.

Apollo is currently seeking dismissal of this action and believes
that there is no merit to the claims. Additionally, as the case is
in its early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if
any, can be made at this time.

Apollo Global Management, LLC is a publicly owned investment
manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and
sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and
individual investors. Apollo Global Management, LLC was founded in
1990 and is headquartered in New York City.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Settlement in PERS Mississippi Case Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the case, Public Employees Retirement System of
Mississippi v. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., are awaiting the
court's approval of a settlement agreement.

Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that on March 4, 2016, the
Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi filed a putative
securities class action against Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc.
("SFM"), several SFM directors (including Andrew Jhawar, an Apollo
partner), AP Sprouts Holdings, LLC and AP Sprouts Holdings
(Overseas), L.P. (the "AP Entities"), which are controlled by
entities managed by Apollo affiliates, and two underwriters of a
March 2015 secondary offering of SFM common stock.

The AP Entities sold SFM common stock in the March 2015 secondary
offering. The complaint, filed in Arizona Superior Court and
captioned Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi v.
Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. (CV2016-050480), alleges that SFM
filed a materially misleading registration statement for the
secondary offering that incorporated alleged misrepresentations in
SFM's 2014 annual report regarding SFM's business prospects, and
failed to disclose alleged accelerating produce deflation.

Plaintiff alleged causes of action against the AP Entities for
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
seeking compensatory damages for alleged losses sustained from a
decline in SFM's stock price.

Defendants moved to dismiss the action, and the court dismissed the
Section 11 claim against the AP Entities but not the Section 15
claim.

On December 27, 2018, the parties executed a settlement agreement,
and on December 28, 2018, the parties filed a motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement. On January 31, 2019, the
Court preliminarily approved the settlement and set a hearing on
final approval of the settlement for May 31, 2019.

Apollo Global said, "Although the case appears to be in its final
stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be
made at this time."

Apollo Global Management, LLC is a publicly owned investment
manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and
sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and
individual investors. Apollo Global Management, LLC was founded in
1990 and is headquartered in New York City.


APPLE INC: Lawrence Suit Asserts Phone App Monopoly, Price-fixing
------------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD LAWRENCE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. APPLE INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-02852-MMC (N.D. Cal., May 23, 2019) is a lawsuit brought as
a class action on behalf of individuals and entities that purchased
software known as "applications" through their Apple iPhone from
the "App Store" owned and operated by Defendant Apple during the
period beginning as early as June 2007 and continuing through the
present (the "Class Period").

Plaintiff alleges that during the Class Period, the Defendant
engaged in a litany of anticompetitive conduct and practices
designed specifically to unlawfully monopolize, fix, raise,
maintain or stabilize prices for applications sold through its
"iTunes" store or its "App Store" in the United States. Plaintiff
further alleges that Defendant's anticompetitive conduct is in
violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits
monopolization of trade and commerce within the United States.

Plaintiff seeks treble damages and injunctive relief on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated purchasers of Apple
applications during the Class Period.

Plaintiff EDWARD LAWRENCE purchased applications for use on his
iPhone from the Defendant during the Class Period.

Apple manufactures, markets and sells the iPhone, and owns and
operates iTunes and the App Store.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph M. Alioto, Esq.
     Theresa D. Moore, Esq.
     Jamie L. Miller, Esq.
     ALIOTO LAW FIRM
     One Sansome Street, 35th Floor
     San Francisco CA 94104
     Phone: (415) 434-8900

          - and -

     Jeffery K. Perkins, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF JEFFERY K. PERKINS
     1550-G Tiburon Boulevard, #344
     Tiburon, CA 94920
     Phone: (415) 302-1115
     Email: jefferykperkins@aol.com

          - and -

     Lawrence G. Papale, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE G. PAPALE
     1308 Main Street #117
     St. HP: (707) 963-1704
     Email: lgpapale@papalelaw.com


ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Nayman Named as Lead Plaintiff
-------------------------------------------------
Matis Nayman has been named lead plaintiff in the case, SPENCER
WONG, Plaintiff, v. ARLO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 19-cv-00372-BLF (N.D. Calif.).  The Court approved
Nayman's selection of Keller Lenkner as lead counsel, and Browne
George Ross as liaison counsel.

On March 25, 2019, four parties filed motions seeking appointment
of respective lead plaintiff and lead counsel.  One was eventually
dropped and these parties remained in contention: Plaintiffs
Richard and Nadine Sarkis; Plaintiff Matis Nayman; and Plaintiff
Arlo Investor Group.

Arlo Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that beginning on December
11, 2018, purported stockholders of Arlo Technologies, Inc. filed
putative securities class action complaints in the Superior Court
of California, County of Santa Clara, and in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California against the company
and certain of its executives and directors.  

Some of these actions also name as defendants the underwriters in
the initial public offering (IPO) and NETGEAR, Inc.  

The actions pending in state court are Aversa v. Arlo Technologies,
Inc., et al., No. 18CV339231, filed Dec. 11, 2018; Pham v. Arlo
Technologies, Inc. et al., No. 19CV340741, filed January 9, 2019;
Patel v. Arlo Technologies, Inc., No. 19CV340758, filed January 10,
2019; Perros v. NetGear, Inc., No. 19CV342071, filed February 1,
2019; Vardanian v. Arlo Technologies, Inc., No. 19CV342318, filed
February 8, 2019; and Hill v. Arlo Technologies, Inc. et al., No.
19CV343033, filed February 22, 2019.  

The action pending in federal court is Wong v. Arlo Technologies,
Inc. et al., No. 19-CV-00372, filed January 22, 2019.  

The complaints generally allege that the company failed to
adequately disclose quality control problems and adverse sales
trends ahead of the IPO, violating the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended. The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages and other
relief on behalf of investors who purchased our common stock issued
pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO offering documents.

A case management conference for all state actions is scheduled for
May 31, 2019. In the state court lawsuits, the court has issued an
order deeming the cases complex and temporarily staying discovery.


The plaintiffs are seeking to consolidate their cases and file a
consolidate complaint. In the federal action, four investors filed
motions to be appointed lead plaintiff. A hearing on the lead
plaintiff motions was scheduled for May 9, 2019.

Arlo said, "We have not filed an answer in the state court or
federal court lawsuits. Regardless of the merits or ultimate
results of the above-described litigation matters, they could
result in substantial costs, which would hurt our financial
condition and results of operations and divert management's
attention and resources from our business. At this point, however,
it is too early to reasonably estimate any financial impact to us
resulting from these litigation matters. In addition, we may become
subject to additional securities class action litigation in the
future."

Arlo Technologies, Inc. provides smart connected devices to monitor
the environments in real-time with a Wi-Fi or a cellular network
Internet connection in the Americas, Europe, the Middle-East and
Africa, and the Asia Pacific regions. Arlo Technologies, Inc. was
incorporated in 2018 and is headquartered in San Jose, California.


B RILEY FINANCIAL: Appeal in Freedman Suit v. Unit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
B. Riley Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the appeal in the case
entitled, Freedman v. magicJack VocalTec Ltd. et al., is ongoing.

On August 11, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit titled Freedman
v. magicJack VocalTec Ltd. et al., Case 9-17-cv-80940, was filed
against magicJack and its Board of Directors in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No:
9:17-cv-80940-RLR).

The complaint alleges claims against magicJack and the members of
its Board of Directors as well as two former members for violations
of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
arising from proxy statements issued in connection with magicJack's
April 19, 2017 shareholders meeting and magicJack's July 31, 2017
shareholders meeting that allegedly misrepresented material facts
concerning the "true value" of Broadsmart Global, Inc and its
future prospects in order that the individual defendants could
entrench themselves and extract unwarranted compensation from
magicJack in connection with their attempt to sell the company.

In January 2018, the plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. On
February 16, 2018, magicJack and all of the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On August 9, 2018,
the Court issued an order dismissing the amended complaint without
prejudice, giving the plaintiff until August 21, 2018 to file an
amended complaint.

Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On
August 20, 2018, magicJack filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint.

Pursuant to a schedule set by the Court, all papers with respect to
the motion were filed by September 28, 2018. On November 21, 2018,
the court issued an order granting the motion to dismiss with
prejudice.

The plaintiff has filed Notice of Appeal with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 11th Circuit, and, on January 30, 2019, filed a
brief with the appeals court. The Company's brief in opposition was
filed on April 19, 2019.

B. Riley said, "The Company cannot estimate the amount of potential
liability, if any, that could arise from this matter."

B. Riley Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
collaborative financial services and solutions in North America,
Australia, and Europe. The company operates in four segments:
Capital Markets, Auction and Liquidation, Valuation and Appraisal,
and Principal Investments - United Online and magicJack. The
company was formerly known as Great American Group, Inc. and
changed its name to B. Riley Financial, Inc. in November 2014. B.
Riley Financial, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is headquartered in
Woodland Hills, California.


B RILEY FINANCIAL: Suit Against MLV & Co. Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
B. Riley Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that a putative class action
suit against MLV & Co. is still ongoing.

On January 5, 2017, complaints filed in November 2015 and May 2016
naming MLV & Co. ("MLV"), a broker-dealer subsidiary of FBR & Co.
FBR, as a defendant in putative class action lawsuits alleging
claims under the Securities Act, in connection with the offerings
of Miller Energy Resources, Inc. ("Miller") have been consolidated.


The Master Consolidated Complaint, styled Gaynor v. Miller et al.,
is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee, and, like its predecessor complaints,
continues to allege claims under Sections 11 and 12 of the
Securities Act against nine underwriters for alleged material
misrepresentations and omissions in the registration statement and
prospectuses issued in connection with six offerings (February 13,
2013; May 8, 2013; June 28, 2013; September 26, 2013; October 17,
2013 (as to MLV only) and August 21, 2014) with an alleged
aggregate offering price of approximately $151,000.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages and
reimbursement of certain costs and expenses. In August 2017, the
Court granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on Section 12 claims
and found that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged a
corrective disclosure prior to August 6, 2015, when an SEC civil
action was announced.

Defendants' answer was filed on September 25, 2017. Plaintiffs have
filed motions for class certification and to remand the case to
state court following a positive ruling in an unrelated case by the
U.S. Supreme Court.

Although MLV is contractually entitled to be indemnified by Miller
in connection with this lawsuit, Miller filed for bankruptcy in
October 2015 and this likely will decrease or eliminate the value
of the indemnity that MLV receives from Miller.

The Court has ordered mediation before a federal magistrate which
is expected to be scheduled during May or early June 2019.

B. Riley Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
collaborative financial services and solutions in North America,
Australia, and Europe. The company operates in four segments:
Capital Markets, Auction and Liquidation, Valuation and Appraisal,
and Principal Investments - United Online and magicJack. The
company was formerly known as Great American Group, Inc. and
changed its name to B. Riley Financial, Inc. in November 2014. B.
Riley Financial, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is headquartered in
Woodland Hills, California.


BAUSCH HEALTH: Afexa-Related Class Action Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend the Afexa-related class suit.

On March 9, 2012, a Notice of Civil Claim was filed in the Supreme
Court of British Columbia which sought an order certifying a
proposed class proceeding against the Company and a predecessor,
Afexa Life Sciences Inc. ("Afexa") (Case No. NEW-S-S-140954).

The proposed claim asserted that Afexa and the Company made false
representations respecting Cold-FX(R) to residents of British
Columbia who purchased the product during the applicable period and
that the proposed class has suffered damages as a result. On
November 8, 2013, the plaintiff served an amended notice of civil
claim which sought to re-characterize the representation claims and
broaden them from what was originally claimed.

On December 8, 2014, the Company filed a motion to strike certain
elements of the plaintiff's claim for failure to state a cause of
action. In response, the plaintiff proposed further amendments to
its claim.

The hearing on the motion to strike and the plaintiff's amended
claim was held on February 4, 2015. The Court allowed certain
additional subsequent amendments, while it struck others. The
hearing to certify the class was held on April 4-8, 2016 and, on
November 16, 2016, the Court issued a decision dismissing the
plaintiff's application for certification of this action as a class
proceeding.

On December 15, 2016, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the
British Columbia Court of Appeal appealing the decision to dismiss
the application for certification. The plaintiff filed its appeal
factum on March 15, 2017 and the Company filed its appeal factum on
April 19, 2017. The appeal hearing was held on September 19, 2017
and, on April 30, 2018, the British Columbia Court of Appeal
dismissed the appeal.

On June 29, 2018, the plaintiff filed leave to appeal to the
Supreme Court of Canada in this matter and, on February 7, 2019,
the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the application for leave to
appeal with costs.

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

Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.


BAUSCH HEALTH: Consolidated RICO Class Suit May Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the court has lifted
the stay and plaintiffs have indicated that they will file an
amended complaint.

Between May 27, 2016 and September 16, 2016, three virtually
identical actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey against the Company and various
third-parties, alleging claims under the federal Racketeer
Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") on behalf of a
putative class of certain third-party payors that paid claims
submitted by Philidor for certain Company branded drugs between
January 2, 2013 and November 9, 2015.  

On November 30, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating the
three actions under the caption In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. Third-Party Payor Litigation, No.
3:16-cv-03087.

A consolidated class action complaint was filed on December 14,
2016. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that
the defendants committed predicate acts of mail and wire fraud by
submitting or causing to be submitted prescription reimbursement
requests that misstated or omitted facts regarding (1) the identity
and licensing status of the dispensing pharmacy; (2) the
resubmission of previously denied claims; (3) patient co-pay
waivers; (4) the availability of generic alternatives; and (5) the
insured's consent to renew the prescription.  

The complaint further alleges that these acts constitute a pattern
of racketeering or a racketeering conspiracy in violation of the
RICO statute and caused plaintiffs and the putative class
unspecified damages, which may be trebled under the RICO statute.


The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on February
13, 2017. On March 14, 2017, other defendants filed a motion to
stay the RICO class action pending the resolution of criminal
proceedings against Andrew Davenport and Gary Tanner.

On August 9, 2017, the Court granted the motion to stay and entered
an order staying all proceedings in the case and accordingly
terminating other pending motions.

On April 12, 2019, the court lifted the stay. The plaintiffs have
indicated that they will file an amended complaint.

The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to
defend itself vigorously.

Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.


BAUSCH HEALTH: Contact Lens Antitrust Suit Removed From Calendar
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the Court in the case
entitled, In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation, has
removed the case from the trial calendar.

Beginning in March 2015, a number of civil antitrust class action
suits were filed by purchasers of contact lenses against B&L Inc.,
three other contact lens manufacturers, and a contact lens
distributor, alleging that the defendants engaged in an
anticompetitive scheme to eliminate price competition on certain
contact lens lines through the use of unilateral pricing policies,
and alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 1, and of various state antitrust and consumer protection
laws.

These cases have been consolidated in the Middle District of
Florida by the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation, under
the caption In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation,
Case No. 3:15-md-02626-HES-JRK.

On August 20, 2018, defendants filed motions for summary judgment.
On December 4, 2018, the Court certified six classes, four of which
relate to B&L Inc.

On December 18, 2018, the defendants filed petitions seeking leave
from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to file an immediate
appeal of the class certification order, one of which has been
denied.

On February 20, 2019, the Court removed the case from the trial
calendar.

The Company continues to vigorously defend this matter.

Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.


BAUSCH HEALTH: Generic Drug Pricing Antitrust Class Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company and its
subsidiaries continue to defend the Generic Pricing Antitrust Class
Action.

As of June 2018, the Company's subsidiaries, Oceanside
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Oceanside"), Bausch Health US, LLC
(formerly Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC) ("Bausch
Health US"), and Bausch Health Americas, Inc. (formerly Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International) ("Bausch Health Americas") (for the
purposes of this subsection, collectively, the "Company"), were
added as defendants in putative class action multidistrict
antitrust litigation entitled In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals
Pricing Antitrust Litigation, pending in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (MDL 2724,
16-MD-2724).

The lawsuit to which the Company was added was filed by direct
purchaser plaintiffs and seeks damages under federal antitrust
laws, alleging that the Company's subsidiaries entered into a
conspiracy to fix, stabilize, and raise prices, rig bids and engage
in market and customer allocation for generic pharmaceuticals.

Specific claims against the Company's subsidiaries relate to
generic pricing of the Company’s metronidazole vaginal product as
part of an alleged overarching conspiracy among generic drug
manufacturers.

As of December 2018, three direct purchaser plaintiffs that had
opted out of the putative class filed an amended complaint in the
MDL that added Oceanside, Bausch Health US and Bausch Health
Americas, alleging similar claims as the direct purchaser
plaintiffs' putative class action complaint.

Separate complaints by other plaintiffs which had been consolidated
in the same multidistrict litigation do not name the Company or any
of its subsidiaries as a defendant. The Company has filed motions
to dismiss. Discovery against the Company's subsidiaries has
commenced.

The Company continues to vigorously defend this matter.

Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.


BBX CAPITAL: BVU Faces Wijesinha TCPA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
BBX Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that Bluegreen Vacations
Unlimited, Inc. (BVU) continues to face a class action suit
initiated by Shehan Wijesinha.

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

It is alleged that Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc. (BVU) called
plaintiff's cell phone for telemarketing purposes using an
automated dialing system and that plaintiff did not give BVU his
express written consent to do so. Plaintiffs seek certification of
a class comprised of other persons in the United States who, within
the four years prior to the filing of the complaint, received
similar calls from or on behalf of BVU without the person's
consent.

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

Bluegreen believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend the action.

BBX Capital Corporation is an investment holding company investing
through its subsidiaries BBX Capital Partners, LLC and BBX Capital
Real Estate Corp. Through its subsidiaries the firm seeks to make
investment in, acquisition, ownership, financing, development, and
management of real estate and real estate related assets. It was
formerly known as BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and changed its name
in July 2012. BBX Capital Corporation was founded in 1994 and is
based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. BBX Capital Corporation operates
as a subsidiary of BFC Financial Corporation.


BBX CAPITAL: Landon et al. Class Action Underway
------------------------------------------------
BBX Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit initiated by Melissa S. Landon,
Edward P. Landon, Shane Auxier and Mu Hpare.

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

Plaintiffs allegations include that Bluegreen failed to disclose
the identity of the seller of real property at the beginning of
Bluegreen's initial contact with the purchaser; that Bluegreen
misrepresented who the seller of the real property was; that
Bluegreen misrepresented the buyer's right to cancel; that
Bluegreen included an illegal attorney's fee provision in the sales
documents; that Bluegreen offered an illegal "today only" incentive
to purchase; and that Bluegreen utilizes an illegal referral
selling program to induce the sale of vacation
ownership interests VOIs.

Plaintiffs seek certification of a class consisting of all persons
who, in Wisconsin, purchased from Bluegreen one or more VOIs within
six years prior to the filing of this lawsuit. Plaintiffs seek
statutory damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.

BBX Capital said, "Bluegreen believes the lawsuit is without merit
and intends to vigorously defend the action."

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

BBX Capital Corporation is an investment holding company investing
through its subsidiaries BBX Capital Partners, LLC and BBX Capital
Real Estate Corp. Through its subsidiaries the firm seeks to make
investment in, acquisition, ownership, financing, development, and
management of real estate and real estate related assets. It was
formerly known as BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and changed its name
in July 2012. BBX Capital Corporation was founded in 1994 and is
based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. BBX Capital Corporation operates
as a subsidiary of BFC Financial Corporation.


BBX CAPITAL: Mediation in Hernandez & Michael Suit v. BVU Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BBX Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that mediation is ongoing in
the class action suit initiated by Oscar Hernandez and Estella
Michael against the company's subsidiary Bluegreen Vacations
Unlimited, Inc. (BVU).

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

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

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of approximately 660 hourly,
non-exempt employees who worked in the state of California since
March 1, 2014. An initial case management conference was held, and
discovery was stayed pending completion of mediation.

BVU intends to file a motion enforcing pre-dispute arbitration
agreements, should the matter not settle, and to challenge class
certification.

BBX Capital Corporation is an investment holding company investing
through its subsidiaries BBX Capital Partners, LLC and BBX Capital
Real Estate Corp. Through its subsidiaries the firm seeks to make
investment in, acquisition, ownership, financing, development, and
management of real estate and real estate related assets. It was
formerly known as BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and changed its name
in July 2012. BBX Capital Corporation was founded in 1994 and is
based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. BBX Capital Corporation operates
as a subsidiary of BFC Financial Corporation.


BBX CAPITAL: Settlement Reached in Paxton and Reeser Suit v. BVU
----------------------------------------------------------------
BBX Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the parties in the
class action suit initiated by Whitney Paxton and Jeff Reeser
against Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc. ("BVU") have agreed to
settle the matter for an immaterial amount.

On August 24, 2016, Whitney Paxton and Jeff Reeser filed a lawsuit
against Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc. ("BVU"), a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Bluegreen, and certain of its employees
(collectively, the "Defendants"), seeking to establish a class
action of former and current employees of BVU and alleging
violations of plaintiffs' rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 (the "FLSA") and breach of contract.

The lawsuit also sought damages in the amount of the unpaid
compensation owed to the plaintiffs.

The court granted preliminary approval of class action in September
2017 to conditionally certify collective action and facilitate
notice to potential class members be granted with respect to
certain employees and denied as to others. In February 2019, the
parties agreed to settle the matter for an immaterial amount.

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

BBX Capital Corporation is an investment holding company investing
through its subsidiaries BBX Capital Partners, LLC and BBX Capital
Real Estate Corp. Through its subsidiaries the firm seeks to make
investment in, acquisition, ownership, financing, development, and
management of real estate and real estate related assets. It was
formerly known as BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and changed its name
in July 2012. BBX Capital Corporation was founded in 1994 and is
based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. BBX Capital Corporation operates
as a subsidiary of BFC Financial Corporation.


BBX CAPITAL: Still Defends Vacation Ownership Interests Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
BBX Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that Bluegreen Vacations
Unlimited, Inc. (BVU) continues to defend a class action suit
related to its sales of vacation ownership interests (VOIs).

On September 22, 2017, Stephen Potje, Tamela Potje, Sharon Davis,
Beafus Davis, Matthew Baldwin, Tammy Baldwin, Arnor Lee, Angela
Lee, Gretchen Brown, Paul Brown, Jeremy Estrada, Emily Estrada,
Michael Oliver, Carrie Oliver, Russell Walters, Elaine Walters, and
Mike Ericson, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, filed a purported class action lawsuit against Bluegreen
Vacations Unlimited, Inc. (BVU) which asserts claims for alleged
violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
and the Florida False Advertising Law.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs alleged the making of false
representations in connection with Bluegreen's sales of vacation
ownership interests (VOIs), including representations regarding the
ability to use points for stays or other experiences with other
vacation providers, the ability to cancel VOI purchases and receive
a refund of the purchase price and the ability to roll over unused
points, and that annual maintenance fees would not increase.

The purported class action lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice
after mediation. However, on or about April 24, 2018, plaintiffs
re-filed their individual claims in Palm Beach County Circuit
Court.

Bluegreen intends to vigorously defend the action.

BBX Capital Corporation is an investment holding company investing
through its subsidiaries BBX Capital Partners, LLC and BBX Capital
Real Estate Corp. Through its subsidiaries the firm seeks to make
investment in, acquisition, ownership, financing, development, and
management of real estate and real estate related assets. It was
formerly known as BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and changed its name
in July 2012. BBX Capital Corporation was founded in 1994 and is
based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. BBX Capital Corporation operates
as a subsidiary of BFC Financial Corporation.


BLOOMFIELD, MI: Appeals Ruling in Youmans Suit to Mich. App. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Charter Township of Bloomfield filed an appeal from a
Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled JAMILA YOUMANS v. CHARTER
TOWNSHIP OF BLOOMFIELD, Case No. 2016-152613-CZ, in the Oakland
Circuit Court.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, both sides of
the class action lawsuit, which arises from water and sewer bills
in Bloomfield Township, are declaring victory after an Oakland
County Circuit Court judge issued an opinion in July 2018.

Bill Hampton, Esq., township attorney, said Judge Daniel O'Brien
sided with the Plaintiffs in four of seven issues raised in  the
case.  But, he said, the judge did not order the township to give
water and sewer customers a refund for bills that the Plaintiffs
claim were inflated over a period of several years.  And, Mr.
Hampton said, the judge did not order the township to substantially
change the way it calculates water and sewer charges.

The appellate case is captioned as JAMILA YOUMANS v. CHARTER
TOWNSHIP OF BLOOMFIELD, Case No. 348614, in the Michigan Court of
Appeals.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee YOUMANS JAMILA/ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED is
represented by:

          Gregory D. Hanley, Esq.
          KICKHAM HANLEY PLLC
          300 Balmoral Centre
          32121 Woodward Avenue
          Royal Oak, MI 48073- 0943
          Telephone: (248) 544-1500
          Facsimile: (248) 544-1501
          E-mail: ghanley@kickhamhanley.com

Defendant-Appellant CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF BLOOMFIELD is represented
by:

          Rodger D. Young, Esq.
          YOUNG & ASSOCIATES
          Orchards Corporate Center
          27725 Stansbury Boulevard, Suite 125
          Farmington Hills, MI 48334
          Telephone: (248) 353-8620
          Facsimile: (248)479-7828
          E-mail: young@youngpc.com


BOK FINANCIAL: Bondholders' Suit v. Unit Ongoing in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company's
subsidiary BOKF, NA, continues to defend a putative class action
suit initiated by two bondholders.

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.

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.

Two separate small groups of bondholders have filed arbitration
complaints with the Financial Institutions Regulatory Association
respecting the bonds and other bonds for which BOKF, NA served as
indenture trustee.

Management has been advised by counsel that BOKF, NA has valid
defenses to the claims. The time by which the principal must
perform the Court ordered payment plan currently expires on June
20, 2019.

BOKF, NA expects the Court ordered payment plan to be continued
from time to time until the principals complete the payment of the
bonds, though there is no assurance that it will be.

BOK Financial said, "No loss is probable at this time and no
provision for loss has been made. If the payment plan does not
result in payment of the bonds, a loss could become probable. A
reasonable estimate cannot be made at this time though the amount
could be material to the Company."

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: Unit Still Defends Oklahoma Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that BOKF NA continues to
defend a putative class action suit in Oklahoma District Court for
Tulsa County Oklahoma alleging that BOKF NA breached its Demand
Deposit Agreements.

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.

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

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

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.


BRIDGE PROPERTY: Limson Sues Over Unfair Business Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the case captioned MARYROSE LIMSON, individually,
as guardian ad litem for AL, a minor, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; TESHA GAMINO, individually, as guardian ad
litem for minors RR1 and RR2, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated; ROBERT COLON and MICHELLE COLON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BRIDGE
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-02795-JCS (N.D. Cal., May 22, 2019)
bring this action individually and on a class and representative
basis pursuant to the provisions of the federal Fair Credit
Reporting Act ("FCRA"), the California Investigative Consumer
Reporting Agencies Act ("ICRAA"), California Civil Code,
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), California Business
and Professions Code, and to request declaratory relief to quiet
title to Plaintiffs' leasehold interests in Defendants' properties
so that Plaintiffs may hold and continue to occupy their
residential apartment homes without fear of unlawful eviction.

The FCRA and ICRAA impose on entities that use consumer background
reports important safeguards designed to protect consumers like the
Plaintiffs, who applied to be tenants and residents at the Ivy II
at College Park apartments, located at 6100 Notre Dame Avenue,
Chino, California 91710 (the "Ivy II"), and at other apartment
homes owned by Defendants throughout the State of California. The
Defendants requested, procured, processed, used and/or assisted in
acquiring investigative consumer reports on the Plaintiffs as part
of their applications for residency at the Ivy II and as part of
the annual re-certification of the Plaintiffs to be residents at
the Ivy II, without providing proper disclosures in compliance with
the FCRA and ICRAA, and without obtaining proper authorization in
compliance with the ICRAA, which are, therefore illegal contracts
under applicable federal and state laws, says the complaint.

The Defendants' actions and omissions are deliberate planned
violations of both the FCRA and the ICRAA, and constitute unfair
business practices in violation of California's UCL. Plaintiffs
seek damages, including compensatory damages and punitive Damages.

Plaintiffs are individuals, both adults and minors, who live and
reside in California who, as adults, applied to be tenants and
residents of the Ivy II.

Bridge Property Management Company owns and manages the Ivy II
property, as well as other apartment complexes, and has thousands
of other rental and condominium homes under its control, most of
which are in the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Tina Wolfson, Esq.
     Bradley K. King, Esq.
     AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
     10728 Lindbrook Drive
     Los Angeles, CA 90024
     Phone: (310) 474-9111
     Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
     Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
            bking@ahdootwolfson.com

CAPITALA FINANCE: Bid to Dismiss Paskowitz Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Capitala Finance Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company's motion to
dismiss the case, Paskowitz v. Capitala Finance Corp., et al., is
still pending.

On December 28, 2017, an alleged stockholder filed a putative class
action lawsuit complaint, Paskowitz v. Capitala Finance Corp., et
al., in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California (case number 2:17-cv-09251-MWF-AS) (the "Paskowitz
Action"), against the Company and certain of its current officers
on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's common stock between January 4, 2016 and August 7, 2017.


On January 3, 2018, another alleged stockholder filed a putative
class action complaint, Sandifer v. Capitala Finance Corp., et al.,
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California (case number 2:18-cv-00052-MWF-AS) (the "Sandifer
Action"), asserting substantially similar claims on behalf of the
same putative class and against the same defendants.

On February 2, 2018, the Sandifer Action was transferred, on
stipulation of the parties, to the United States District Court for
the Western District of North Carolina. The Sandifer Action was
voluntarily dismissed on February 28, 2018.

On March 1, 2018, the Paskowitz Action was transferred, on
stipulation of the parties, to the United States District Court for
the Western District of North Carolina (case number
3:18-cv-00096-RJC-DSC). On June 19, 2018, the plaintiffs in the
Paskowitz Action filed their amended complaint.

The complaint, as currently amended, alleges certain violations of
the securities laws, including, inter alia, that the defendants
made certain materially false and misleading statements and
omissions regarding the Company's business, operations, and
prospects between January 4, 2016 and August 7, 2017.

The plaintiffs in the Paskowitz Action seek compensatory damages
and attorneys' fees and costs, among other relief, but did not
specify the amount of damages being sought. Defendants have moved
to dismiss the amended complaint.

Capitala said, "While the Company intends to vigorously defend
itself in this litigation, the outcome of these legal proceedings
cannot be predicted with certainty."

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

Capitala Finance Corp. is a Business Development Company
specializing in traditional mezzanine, senior subordinated and
unitranche debt, first-lien and second-lien loans, equity
investments in sponsored and non-sponsored lower and traditional
middle market companies. The company is base in Charlotte, North
Carolina.



CELTIC SERVICES: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Jose Rodriguez, Daniel Munoz, Pablo Vera, and Erick Barrientos,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Celtic Services NYC Inc., and Kieran Slevin, as an
individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04777 (S.D. N.Y., May 23,
2019) seeks to recover damages for egregious violations of state
federal wage and hours laws arising out of Plaintiffs' employment.

The Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs time and a half for hours
worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions
contained in the Federal and New York State labor laws, says the
complaint.

Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as laborers.

PHOENIX SUTTON STR. INC., is a corporation organized under the laws
of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
     Helen F. Dalton & Associates, P.C.
     80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
     Kew Gardens, NY 11415
     Phone: (718) 263-9591
     Fax: (718) 263-9598


CHATHAM LODGING: Still Defends Ruffy and Doonan Labor Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chatham Lodging Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that Island Hospitality
Management LLC (IHM) continues to defend two class action suits
entitled, Ruffy, et al, v. Island Hospitality Management, LLC, et
al. and Doonan, et al, v. Island Hospitality Management, LLC, et
al.

The nature of the operations of the Company's hotels exposes those
hotels, the Company and the Operating Partnership to the risk of
claims and litigation in the normal course of their business.

IHM is currently a defendant in two class action lawsuits pending
in the Santa Clara County Superior Court. The first class action
lawsuit was filed on October 21, 2016 under the title Ruffy, et al,
v. Island Hospitality Management, LLC, et al. Case No. 16-CV-301473
and the second class action lawsuit was filed on March 21, 2018
under the title Doonan, et al, v. Island Hospitality Management,
LLC, et al. Case No. 18-CV-325187.

The class actions relate to hotels operated by IHM in the state of
California and owned by affiliates of the Company and the NewINK
JV, and/or certain third parties.

The complaints allege various wage and hour law violations based on
alleged misclassification of certain hotel managerial staff and
violation of certain California statutes regarding incorrect
information contained on employee paystubs.

The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, money damages, penalties,
and interest. None of the potential classes has been certified and
the company is defending its case vigorously.

Chatham Lodging said, "As of March 31, 2019, included in accounts
payable is $0.1 million which represents an estimate of the
Company's total exposure to the litigation based on standard
indemnification obligations under hotel management agreements with
IHM."

Chatham Lodging Trust is a self-advised, publicly-traded real
estate investment trust focused primarily on investing in upscale,
extended-stay hotels and premium-branded, select-service hotels.
The company is based in West Palm Beach, Florida.


CLIENT SERVICES: Mills Sues Over Debt Collection Practice
---------------------------------------------------------
Lisa R. Mills, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Client Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-02558 (E.D. N.Y., May 1, 2019) seeks to recover for
violations under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").

The alleged Debt is an alleged obligation of Plaintiff to pay money
arising out of a transaction in which the money, property,
insurance, or services which are the subject of the transaction are
primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. The alleged
Debt does not arise from any business enterprise of Plaintiff. In
its efforts to collect the alleged Debt, Defendant contacted
Plaintiff by letter
("the Letter") dated May 3, 2018.  The Letter conveyed information
regarding the alleged Debt.

The collection activity or communication overshadows or contradicts
the validation notice if it would make the least sophisticated
consumer uncertain or confused as to her rights. The Letter buries
the required validation notice within its text. The required
validation notice is contained in running text in the body of the
Letter in the same font size and color as the rest of the body of
the Letter. Because the Letter is reasonably susceptible to an
inaccurate reading by the least sophisticated consumer it violates
the FDCPA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Lisa R. Mills is a citizen of the State of New York and
is a natural person allegedly obligated to pay a debt.

Client Services Inc. is regularly engaged, for profit, in the
collection of debts allegedly owed by consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
     BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
     100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 203-7600
     Fax: (516) 706-5055
     Email: kcsanders@barshaysanders.com


CREDIT CONTROL: Jesus Molina Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control, LLC.
The case is styled as Jesus Molina individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Credit Control, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00720-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal., May 22,
2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Credit Control is a St. Louis credit collection service that offers
debt collections, accounts receivables management, security &
more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq.
     Jonathan Stieglitz Law Offices
     11845 West Olympic Boulevard Suite 800
     Los Angeles, CA 90064
     Phone: (323) 979-2063
     Fax: (323) 488-6748
     Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com



CREDIT CONTROL: Molina Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control, LLC.
The case is styled as Jesus Molina individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Credit Control, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-at-00408 (E.D. Cal., May 22, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Credit Control is a St. Louis credit collection service that offers
debt collections, accounts receivables management, security &
more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq.
     Jonathan Stieglitz Law Offices
     11845 West Olympic Boulevard Suite 800
     Los Angeles, CA 90064
     Phone: (323) 979-2063
     Fax: (323) 488-6748
     Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com


CREDIT ONE: DiCarlo Sue Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------
DAVID DICARLO on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CREDIT ONE FINANCIAL, Defendant, Case No.
155160/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., May 22, 2019) is a civil
rights class action against Defendant for failing to design,
construct, maintain, and/or own a website that is fully accessible
to, and independently usable by, blind people.

The complaint asserts that Defendant is denying blind individuals
throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services
Defendant provides to its non-disabled customers through
www.creditonebank.com (hereinafter the "Website"). The Website
provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, and
other opportunities offered by Defendant. Yet, the Website contains
access barriers that make it difficult, if not impossible, for
blind customers to use the Website, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a blind individual.

Defendant owns and/or maintains the Website, which provides goods
and services to millions of customers throughout the United States,
including New York State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     Anne Seelig, Esq.
     LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
     148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
     New York, NY 10011
     Phone: (212) 465-1188
     Fax: (212) 465-1181


CURO GROUP: Continues to Defend Yellowdog Partners Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
CURO Group Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a putative securities fraud class action suit entitled,
Yellowdog Partners, LP v. CURO Group Holdings Corp., Donald F.
Gayhardt, William Baker and Roger W. Dean.

On December 5, 2018, a putative securities fraud class action
lawsuit was filed against the Company and its chief executive
officer, chief financial officer and chief operating officer in the
United States District Court for the District of Kansas, captioned
Yellowdog Partners, LP v. CURO Group Holdings Corp., Donald F.
Gayhardt, William Baker and Roger W. Dean, Civil Action No.
18-2662.

The complaint alleges that the Company and the individual
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and that the
individual defendants also violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act as "control persons" of CURO.

Plaintiffs purport to bring these claims on behalf of a class of
investors who purchased Company common stock between July 31, 2018
and October 24, 2018.

Plaintiffs allege generally that, during the putative class period,
the Company made misleading statements and omitted material
information regarding its efforts to transition the Canadian
inventory of products from Single-Pay loans to Open-End loans.

Plaintiffs assert that the Company and the individual defendants
made these misstatements and omissions to keep the stock price
high. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief.

While the Company is vigorously contesting this lawsuit, it cannot
determine the final resolution or when it might be resolved. In
addition to the expenses incurred in defending this litigation and
any damages that may be awarded in the event of an adverse ruling,
management's efforts and attention may be diverted from the
ordinary business operations to address these claims.

CURO Group said, "Regardless of the outcome, this litigation may
have a material adverse impact on results because of defense costs,
including costs related to indemnification obligations, diversion
of resources and other factors."

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

CURO Group Holdings Corp., a diversified consumer finance company,
provides consumer finance to a range of underbanked consumers in
the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The company was
formerly known as Speedy Group Holdings Corp. and changed its name
to CURO Group Holdings Corp. in May 2016. CURO Group Holdings Corp.
was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Wichita, Kansas.


CVS PHARMACY: Tashjian Files Suit Over Unlawful Business Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Tashjian, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CVS PHARMACY, INC.; CVS HEALTH CORPORATON;
and CVS CAREMARK INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11164-LTS
(Commonwealth of Mass., May 23, 2019) seeks to obtain monetary and
other appropriate relief for Plaintiff and Members of the Class as
a result of the unlawful practices of Defendants.

According to the complaint, CVS engaged in a scheme to solicit
prescriptions from customers' physicians ("Prescribers" of
"Physicians") which CVS could then sell to customers. As a part of
its scheme, CVS falsely represented to Prescribers that, among
other things, CVS had spoken with its customers, and that its
customers expressly requested that CVS contact the Prescribers to
obtain certain prescription medications. CVS's scheme was
perpetrated even though CVS knew that CVS's pharmacists had not
spoken to the customers about contacting the Prescribers and that
the customers had not requested that CVS contact the Prescribers.

CVS's scheme was not disclosed to Prescribers (or customers) and
instead said scheme was perpetrated under the guise of
administering a drug compliance program, which provided a cloak of
legitimacy, when in fact the scheme was simply a direct mail
marketing and advertising scheme designed to increase sales of
statin prescriptions and other medications, asserts the complaint.
CVS's scheme resulted in damages to Plaintiff and other similarly
situated individuals. CVS's scheme caused false statements to enter
customers' medical file which, among other things, dangerously
suggested that the customers sought medical treatment that they did
not seek. Further, CVS's scheme resulted in reaping significant
financial benefit by selling prescription medicine that would
otherwise not have been fulfilled, says the complaint.

Plaintiff has utilized CVS Pharmacy for his prescription
fulfillment services for approximately the last 10 years.

CVS is in the business of, among other things, selling prescription
medicine to customers across the country, including
Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert E. Mazow, Esq.
     Michael C. Forrest, Esq.
     FORREST, LaMOTHE, MAZOW, McCULLOUGH, YASI & YASI, P.C.
     2 Salem Green, Suite 2
     Salem, MA 01970
     Phone: (612) 231-7829
     Email: RMazow@forrestlamothe.com
            MForrest@forrestlamothe.com


DEL TACO: Discovery Underway in Former Calif. Employee's Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that discovery is still
ongoing in the purported class action suit initiated by a former
employee of the company.

In March 2014, a former Del Taco employee filed a purported class
action complaint alleging that Del Taco has not appropriately
provided meal breaks and failed to pay wages to its California
hourly employees.

Discovery is in process and Del Taco intends to assert all of its
defenses to this threatened class action and the individual claims.


Del Taco has several defenses to the action that it believes could
prevent the certification of the class, as well as the potential
assessment of any damages on a class basis.

Legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable, and the Company is
not able to predict the ultimate outcome or cost of the unresolved
matter.

Del Taco said, "However, based on management's current
understanding of the relevant facts and circumstances, the Company
does not believe that these proceedings give rise to a probable or
estimable loss and should not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial position, operations or cash flows. Therefore,
Del Taco has not recorded any amount for the claim as of March 26,
2019.

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

Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. operates a chain of fast food
restaurants. The company consists of two separate Mexican fast-food
groups, 79 Del Taco units and 36 Taco Villa restaurants. The
company offers Mexican food items, such as tacos, burritos,
quesadillas, burgers, French fries, and soft drinks. The company
was incorporated in 1983 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia. Del Taco
Restaurants, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of W.R. Grace & Co.


DIRECTORY DISTRIBUTING: Krawczyk Sues Over Unpaid Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES KRAWCZYK, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. DIRECTORY DISTRIBUTING ASSOCIATES, INC.,
and AT&T CORP. Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-01399-HEA (N.D. Cal.,
May 22, 2019) is a collective action brought by Plaintiff on behalf
of those similarly situated are or were employed by Defendants, and
were denied proper compensation as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").

The Defendants hired Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, to
deliver AT&T telephone directories. Defendants misclassified
Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, as independent
contractors. By using this misclassification, Defendants failed
and/or refused to pay Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, for
all hours worked. Defendants further failed and/or refused to pay
Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, for all hours worked in
excess of forty hours in a work week, says the complaint.

Plaintiff, James Krawczyk, is an individual hired by defendants to
deliver telephone directories.

Directory Distributing Associates, Inc. (hereinafter "DDA") is a
telephone directory distributor, whose primary business includes
the hiring of delivery workers to deliver AT&T telephone
directories to AT&T's residential and business customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark C. Molumphy, Esq.
     Alexandra P. Summer, Esq.
     COTCHETT PITRE & McCARTHY LLP
     San Francisco Airport Office Ctr
     840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
     Burlingame, CA 94010
     Phone: 650.697.6000
     Fax: 650.697.0577
     Email: mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com
            asummer@cpmlegal.com

          - and -

     Judith Sadler, Esq.
     Cynthia Diggs, Esq.
     Rachel A. Smith, Esq.
     HOLMES, DIGGS, EAMES & SADLER
     5300 Memorial Drive, Suite 900
     Houston, TX 77007
     Phone: 713.802.1777
     Fax: 713.802.1779
     Email: jsadler@holmesdiggs.com
            cdiggs@holmesdiggs.com
            rsmith@holmesdiggs.com

          - and -

     Richard Mithoff, Esq.
     Janie Jordan, Esq.
     MITHOFF LAW
     One Allen Center - Penthouse
     500 Dallas Street
     Houston, TX 77002
     Phone: 713.654.1122
     Fax: 713.739.8085
     Email: rmithoff@mithofflaw.com
            jjordan@mithofflaw.com

          - and -

     Russell Post, Esq.
     BECK REDDEN
     1221 McKinney Street, Suite 4500
     Houston, TX 77010-2010
     Phone: 713.951.3700
     Fax: 713.951.3720
     Email: rpost@beckredden.com


DIRECTORY DISTRIBUTING: Krawczyk Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action styled as James Krawczyk, Plaintiff v. Directory
Distributing Associates, Inc., AT&T Corp., AT&T Inc., AT&T
Services, Inc., AT&T Advertising, LP doing business as: AT&T
Advertising and Publishing doing business as: AT&T Advertising
Solutions doing business as: Pacific Bell Directory doing business
as: YP Western Directory LLC doing business as: YP Holdings LLC
doing business as: YP Shared Services, LP, YP Shared Services, LP,
YP Holdings, LLC, YP Western Directory LLC, YP Advertising &
Publishing LLC, YP LLC, John P. Vaclavek Chapter 11 Trustee for
Directory Distributing Associates, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
3:16-cv-02531 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri on May 22, 2019, and assigned Case No.
4:19-cv-01399-HEA.

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Directory Distributing Associates, Inc. distributes telephone
directories to consumers in the United States and Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Cynthia Thomson Diggs, Esq.
     Judith Sadler, Esq.
     Rachel Adel Smith, Esq.
     Holmes, Diggs, Eames and Sadler
     5300 Memorial Drive, Suite 900
     Houston, TX 77007
     Phone: (713) 802-1777
     Fax: (713) 802-1779
     Email: cdiggs@holmesdiggs.com
            jsadler@holmesdiggs.com
            rsmith@holmesdiggs.com

          - and -

     Richard W. Mithoff, Esq.
     Janie L. Jordan, Esq.
     500 Dallas St., Suite 3450
     Houston, TX 77002
     Phone: (713) 654-1122
     Fax: (713) 739-8085
     Email: rmithoff@mithofflaw.com
            jjordan@mithofflaw.com

          - and -

     Alexandra P Summer, Esq.
     Mark Cotton Molumphy, Esq.
     Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP
     840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
     Burlingame, CA 94010
     Phone: (650) 697-6000
     Fax: (650) 697-0577
     Email: mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com

          - and -

     Russell S. Post, Esq.
     BECK REDDEN LLP
     1221 McKinney, Suite 4500
     Houston, TX 77010
     Phone: (713) 951-3700
     Fax: (713) 951-3720
     Email: rpost@beckredden.com

The Defendants are represented by:

     Jeffrey Scott Ranen, Esq.
     Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard Smith LLP
     633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Phone: (213) 250-1800
     Fax: (213) 250-7900
     Email: jeffrey.ranen@lewisbrisbois.com

          - and -

     Brian E. McGovern, Esq.
     Bryan M. Kaemmerer, Esq.
     MCCARTHY AND LEONARD, L.C.
     825 Maryville Centre Dr., Suite 300
     Town & Country, MO 63017-5946
     Phone: (314) 392-5200
     Fax: (314) 392-5221
     Email: bmcgovern@mlklaw.com
            bkaemmerer@mlklaw.com

          - and -

     Marcus June Lee, Esq.
     Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard Smith LLP
     333 Bush Street, Suite 1100
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Phone: (415) 438-5932
     Fax: (415) 434-0882
     Email: marcus.lee@lewisbrisbois.com

          - and -

     William C Sung, Esq.
     Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard Smith LLP
     221 N. Figueroa Street, Suite 1200
     Los Angeles, CA 90012
     Phone: (213) 680-5182
     Fax: (213) 250-7900
     Email: wsung@lbbslaw.com

          - and -

     Julie A. Totten, Esq.
     Leo Moniz, Esq.
     Marc A. Levinson, Esq.
     Nicholas James Horton, Esq.
     ORRICK AND HERRINGTON LLP
     400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000
     Sacramento, CA 95814-4497
     Phone: (916) 447-9200
     Fax: (916) 329-4900
     Email: jatotten@orrick.com
            lmoniz@orrick.com
            Malevinson@orrick.com
            nhorton@orrick.com


DIXIE GROUP: Class Settlement in Garcia Suit Finally Approved
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Dixie Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 30, 2019, that the court in the case,
Carlos Garcia v. Fabrica International, Inc. et al., granted final
approval of the parties' settlement.

On November 16, 2018 the Superior Court of the State of California
granted preliminary approval of a class action settlement in the
matter of Carlos Garcia v. Fabrica International, Inc. et al Orange
County Superior Court Case No. 30-2017-00949461-CU-OE-CXC.

The court further approved the procedures for Settlement Class
Members to opt-out of or object to the Settlement. The terms of the
settlement provide that Fabrica, a wholly owned subsidiary of the
Company, has agreed to pay $1,514 (the "Gross Settlement Amount")
to fully resolve all claims in the Lawsuit, including payments to
Settlement Class Members, Class Counsel's attorneys' fees and
expenses, settlement administration costs, and the Class
Representative's Service Award. The amount of the proposed
settlement was recorded during the quarter ended June 30, 2018.

The deadline for class members to opt-out was February 1, 2019. The
deadline for the plaintiff to file a motion for final approval of
the class action settlement is March 29, 2019.

The final fairness hearing took place on April 12, 2019 with final
approval being granted.

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


DRYBAR HOLDINGS: Henry Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing
------------------------------------------------------
CARRIE HENRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DRYBAR HOLDINGS LLC, a California Limited
Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-00977 (C.D. Cal.,
May 22, 2019) is an action against Defendant to secure redress for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

To promote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process. Through
this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's
illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy,
harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of
thousands of individuals. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on
behalf of herself and members of the class, and any other available
legal or equitable remedies.

Plaintiff is a natural person who, at all times relevant to this
action, was a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida.

Defendant is chain of salons that sells hair styling services and
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
     Bradley K. King, Esq.
     AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
     10728 Lindbrook Drive
     Los Angeles, CA 90024
     Phone: (310) 474-9111
     Fax: (310) 474-8585
     Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
            bking@ahdootwolfson.com

          - and -

     Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
     EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
     19495 Biscayne Blvd #607
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Phone: 305-975-3320
     Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com

          - and -

     Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
     SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
     14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
     Miami, FL 33132
     Phone: 305-479-2299
     Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


EMERY FEDERAL: Sued Over Illegal Kickback, Price Fixing Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin and Shanna Solis, James Gilbert, Jeffrey Markle, and Marta
Chaney, on behalf of themselves and the entire class of persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. EMERY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00387-MRB (S.D. Ohio, May 24, 2019) is
an action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 as a class
action on their own behalf and on behalf of the entire class of
people similarly situated.

Plaintiffs and alleged Class Members are victims of an illegal
kickback and price fixing scheme (the "All Star Scheme") between
Emery and All Star Title, Inc. ("All Star"), a Maryland title and
settlement services company. Under the All Star Scheme, Emery, by
and through its branch managers, loan officers, agents and/or other
employees, received and accepted illegal kickbacks in exchange for
the assignment and referral of residential mortgage loans,
refinances, and reverse mortgages to All Star for title and
settlement services (the "Kickback Agreement"). Emery's conduct
violates the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA").
Notably, Emery and All Star laundered the kickbacks through third
party marketing companies to conceal the illegal kickbacks and the
Kickback Agreement, says the complaint.

As an essential component of the All Star Scheme, All Star
conspired to and formed a cartel with various residential mortgage
lenders (the "All Star Lender Cartel"). Emery participated in the
All Star Lender Cartel and, in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, entered into naked price fixing agreements (the "Price
Fixing Agreement"), minimum pricing agreements (the "Minimum
Pricing Agreement"), and refusal to deal agreements (the "Refusal
to Deal Agreement") (collectively, the "Cartel Agreements") with
All Star related to the residential mortgage loans generated by All
Star's illegal kickback payments to Emery.

According to the complaint, Emery and All Star continuously and
regularly used the U.S. Mail and interstate wires in furtherance of
the All Star Scheme, and to identify, lure, and defraud borrowers
into the All Star Scheme, willfully and intentionally engaging in a
pattern of racketeering activity over a period of two and a half
years. Emery and All Star fraudulently concealed the Kickback
Agreement, the Cartel Agreements, and the resulting
supracompetitive prices from Plaintiffs and alleged Class Members
by laundering kickbacks through third party marketing companies,
creating sham invoice and payment records, making fraudulent
representations in marketing materials, falsely allocating title
and settlement fees and manipulating the APR associated with Emery
loans, and making false and fraudulent representations and
omissions in Emery borrowers' loan documents.

Emery's and All Star's actions to fraudulently conceal their
conduct prevented borrowers, regulators, and auditors from
discovering the All Star Scheme, the Kickback Agreement, the Cartel
Agreements, and the injuries to Emery borrowers therefrom, and
allowed the kickbacks and supracompetitive fees to continue, says
the complaint.

Plaintiffs are borrowers who currently have or had a residential
mortgage loan originated and/or brokered by Emery Federal Credit
Union ("Emery"), which was or is secured by residential real
property.

Defendant is engaged in the business of consumer mortgage
brokering, origination and/or lending, and otherwise transacted
business in Ohio and elsewhere.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael Paul Smith, Esq.
     Melissa L. English, Esq.
     Sarah A. Zadrozny, Esq.
     Smith, Gildea & Schmidt, LLC
     600 Washington Avenue, Suite 200
     Towson, MD 21204
     Phone: (410) 821-0070
     Fax: (410) 821-0071
     Email: mpsmith@sgs-law.com
            menglish@sgs-law.com
            szadrozny@sgs-law.com

          - and -

     Gregory M. Utter, Esq.
     Melissa S. Matthews, Esq.
     Keating Muething & Klekamp, PLL
     1 East Fourth Street, Suite 1400
     Cincinnati, OH 45202
     Phone: (513) 579-6540
     Fax: (513) 579-6457
     Email: gmutter@kmklaw.com
            mmatthews@kmklaw.com

          - and -

     Timothy F. Maloney, Esq.
     Veronica B. Nannis, Esq.
     Megan Benevento, Esq.
     Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A.
     6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400
     Greenbelt, MD 20770
     Phone: (301) 220-2200
     Fax: (301) 220-1214
     Email: tmaloney@jgllaw.com
            vnannis@jgllaw.com
            mbenevento@jgllaw.com


ENCOMPASS HEALTH: Bid for Rehearing in Nichols Class Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Encompass Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the Alabama Supreme
Court has denied the company's application for rehearing and
remanded the case captioned Nichols v. HealthSouth Corp., to the
trial court for further proceedings.

The company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed March 28,
2003 by several individual stockholders in the Circuit Court of
Jefferson County, Alabama, captioned Nichols v. HealthSouth Corp.

The plaintiffs allege that the company, some of its former
officers, and its former investment bank engaged in a scheme to
overstate and misrepresent our earnings and financial position. The
plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages.

This case was stayed in the circuit court on August 8, 2005. The
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 9, 2010 to which
we responded with a motion to dismiss filed on December 22, 2010.

During a hearing on February 24, 2012, plaintiffs' counsel
indicated his intent to dismiss certain claims against the company.
Instead, on March 9, 2012, the plaintiffs amended their complaint
to include additional securities fraud claims against Encompass
Health and add several former officers to the lawsuit.

On September 12, 2012, the plaintiffs further amended their
complaint to request certification as a class action. One of the
former officers named as a defendant has repeatedly attempted to
remove the case to federal district court, most recently on
December 11, 2012.

The company filed its latest motion to remand the case back to
state court on January 10, 2013. On September 27, 2013, the federal
court remanded the case back to state court.

On November 25, 2014, the plaintiffs filed another amended
complaint to assert new allegations relating to the time period of
1997 to 2002. On December 10, 2014, the company filed a motion to
dismiss on the grounds the plaintiffs lack standing because their
claims were derivative in nature, and the claims were time-barred
by the statute of limitations.

On May 26, 2016, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss.
The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the case to the Supreme
Court of Alabama on June 28, 2016. On March 23, 2018, the Alabama
Supreme Court reversed the trial court's dismissal, holding that
the plaintiffs' claims were not derivative or time-barred, and
remanded the case for further proceedings.

On April 6, 2018, the company filed an application for rehearing
with the Alabama Supreme Court. On March 22, 2019, the Alabama
Supreme Court denied the company's application for rehearing and
remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

The company intends to vigorously defend ourselves in this case.

Encompass Health Corporation provides facility-based and home-based
post-acute healthcare services in the United States. The company
operates through two segments, Inpatient Rehabilitation, and Home
Health and Hospice. The company was formerly known as HealthSouth
Corporation and changed its name to Encompass Health Corporation in
January 2018. Encompass Health Corporation was founded in 1983 and
is based in Birmingham, Alabama.


EQUITY BANCSHARES: Sued Over Share Drop from Credit Rel. Downgrade
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Burr, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Equity Bancshares, Inc., Brad Elliott and
Gregory H. Kossover, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-04346, (S.D. N.Y.,
May 13, 2019) seeks to recover compensatory damages, reasonable
costs and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees
and expert fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

Equity Bancshares provides financial services through its
wholly-owned subsidiary Equity Bank with branches in Arkansas,
Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma. On January 24, 2019, the company
disclosed that its credit relationship was downgraded for the
fourth quarter of 2018. On this news, its share price fell $4.76,
or more than 16%, to close at $24.71 per share on April 23, 2019,
on unusually heavy trading volume. The credit relationship
indicates the relevance of the trend of the credit relationship
between the firm requesting credit and the bank granting it.

Burr alleges that Equity failed to disclose to investors that it
lacked adequate internal controls to assess credit risk and was
reasonably likely to incur significant losses for certain
substandard loans. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
      Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      Email: info@glancylaw.com

             - and -

      Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      230 Park Avenue, Suite 530
      New York, NY 10169
      Telephone: (212) 682-5340
      Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
      Email: lportnoy@glancylaw.com

             - and -

      Howard G. Smith, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
      3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
      Bensalem, PA 19020
      Telephone: (215) 638-4847
      Facsimile: (215) 638-4867


FIRST CAPITAL: Gonzalez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN GONZALEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FIRST CAPITAL VENTURE CO., a Florida
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-22093-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May
23, 2019) is an action on behalf of Plaintiff and other current and
former employees of Defendant who have worked for Defendant as
non-exempt inside Sales Representatives, seeking overtime
compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").

Plaintiff have regularly worked in excess of 40 hours in one or
more work weeks during his employment with Defendant at numerous
locations within the three (3) year statute of limitations period
between May 2016 and the present without being paid time and
one-half wages for all of his actual overtime hours worked, says
the complaint.

FIRST CAPITAL VENTURE CO., a Florida Corporation a/k/a DIAMOND CBD,
owned and operated a business that specializes in the marketing and
sales of premium hemp extracts that contain cannabinoids and
natural hemp derivatives.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Keith M. Stern, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
     80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 2000
     Miami, FL 33130
     Phone: (305) 901-1379
     Email: employlaw@keithstern.com


FISHER-PRICE INC: Nabong Files Suit Over Dangerous Sleeper
----------------------------------------------------------
MARK NABONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FISHER-PRICE, INC. and MATTEL, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00668 (W.D. N.Y., May 22, 2019) seeks
damages and all other relief available under law and equity from
Fisher-Price and its corporate parent, Mattel, including punitive
damages for their appalling and unconscionable misconduct.

The Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper ("Rock 'n Play Sleeper") is
an inclined "sleeper" that Defendants, until April 12, 2019,
marketed as suitable for all night or prolonged sleep.

The complaint asserts that the Rock 'n Play Sleeper is inherently
unsafe as a sleeper and unfit for its intended use. Its use poses a
number of serious safety risks that have led to many documented
instances of infant deaths and injuries. By positioning an infant
at a 30 degree incline, the Rock 'n Play Sleeper significantly
increases the risk that the infant's head will slip into a
dangerous position, tilt to constrict the windpipe and/or cause the
infant's face to become pressed against the padded fabric in the
sleeper and block airflow, which the infant may be unable to
correct. This increases the risk of death by asphyxiation. In
addition, because Defendants advise parents to keep babies strapped
in restraints overnight while sleeping on an incline, the Rock 'n
Play Sleeper increases the infant's risk of developing flat head
(plagiocephaly) and twisted neck (torticollis) syndromes,
conditions that often require babies to wear expensive head-molding
helmets and undergo physical therapy.

The Defendants knew about these risks for as long as they sold the
Rock 'n Play Sleeper. Among other things, (1) the American Academy
of Pediatrics ("AAP") and major consumer groups repeatedly issued
warnings about the serious dangers of inclined sleepers; (2) due to
these known dangers, regulators in Canada and Australia did not
allow Defendants to sell the Rock 'n Play Sleeper in their
countries as a "sleeper"; (3) Defendants were sued for at least one
infant death in a Rock 'n Play Sleeper while Defendants continued
to market and sell the product; (4) at least 32 babies have died
using the Rock 'n Play Sleeper; and (5) upwards of 700 injuries
have been reported due to the use of inclined sleepers, including
the Rock 'n Play Sleeper. Ignoring documented safety concerns,
Defendants marketed and sold the Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United
States as an infant sleeper that is suitable for all night and
prolonged use.

Had parents like Plaintiff been aware of the potentially fatal
dangers posed by the Rock 'n Play Sleeper, or the serious risks of
injury such as flat head and twisted neck syndrome, they would not
have purchased and/or used the product, says the complaint. The
Defendants' false and misleading marketing of this dangerous
product, and knowing failure to disclose the grave risks of its use
as a sleeper for prolonged or overnight sleep, allowed Defendants
to reap vast profits at the expense of consumers who erroneously
believed they were obtaining a safe place for their babies to
sleep.

Plaintiff purchased a Rock 'n Play Sleeper on Amazon.com for $74.99
(before tax) as an environment for prolonged or overnight sleep for
her new daughter on or about April 7, 2018.

Fisher-Price manufactures and markets products for the care of
infants and preschool children to consumers throughout the United
States, including in the states of Arizona and California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     TERRENCE M. CONNORS, ESQ.
     CAITLIN M. HIGGINS, ESQ.
     KATHERINE G. HOWARD, ESQ.
     CONNORS LLP
     1000 Liberty Building
     Buffalo, NY 14202
     Phone: (716) 852-5533
     Email: tmc@connorsllp.com
            cmh@connorsllp.com
            kgh@connorsllp.com

          - and -

     DEMET BASAR, ESQ
     DANIEL TEPPER, ESQ.
     KATE MCGUIRE, ESQ.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
     270 Madison Avenue
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 545-4600
     Facsimile: (212) 545-4653
     Email: basar@whafh.com
            tepper@whafh.com
            mcguire@whafh.com

          - and -

     CARL V. MALMSTROM, ESQ.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
     111 West Jackson, Suite 1700
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Phone: (312) 984-0000
     Email: malmstrom@whafh.com


FISHER-PRICE INC: Shaffer Files Sues Over Dangerous Sleeper
-----------------------------------------------------------
KATHARINE SHAFFER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FISHER-PRICE, INC. and MATTEL,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00667 (W.D. N.Y., May 22, 2019)
seeks damages and all other relief available under law and equity
from Fisher-Price and its corporate parent, Mattel, including
punitive damages for their appalling and unconscionable
misconduct.

The Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper ("Rock 'n Play Sleeper") is
an inclined "sleeper" that Defendants, until April 12, 2019,
marketed as suitable for all night or prolonged sleep. However, the
Rock 'n Play Sleeper is inherently unsafe as a sleeper and unfit
for its intended use, says the complaint. Its use poses a number of
serious safety risks that have led to many documented instances of
infant deaths and injuries. By positioning an infant at a 30 degree
incline, the Rock 'n Play Sleeper significantly increases the risk
that the infant's head will slip into a dangerous position, tilt to
constrict the windpipe and/or cause the infant's face to become
pressed against the padded fabric in the sleeper and block airflow,
which the infant may be unable to correct. This increases the risk
of death by asphyxiation. In addition, because Defendants advise
parents to keep babies strapped in restraints overnight while
sleeping on an incline, the Rock 'n Play Sleeper increases the
infant's risk of developing flat head (plagiocephaly) and twisted
neck (torticollis) syndromes, conditions that often require babies
to wear expensive head-molding helmets and undergo physical
therapy.

The Defendants knew about these risks for as long as they sold the
Rock 'n Play Sleeper. Among other things, (1) the American Academy
of Pediatrics ("AAP") and major consumer groups repeatedly issued
warnings about the serious dangers of inclined sleepers; (2) due to
these known dangers, regulators in Canada and Australia did not
allow Defendants to sell the Rock 'n Play Sleeper in their
countries as a "sleeper"; (3) Defendants were sued for at least one
infant death in a Rock 'n Play Sleeper while Defendants continued
to market and sell the product; (4) at least 32 babies have died
using the Rock 'n Play Sleeper; and (5) upwards of 700 injuries
have been reported due to the use of inclined sleepers, including
the Rock 'n Play Sleeper. Ignoring documented safety concerns,
Defendants marketed and sold the Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United
States as an infant sleeper that is suitable for all night and
prolonged use.

Had parents like Plaintiff been aware of the potentially fatal
dangers posed by the Rock 'n Play Sleeper, or the serious risks of
injury such as flat head and twisted neck syndrome, they would not
have purchased and/or used the product, says the complaint. The
Defendants' false and misleading marketing of this dangerous
product, and knowing failure to disclose the grave risks of its use
as a sleeper for prolonged or overnight sleep, allowed Defendants
to reap vast profits at the expense of consumers who erroneously
believed they were obtaining a safe place for their babies to
sleep, the complaint asserts.

Plaintiff  purchased a Rock 'n Play Sleeper at a Target in Niles,
Illinois for approximately $75 (before tax) as an environment for
prolonged or overnight sleep for his daughter on or about May
2018.

Fisher-Price manufactures and markets products for the care of
infants and preschool children to consumers throughout the United
States, including in the states of Arizona and California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     TERRENCE M. CONNORS, ESQ.
     CAITLIN M. HIGGINS, ESQ.
     KATHERINE G. HOWARD, ESQ.
     CONNORS LLP
     1000 Liberty Building
     Buffalo, NY 14202
     Phone: (716) 852-5533
     Email: tmc@connorsllp.com
            cmh@connorsllp.com
            kgh@connorsllp.com

          - and -

     DEMET BASAR, ESQ
     DANIEL TEPPER, ESQ.
     KATE MCGUIRE, ESQ.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
     270 Madison Avenue
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 545-4600
     Facsimile: (212) 545-4653
     Email: basar@whafh.com
            tepper@whafh.com
            mcguire@whafh.com

          - and -

     CARL V. MALMSTROM, ESQ.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
     111 West Jackson, Suite 1700
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Phone: (312) 984-0000
     Email: malmstrom@whafh.com


GARMIN USA: McVetty Files Suit Over Deceptive Business Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Francis McVetty, Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated Plaintiffs v. Garmin USA, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 7:19-cv-04706 (S.D. N.Y., May 22, 2019) is a class action
complaint due to Defendants' misleading and deceptive
representations.

Garmin USA, Inc. manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and
sells portable navigation devices to consumers for use in
automobiles, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and personal movement from
third-party retailers, including brick-and-mortar stores and
online, and directly from defendant's website (the "Products").

Plaintiffs purchased the Products based upon the representations on
the packaging.

The complaint asserts that the Defendant consistently requires
consumers who are eligible to have their devices repaired and
undergo troubleshooting to incur additional out of pocket expenses
for replacement parts and/or labor associated with the repair
and/or replacement of their Products when the Products fail prior
to the expiration of their warranted life. The Defendant also
unfairly charges consumers who attempt to make a warranty claim
additional fees, just for defendant to inspect their Products to
determine whether or not a warranted loss or condition has
occurred. Defendant's actions constitute unconscionable commercial
practices, deception, fraud, false pretenses, misrepresentation,
and/or the knowing concealment, suppression, or omission of
materials facts with the intent that others rely on such
concealment, suppression, or omission in connection with the sale
and use of Defendant's Products, says the complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
     Sheehan & Associates, P.C.
     505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
     Great Neck, NY 11021
     Phone: (516) 303-0552
     Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com

GENERAL MOTORS: Welch Sues Over Oil Consumption Engine Defect
-------------------------------------------------------------
TROY WELCH and GERALDINE WELCH, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC,
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 19STCV17956
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 23, 2019) is an action
seeking to redress GM's violations of California consumer fraud
statutes, and also seeks recovery for Defendant's breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty, breach of the duty of good
faith and fair dealing, and common law fraud.

Defendant was engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing,
constructing, assembling, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
in Los Angeles County. Plaintiffs purchased a 2011 Chevrolet
Equinox, vehicle identification number 2GNALDEC0B1256868,
(hereafter "Subject Vehicle" or "Vehicle"), from Bunnin Chevrolet n
or about April 9, 2011.

Plaintiffs received an express written warranty, including, a
3-year/36,000 mile express bumper to bumper warranty, a
5-year/100,000 mile powertrain warranty which, inter alia, covers
the engine and transmission, and subsequently received a
10-year/120,000 mile extended coverage plan (e.g. extended
warranty) which covers engine in connection with the excessive oil
consumption. Defendant undertook to preserve or maintain the
utility or performance of the Subject Vehicle or to provide
compensation if there is a failure in utility or performance for a
specified period of time. The warranty provided, in relevant part,
that in the event a defect developed with the Subject Vehicle
during the warranty period, Plaintiffs could deliver the Vehicle
for repair services to Defendant's representative and the Subject
Vehicle would be repaired.

During the warranty period, the Subject Vehicle contained or
developed defects. Said defects substantially impair the use,
value, or safety of the Subject Vehicle. Plaintiff alleges that the
2.4L engine in 2010-2013 vehicles manufactured by GM, equipped with
the 2.4L engine, including 2010-2013 Chevrolet Equinox vehicles and
the Subject Vehicle (hereinafter "GM Vehicles"), contains one or
more design and/or manufacturing defects that causes it to be
unable to properly utilize engine oil and, in fact, to improperly
burn off and/or consume abnormally high amounts of oil (hereinafter
"the Oil Consumption Engine Defect" or "the Defect"). The Oil
Consumption Engine Defect prevents the engine from maintaining the
proper level of engine oil and causes voluminous oil consumption
that cannot be reasonably anticipated or predicted. As a result,
vehicles equipped with the engine, including the Subject Vehicle,
risk: excessive oil consumption; improper burning/consumption of
abnormally high amounts of oil; premature failure of the engine
balance chains; premature failure of the fuel pump plunger seal;
fuel leaks into the crankcase; rough running of the engine; engine
run-on conditions; loss of power; rough idle; and/or stalling.

Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege that GM
acquired its knowledge of the Oil Consumption Engine Defect
affecting GM Vehicles (including the Subject Vehicle) in 2010, if
not before, prior to Plaintiffs acquiring the Vehicle. Defendant
acquired its knowledge through exclusive sources not available to
consumers such as Plaintiffs. The Defendant's knowledge of the
Defect is evidenced by internal articles and/or technical bulletins
distributed to its dealers, but not to consumers. At the time of
sale, and thereafter, GM concealed, omitted, and failed to disclose
the Oil Consumption Engine Defect and its safety risks to
Plaintiff. GM omitted mention of the Oil Consumption Engine Defect
in its sales materials, advertisements, publications, online
marketing, television, radio, and other marketing campaigns for GM
vehicles, says the complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Tionna Dolin, Esq.
     Strategic Legal Practices
     A Professional Corporation
     1840 Century Park East, Suite 430
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 929-4900
     Facsimile: (310) 943-3838
     Email: tdolin@slpattorney.com


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Burkhart Class Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company's motion to
dismiss the putative class action suit entitled, Richard F.
Burkhart, William E. Kelly, Richard S. Lavery, Thomas R. Pratt,
Gerald Green, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Genworth et al., is pending.

In September 2018, the company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit pending in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware captioned Richard F. Burkhart, William E.
Kelly, Richard S. Lavery, Thomas R. Pratt, Gerald Green,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
v. Genworth et al.

Plaintiffs are alleging that Genworth Life Insurance Company
("GLIC"), the company's indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, failed to
maintain adequate capital capable of meeting its obligations to
GLIC policyholders and agents.

The complaint alleges causes of action for intentional fraudulent
transfer and constructive fraudulent transfer, and seeks injunctive
relief.

The company moved to dismiss this action in December 2018. On
January 29, 2019, plaintiffs exercised their right to amend their
complaint.

On March 12, 2019, the company moved to dismiss plaintiffs' amended
complaint.

Genworth said, "We intend to continue to vigorously defend this
action."

Genworth Financial, Inc. provides insurance and homeownership
solutions in the United States and internationally. It operates
through five segments: U.S. Mortgage Insurance, Canada Mortgage
Insurance, Australia Mortgage Insurance, U.S. Life Insurance, and
Runoff. Genworth Financial, Inc. was founded in 1871 and is
headquartered in Richmond, Virginia.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Skochin Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the motion to dismiss
the class action suit entitled, Jerome Skochin, Susan Skochin, and
Larry Huber, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Genworth Financial, Inc. and Genworth Life
Insurance Company, is pending.

In January 2019, Genworth Financial and Genworth Life Insurance
Company (GLIC) were named as defendants in a putative class action
lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia captioned Jerome Skochin, Susan Skochin, and
Larry Huber, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Genworth Financial, Inc. and Genworth Life
Insurance Company.

Plaintiffs seek to represent long-term care insurance
policyholders, alleging that Genworth made misleading and
inadequate disclosures regarding premium increases for long-term
care insurance policies.

The complaint asserts claims for breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, fraudulent inducement and violation of
Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law
(on behalf of the two named plaintiffs who are Pennsylvania
residents), and seeks damages (including statutory treble damages
under Pennsylvania law) in excess of $5 million.

On March 12, 2019, the company moved to dismiss plaintiffs'
complaint. On March 26, 2019, plaintiffs filed a memorandum in
opposition to the company's motion to dismiss, which the company
replied to on April 1, 2019.

Genworth said, "We intend to vigorously defend this action."

Genworth Financial, Inc. provides insurance and homeownership
solutions in the United States and internationally. It operates
through five segments: U.S. Mortgage Insurance, Canada Mortgage
Insurance, Australia Mortgage Insurance, U.S. Life Insurance, and
Runoff. Genworth Financial, Inc. was founded in 1871 and is
headquartered in Richmond, Virginia.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: TVPX ARX Inc. Suit in Virginia Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia lifted the stay in the case
TVPX ARX INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth
Management, LTD. on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company, and
dismissed the case without prejudice, with leave for Plaintiff to
refile an amended complaint only if a final appellate court
decision vacates the injunction and reverses the Middle District of
Georgia's opinion.

In September 2018, Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company
("GLAIC"), the company's indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, was
named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit pending in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia captioned TVPX ARX INC., as Securities Intermediary for
Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance
Company.

Plaintiff is alleging unlawful and excessive cost of insurance
charges were imposed on policyholders.

The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, alleging that
Genworth improperly considered non-mortality factors when
calculating cost of insurance rates and failed to decrease cost of
insurance charges in light of improved expectations of future
mortality, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, costs, and
equitable relief.

On October 29, 2018, the company filed a motion to enforce in the
Middle District of Georgia, and a motion to dismiss and motion to
stay in the Eastern District of Virginia. The company moved to
enjoin the prosecution of the Eastern District of Virginia action
on the basis that it involves claims released in a prior nationwide
class action settlement that was approved by the Middle District of
Georgia.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 13, 2018. On
November 16, 2018, the Eastern District of Virginia court stayed
the case for 60 days.

On December 6, 2018, the company moved the Middle District of
Georgia for leave to file the company's counterclaim, which alleges
that plaintiff breached the prior settlement agreement by filing
its current action.

On January 17, 2019, the Eastern District of Virginia court stayed
the case for another 60 days or the date of the Middle District of
Georgia's ruling on our motions, whichever comes earlier.

A hearing on the company's motion to enjoin and motion for leave to
file the company's counterclaim occurred on February 21, 2019. On
March 15, 2019, the Middle District of Georgia granted the
company's motion to enjoin and denied the company's motion for
leave to file its counterclaim.

As such, plaintiff is enjoined from pursuing its class action in
the Eastern District of Virginia.

On March 29, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the Middle
District of Georgia, notifying the court of its appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from the
order granting the company's motion to enjoin.

On March 29, 2019, the company filed its notice of cross-appeal in
the Middle District of Georgia, notifying the Court of the
company's cross-appeal to the Eleventh Circuit from the portion of
the order denying the company's motion for leave to file its
counterclaim.

On April 8, 2019, the Eastern District of Virginia lifted the stay
in the case and dismissed the case without prejudice, with leave
for Plaintiff to refile an amended complaint only if a final
appellate court decision vacates the injunction and reverses the
Middle District of Georgia's opinion.

Genworth said, "We intend to continue to vigorously defend the
dismissal of this action."

Genworth Financial, Inc. provides insurance and homeownership
solutions in the United States and internationally. It operates
through five segments: U.S. Mortgage Insurance, Canada Mortgage
Insurance, Australia Mortgage Insurance, U.S. Life Insurance, and
Runoff. Genworth Financial, Inc. was founded in 1871 and is
headquartered in Richmond, Virginia.


GEO MAINTENANCE: Does not Pay Overtime Wages, Saldivia Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Saldivia, "Ivan" Astorga Gonzalez, and Rene Gonzalez, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
GEO MAINTENANCE INC. d/b/a GEO MAINTENANCE and GEORGER NTAVOULTZIS,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04775 (S.D. N.Y., May 23, 2019)
alleges that, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"),
and the New York Labor Law, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from
Defendants unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid spread of
hours premium, statutory penalties, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Defendants had a policy and practice of refusing to pay
overtime compensations at the statutory rate of time and one-half
to Plaintiffs for their hours worked in excess of forty hours per
week, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as painters, construction workers,
and laborers.

GEO MAINTENANCE INC. d/b/a GEO MAINTENANCE is a corporation
organized under the laws of the State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert L. Kraselnik, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC
     261 Madison Avenue, 9th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: 646-342-2019
     Fax: 646-661-5811


GRANA & MONTERO: Bid to Dismiss NY Consolidated Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Grana y Montero S.A.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action suit in the Eastern District of New York
is pending.

Two securities class action complaints have been filed against the
company and certain of its former directors and current and former
executive officers in the Eastern District of New York during the
first quarter of 2017.

These complaints were consolidated into a single class action. The
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended compliant on May 29, 2018.


The company moved to dismiss the complaint during the fourth
quarter of 2018. The court has not yet ruled on that motion, but
has granted plaintiffs leave to file a further amended complaint.

Grana y Montero said, "We continue to believe that we have
meritorious defenses to the claims asserted, and we intend to
defend ourselves vigorously in these matters."

Grana y Montero S.A.A., together with its subsidiaries, engages in
engineering and construction, infrastructure, and real estate
businesses in Peru, Chile, and Colombia. The company operates
through Engineering and Construction, Infrastructure, Real Estate,
and Technical Services segments. Grana y Montero S.A.A. was founded
in 1933 and is based in Lima, Peru.


HESKA CORP: Fauley Class Action Concluded
-----------------------------------------
Heska Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the payment in respect
of the settlement of the Fauley class action complaint has been
made in full and all activity related to the case has ceased.

On October 10, 2018, the company reached an agreement in principle
to settle the complaint that was filed against the Company by Shaun
Fauley on March 12, 2015 in the U.S. District Court Northern
District of Illinois alleging our transmittal of unauthorized faxes
in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, as a class
action (the "Fauley Complaint").

The settlement, which received the Court's approval on February 28,
2019 and was not subsequently appealed by a class member, required
us to make available a total of $6.75 million to pay class members,
as well as to pay attorneys' fees and expenses to legal counsel to
the class.

The Company recorded the loss provision in the third quarter of
2018 in connection with the settlement agreement and does not have
insurance coverage for the Fauley Complaint.

The payment in respect of the settlement was made in full on April
3, 2019.

Heska Corporation manufactures, sells, and markets veterinary
diagnostic and specialty products for canine and feline healthcare
markets in the United States, Canada, Europe, and internationally.
The company was formerly known as Paravax, Inc. and changed its
name to Heska Corporation in 1995. Heska Corporation was founded in
1988 and is headquartered in Loveland, Colorado.  


HFF INC: Pennington Files Suit Over Jones Lang Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------------
STEVE PENNINGTON, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. HFF, INC., MARK D. GIBSON, DEBORAH H.
MCANENY, SUSAN P. MCGALLA, GEORGE L. MILES, JR., MORGAN K. O'BRIEN,
LENORE M. SULLIVAN, JOE B. THORNTON JR., and STEVEN E. WHEELER,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00950-UNA (D. Del., May 22, 2019) is a
stockholder class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself
and all other public stockholders of HFF, Inc. ("HFF" or the
"Company") against HFF and the members of its Board of Directors
(the "Board" or the "Individual Defendants") for their violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 14a-9, 17
C.F.R. 240.14a-9, and to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction,
pursuant to which HFF will be acquired by Jones Lang LaSalle
Incorporated ("JLL"), through its wholly owned subsidiaries JLL
CMG, LLC ("Merger LLC") and JLL CM, Inc. ("Merger Sub") (the
"Proposed Transaction").

On March 19, 2019, HFF and JLL issued a joint press release
announcing they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
(the "Merger Agreement"). Under the terms of the Merger Agreement,
HFF's stockholders will receive $24.63 in cash and 0.1505 of a
share of JLL common stock per each share of HFF common stock they
own (the "Merger Consideration"). On January 4, 2019, in order to
convince HFF's public stockholders to vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction, defendants caused JLL to file a Form S-4 Registration
Statement (the "Registration Statement") with the SEC which omits
or misrepresents material information concerning the Proposed
Transaction. The failure to adequately disclose such material
information renders the Registration Statement false and
misleading, says the complaint.

For these reasons, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the
Exchange Act as HFF stockholders need such information in order to
make a fully informed decision whether to vote in favor of the
Proposed Transaction or seek appraisal. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin
the stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and until
such Exchange Act violations are cured.

Plaintiff is, and has been continuously throughout all times
relevant hereto, the owner of HFF common stock.

HFF provides commercial real estate and capital markets services to
consumers and providers of capital in the commercial real estate
industry in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
     O'KELLY ERNST & JOYCE, LLC
     901 N. Market St., Suite 1000
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Phone: (302) 778-4000
     Email: rernst@oelegal.com

          - and -

     Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq.
     BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
     885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: (212) 308-5858
     Fax: (212) 486-0462
     Email: fortunato@bespc.com


HOMEADVISOR INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Bittlingmeyer Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
PETER ALBRECHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HOMEADVISOR, INC. d/b/a HOMEADVISOR.COM,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-00809 (C.D. Cal., May 1, 2019)
seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited
calls.

Homeadvisor, inc. provides ecommerce real estate information and
marketing services. The compay was founded in 2003 and is based in
Tokyo, Japan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
          Nicholas R. Barthel, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: jason@kazlg.com
                  nicholas@kazlg.com


HUDSON CLOTHING: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hudson Clothing, LLC.
The case is styled as Mary Conner, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. Hudson Clothing, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03046 (E.D.
N.Y., May 22, 2019).

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

Hudson Clothing, LLC designs and markets denim apparel for men,
women, and kids.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dan Shaked, Esq.
     Shaked Law Group, P.C.
     44 Court Street, Suite 1217
     Brooklyn, NY 11217
     Phone: (917) 373-9128
     Fax: (718) 504-7555
     Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


I AM BEYOND: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against I am Beyond LLC. The
case is styled as Aretha Crosson Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. I am Beyond LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03049 (E.D. N.Y.,
May 22, 2019).

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

I am Beyond LLC or Beyond Yoga offers yoga clothes, workout
apparel, and activewear for women.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dan Shaked, Esq.
     Shaked Law Group, P.C.
     44 Court Street, Suite 1217
     Brooklyn, NY 11217
     Phone: (917) 373-9128
     Fax: (718) 504-7555
     Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com

INSURANCE LINE: Moore Sues Over Intrusive Telemarketing Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE MOORE on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. INSURANCE LINE ONE, LLC d/b/a HEALTH LINE ONE and
SEAN T. DUFFIE Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02948 (N.D. Ill., May
1, 2019) seeks to enforce the consumer privacy provisions of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") a federal statute
enacted in 1991 in response to widespread public outrage about the
proliferation of intrusive, nuisance telemarketing practices.

The Defendants or through a vendor of theirs, made pre-recorded
telemarketing calls to the residential telephone number of
Plaintiff in violation of the TCPA. The Plaintiff never consented
to receive the calls. Because telemarketing campaigns generally
place calls to hundreds of thousands or even millions of potential
customers en masse, the Plaintiff bring this action on behalf of a
proposed nationwide class of other persons who received illegal
telemarketing calls from or on behalf of the Defendants, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff George Moore is a resident of Illinois in this District.

Insurance Line One conducts business, makes telemarketing calls and
sells insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alan W. Nicgorski, Esq.
     HANSEN REYNOLDS LLC
     150 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 2400
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Phone: 312-265-2252
     Fax: 414-273-8476
     Email: anicgorski@hansenreynolds.com

          - and -

     Michael C. Lueder, Esq.
     301 N. Broadway, Suite 400
     Milwaukee, WI 53202
     Phone: 414-273-7676
     Fax: 414-273-8476
     Email: mlueder@hansenreynolds.com

          - and -

     Anthony Paronich, Esq.
     PARONICH LAW, P.C.
     350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
     Hingham, MA 02043
     Phone: 617-485-0018
     Fax: 508-318-8100
     Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com


JAMIE'S CIGAR BAR: Does not Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Mejia Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE MEJIA and VICTOR REYES FLORES, individually, and on behalf of
similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs, v. JAMIE'S CIGAR BAR &
RESTAURANT, INC., and JAIME FINKLE, individually, Defendants, Case
No. 2:19-cv-12876 (D. N.J., May 23, 2019) is a lawsuit seeking
recovery against Defendants for Defendants' violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, (the "FLSA" or the "Act"), and the New Jersey
State Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL").

Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants full time as restaurant
workers performing duties in furtherance of Defendants' business.

The Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of requiring
Plaintiffs and members of the putative collective to regularly work
in excess of 40 hours per week, without being paid overtime
compensation at the statutory overtime rate as required by
applicable federal and New Jersey state law, beginning in
approximately 2006, and continuing to date. Plaintiffs have
initiated this action on behalf of themselves and similarly
situated employees to recover overtime compensation that Plaintiffs
and similarly situated employees were deprived of, as well as
attorneys' fees and costs.

Jamie's Cigar Bar is a New Jersey corporation, formed in or about
2004 with its principal offices located at 915 Bloomfield Avenue,
Clifton, NJ 07102.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
     Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
     JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
     301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F,
     #306 Princeton, NJ 08540
     Phone: (201) 687-9977
     Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
     Email: Aglenn@jaffeglenn.com
            jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Appeal in British Columbia Settlement Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the settlement
agreement in the Supreme Court of British Columbia related to Hip
Resurfacing System is still on appeal.

reached agreements to settle two pending class actions which have
been approved by the Quebec Superior Court and the Supreme Court of
British Columbia. The British Columbia order is currently the
subject of an appeal.

In August 2010, DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. (DePuy) announced a
worldwide voluntary recall of its ASR(TM) XL Acetabular System and
DePuy ASR(TM) Hip Resurfacing System used in hip replacement
surgery. Claims for personal injury have been made against DePuy
and Johnson & Johnson.

The number of pending lawsuits is expected to fluctuate as certain
lawsuits are settled or dismissed and additional lawsuits are
filed. Cases filed in federal courts in the United States have been
organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

Litigation has also been filed in countries outside of the United
States, primarily in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia,
Ireland, Germany and Italy.

In November 2013, DePuy reached an agreement with a Court-appointed
committee of lawyers representing ASR Hip System plaintiffs to
establish a program to settle claims with eligible ASR Hip patients
in the United States who had surgery to replace their ASR Hips,
known as revision surgery, as of August 31, 2013. DePuy reached
additional agreements in February 2015 and March 2017, which
further extended the settlement program to include ASR Hip patients
who had revision surgeries after August 31, 2013 and prior to
February 15, 2017.

This settlement program has resolved more than 10,000 claims,
therefore bringing to resolution significant ASR Hip litigation
activity in the United States.

However, lawsuits in the United States remain, and the settlement
program does not address litigation outside of the United States.

In Australia, a class action settlement was reached that resolved
the claims of the majority of ASR Hip patients in that country.

In Canada, the Company has reached agreements to settle two pending
class actions which have been approved by the Quebec Superior Court
and the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The British Columbia
order is currently the subject of an appeal.

Johnson & Johnson said, "The Company continues to receive
information with respect to potential additional costs associated
with this recall on a worldwide basis. The Company has established
accruals for the costs associated with the United States settlement
program and DePuy ASR(TM) Hip-related product liability
litigation."

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Continues to Defend INVOKANA(R) Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend class action suits related to INVOKANA(R).

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

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

Cases have also been filed in various state courts including
Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Louisiana and New Jersey. Class action
lawsuits have been filed in Canada.

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

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

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

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Continues to Defend PINNACLE(R) Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the adverse verdicts
rendered against DePuy has been reversed on appeal and remanded for
retrial.

Claims for personal injury have also been made against DePuy
Orthopaedics, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson (collectively, DePuy)
relating to the PINNACLE(R) Acetabular Cup System used in hip
replacement surgery.

Product liability lawsuits continue to be filed, and the Company
continues to receive information with respect to potential costs
and the anticipated number of cases. Cases filed in federal courts
in the United States have been organized as a multi-district
litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas.

Litigation has also been filed in some state courts and in
countries outside of the United States. Several adverse verdicts
have been rendered against DePuy, one of which was reversed on
appeal and remanded for retrial.

During the first quarter of 2019, DePuy established a United States
settlement program to resolve these cases.

As part of the settlement program, adverse verdicts have been
settled.

The Company has established an accrual for product liability
litigation associated with the PINNACLE(R) Acetabular Cup System
and the related settlement program.

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Delgado Suit Moved to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR DELGADO individually and as next of kin to REBECCA DELGADO,
deceased, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey
corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a
New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC681839 (Nov. 2, 2017), was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on April 30, 2019. The Central District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03640 to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Richard Salkow, Esq.
          SALKOW LAW, APC
          1540 7th Street, Ste. 206
          Santa Monica, CA 90401-3432
          Telephone (310) 451-8484;
          Facsimile: (310) 451-8486
          E-mail address: rsalkow@salkowlaw.com

               - and -

          James G. Onder, Esq.
          THE ODDER LAW FIRM
          110 East Lockwood
          St. Louis, MO 63119
          Telephone: (314) 963-9000
          Facsimile: (314) 963-1700
          E-mail address: odner@onderlaw.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Di Girolamo Suit Moved to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
BONNIE DI GIROLAMO, an individual, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON &
JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California;
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER
COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in
California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with
its principal place of business in the State of California; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 17CV318642
(Filed Nov. 6, 2018), was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of Santa Clara, to U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on April 30, 2019. The Central
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03643
to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
          ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC.
          19 Corporate Plaza Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 720-1288
          Facsimile: (949) 720-1292
          E-mail: mrobinson@robinsonfirm.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Divine Suit Moved to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
DIANA DIVINE, an individual, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON,
a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON &
JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES,
INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS
TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place
of business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 17CV318643 (Filed Nov. 6,
2018), was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of
Santa Clara, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on April 30, 2019. The Central District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03625 to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Mark. P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
          ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC.
          19 Corporate Plaza Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 720-1288
          Facsimile: (949) 720-1292
          E-mail: mrobinson@robinsonfirm.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Dixon Suit Moved to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
ALLAHME DIXON, Individually and as Special Administrator of the
Estate of RIKAYAH MCGLOTHIN, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON,
a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON &
JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES,
INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS
TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place
of business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 17CV318644 (Filed Nov. 16,
2017), was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of
Santa Clara, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on April 30, 2019. The Central District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03644 to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Mark. P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
          Karen L. Karavatos, Esq.
          Cynthia L. Garber, Esq.
          ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC.
          19 Corporate Plaza Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 720-1288
          Facsimile: (949) 720-1292
          E-mail: mrobinson@robinsonfirm.com
                  kkaravatos@robinsonfirm.com
                  cgarber@robinsonfirm.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Fahimi Suit Moved to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
SOLMAZ FAHIMI, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey
corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a
New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 30-2017-00052800-CU-PL-CXC
(Oct. 31, 2017), was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of Orange, to U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on May 1, 2019. The Central District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03748 to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Richard Salkow, Esq.
          SALKOW LAW, APC
          1540 7th Street, Ste. 206
          Santa Monica, CA 90401-3432
          Telephone: (310) 451-8484;
          Facsimile: (310) 451-8486
          E-mail address: rsalkow@salkowlaw.com

               - and -

          James G. Onder, Esq.
          THE ONDER LAW FIRM
          110 East Lockwood
          St. Louis, MO 63119
          Telephone: (314) 963-9000
          Facsimile: (314) 963-1700
          E-mail: onder@onderlaw.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Foreman Suit Moved to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE FOREMAN, individually and as Successor-in-interest of SILVIA
CLAYTON, deceased, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON &
JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC. P/N/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES,
INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. F/K/A LUZENAC AMERICA, INC. and
DOES 1 - 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC705654 (May 9,
2018), was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on April 30, 2019. The Central District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03669 to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Robert R. Ahdoot, Esq.
          Bradley K. King, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          10728 Lindbrook Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: 310 474 9111
          E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                  bking@ahdootwolfson.com

               - and -

          Korey A. Nelson, Esq.
          Amanda K. Klevorn, Esq.
          Warren T. Burns, Esq.
          Daniel H. Charest, Esq.
          Spencer M. Cox, Esq.
          BURNS CHAREST LLP
          365 Canal Street, Suite 1170
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: 504 799 2845
          E-mail: Knelson@burnscharest.com
                  aklevorn@burnscharest. com
                  wburns@burnscharest.com
                  dcharest@burnscharest.com
                  scox burnscharest.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Fowler Suit Moved to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
DEANNA FOWLER, as surviving statutory beneficiary for the wrongful
death of BARBARA LANHAM, deceased, individually, and on behalf of
all other heirs of decedent, individually, and on behalf of all
other heirs of decedent, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a
New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON &
JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES,
INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS
TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place
of business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC699913 (March 27, 2018), was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on April 30, 2019. The Central District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03675 to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Robert A. Mosier, Esq.
          Timothy M. Clark, Esq.
          Lauren A. Welling, Esq.
          SANDERS PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
          2860 Michelle Drive Suite 220
          Irvine, CA 92606
          Telephone: (877) 480-9142
          Facsimile: (213) 330-0346
          E-mail: tclark@thesandersfirm.corn

               - and -

          Brian J. McCormick, Jr., Esq.
          Dena R. Young, Esq.
          ROSS FELLER CASEY, LLP
          One Liberty Place
          1650 Market St., Suite 3450
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 877-704-8050
          Facsimile: 215-231-3750
          E-mail: bmccorrnicicProssfellereasey.com
                  dyoung@rossfellereasey.com



JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Galloway Suit Moved to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
YVONNE GALLOWAY, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey
corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a
New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 18CV323998 (Filed Feb. 28,
2018), was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of
Santa Clara, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on April 30, 2019. The Central District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03636 to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Helen Zukin, Esq.
          Melanie Meneses Palmer, Esq.
          Cherisse Cleofe
          KIESEL LAW LLP
          8648 Willshire Blvd.
          Beverley Hills, CA 90211-2910
          Telephone: 310 854 4444
          Facsimile: 310 354 0812
          E-mail: atkin@lchasellaw
                  paliner@kiesellaw
                  cleofe@kiesellaw

               - and -

          Ted G. Meadows, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN,
          PORTIS & MILES, PC
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (800) 898 2034

               - and -

          R. Allen Smith, Jr., Esq.
          THE SMITH LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C.
          681 Towne Center Boulevard, Suite B
          Ridgeland, MS 39157
          Telephone: (601) 952-1422


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Galloways Suit Moved to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
MARVEL ANN GALLOWAY AND DONALD H. GALLOWAY, the Plaintiffs, vs.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in
California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business
in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation
with its principal place of business in the State of California;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
18CV328338 (Filed May 17, 2018), was removed from the Superior
Court of California, County of Santa Clara, to U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on April 30, 2019. The
Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-03649 to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Lee Cirsch, Esq.
          Michael Akselrud, Esq.
          THE LAMER LAW FIRM, PC
          21550 Oxnard Street, 3rd Floor
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (310) 277-5100
          Facsimile: (310) 277-5103
          E-mail: lee.cirsch@lanierlawfirm.com
          michael.alcselrud@lanierlawfirm.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Gil et al. Suit Moved to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, BECKY GIL; RONALD BENNETT, Individually, and as Executor
of the ESTATE OF FAITH BENNETT, Deceased; ALMA SEWARD; SALLY
PLA.UTZ; CATHERINE SILK; THOMAS FOLEY, Indivi4ually, and as
Successor-In-Interest to the ESATE OF SUSAN FOLEY, Deceased;
MICHAELA JONES and THOMAS JONES; TAMMATHA WADE, Individually, and
as Successor-In-Interest to the ESTATE OF VIVIAN GRAVLEY, Deceased;
ELIZABETH B. RICHARDSON, Individually, and as Successor-In-Interest
to the Estate of MARY ELIZABETH BROWN, Deceased; LANA RAGSDALE and
MAX P. RAGSDALE; LYLE PARKINS, Individually, and as
Successor-In-Interest to the ESTATE OF DONNA LEE PARKINS, Deceased;
MICHAEL HALL, Individually, and as Successor In-interest to the
ESTATE OF K. J. MOODY, Deceased, the Plaintiffs, vs. JOHNSON &
JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC. P/N/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; and IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. F/K/A
LUZENAC AMERICA, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 16CV296038 (July
22, 2016), was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of Santa Clara, to U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on May 1, 2019. The Central District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03770 to the
proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Curtis G. Hoke, Esq.
          THE MILLER FIRM, LLC
          108 Railroad Ave.
          Orange, VA 22960
          Telephone: (540) 672-4224
          Facsimile: (540) 672-3055
          E-mail: choke@millerfirmllc.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Green Suit Moved to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
ALICE GREEN, an individual, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a
New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON &
JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES,
INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS
TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place
of business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 17CV318640 (Nov. 6, 2017), was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Santa
Clara, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on April 30, 2019. The Central District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03635 to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Mark. P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
          ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC.
          19 Corporate Plaza Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 720-1288
          Facsimile: (949) 720-1292
          E-mail: mrobinson@robinsonfirm.com    

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Interlocutory Appeal in Lens Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the defendants in the
contact lens-related class action suit have filed two motions for
interlocutory appeal of class certification to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, one motion was denied
and the other is pending and defendants' motions for summary
judgment are pending in the District Court.

In March and April 2015, over 30 putative class action complaints
were filed by contact lens patients in a number of courts around
the United States against Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.
(JJVCI) and other contact lens manufacturers, distributors, and
retailers, alleging vertical and horizontal conspiracies to fix the
retail prices of contact lenses.

The complaints allege that the manufacturers reached agreements
with each other and certain distributors and retailers concerning
the prices at which some contact lenses could be sold to consumers.
The plaintiffs are seeking damages and injunctive relief.

All of the class action cases were transferred to the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida in June 2015. The
plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint in November
2015.

In December 2018, the district court granted the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification. Defendants filed two motions for
interlocutory appeal of class certification to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. One motion was denied
and the other is pending. Defendants' motions for summary judgment
are pending in the District Court.

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Patricia Dickens Suit Moved to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA DICKENS, Individually and As Representative of the Estate
of MARLENE HIGH, deceased, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a
New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON &
JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing
business in California;  IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business in the State of
California; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. 18CV327536 (May 1, 2018), was  removed from the Superior Court
of California, County of Santa Clara, to U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on April 30, 2019. The Central
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03613
to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Helen Zukin, Esq.
          Melanie Meneses Palmer, Esq.
          Cherisse Cleofe
          KIESEL LAW LLP
          8648 Willshire Blvd.
          Beverley Hills, CA 90211-2910
          Telephone: 310 854 4444
          Facsimile: 310 354 0812
          E-mail: atkin@lchasellaw
                  paliner@kiesellaw
                  cleofe@kiesellaw

               - and -

          Anna Dean Kamins, Esq.
          DANIEL & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          2409 Commerce Street
          Houston, TX 77003
          Telephone: 713 589-3539
          Facsimile: 713 481-9884
          E-mail: anna@dpdlawflrm.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Hoang Suit to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson removed the case, LINH MY HOANG, an individual,
the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER
INC. f/k/a JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; and IMERYS
TALC AMERICA, INC. f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA, INC., the Defendants,
Case No. JCCP No. 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of
California for County of Los Angeles, to U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on May 1, 2019. The Central
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03780
to the proceeding.

On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two
affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada,
Inc., filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition, commencing a
reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys Talc America, Inc., et
al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter 11 Case"). Since the
Chapter 11 Case was commenced, the Debtors have remained as debtors
in possession under 11 U.S.C. section 1101 and have the rights,
powers, and duties set out in 11 U.S.C. sections 1107 and 1108. At
the time the Debtors commenced the Chapter 11 Case, the State Court
Talc Claims were pending in the State Court. The State Court Talc
Claims are not proceeding before the United States Tax Court and
are not brought by a governmental unit to enforce its police or
regulatory powers.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer,
Inc.:

          Michael F. Healy, Esq.
          Emily M. Weissenberger, Esq.
          Alexander Guney, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          One Montgomery, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415 544 1900
          Facsimile: 415 391 0281
          E-mail: mfhealy@shb.com
                  eweissenberger@shb.com
                  aguney@shb.com

               - and -

          Michael C. Zellers, Esq.
          Amanda Villalobos, Esq.
          Nicholas Janizeh, Esq.
          Caroline Toole, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          515 South Flower Street, 42nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2223
          Telephone: 213 430 3400
          Facsimile: 213 430 3409
          E-mail: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com
                  amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com
                  nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com
                  caroline.toole@tuckerellis.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Strobel Suit to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson removed the case, DOUGLAS STROBEL and JO ANN
STROBEL, the Plaintiffs, vs. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY; JOHNSON &
JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC.; CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS
CORPORATION; BASF CATALYSTS LLC (FKA ENGELHARD CORPORATION) SAFEWAY
INC.; CVS PHARMACY; RITE AID CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, as required by California on joint and several liability
pursuant to California Civil Code section 1431.2 enacted by the
People of the State of California, the Defendants, Case No.
FCS052548, from the Superior Court of the State of California for
Solano County, to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on May 1, 2019. The Eastern District of California Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-00767-JAM-KJN to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer,
Inc.:

          Alexander G. Calfo, Esq.
          Julia E. Romano, Esq.
          Stacy Foster, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213 443 4355
          Facsimile: 213 443 4310
          E-mail: acalfo@kslaw.com
                  jromano@kslaw.com
                  stacy.foster@kslaw.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Von Salzen Suit to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson removed the case, KIRK VON SALZEN and JANET VON
SALZEN, the Plaintiffs, vs. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES,
INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. JCCP 4674 / BC680576, from
the Superior Court of the State of California for County of Los
Angeles, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on May 1, 2019. The Central District of California Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03758 to the proceeding.

On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two
affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada,
Inc., filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition, commencing a
reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys Talc America, Inc., et
al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter 11 Case"). Since the
Chapter 11 Case was commenced, the Debtors have remained as debtors
in possession under 11 U.S.C. section 1101 and have the rights,
powers, and duties set out in 11 U.S.C. sections 1107 and 1108. At
the time the Debtors commenced the Chapter 11 Case, the State Court
Talc Claims were pending in the State Court. The State Court Talc
Claims are not proceeding before the United States Tax Court and
are not brought by a governmental unit to enforce its police or
regulatory powers.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc.:

          Alexander G. Calfo, Esq.
          Julia E. Romano, Esq.
          Jennifer T. Stewart, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213 443 4355
          Facsimile: 213 443 4310
          E-mail: acalfo@kslaw.com
                  jromano@kslaw.com
                  jstewart@kslaw.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Settlement Reached in US Xarelto(R) Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the Company has
announced an agreement in principle to the settle the XARELTO(R)
cases in the United States.

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

The number of pending product liability lawsuits continues to
increase, and the Company continues to receive information with
respect to potential costs and the anticipated number of cases.
Cases filed in federal courts in the United States have been
organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

In addition, cases have been filed in state courts across the
United States. Many of these cases have been consolidated into a
state mass tort litigation in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and there
are coordinated proceedings in Delaware, California and Missouri.
Class action lawsuits also have been filed in Canada.

In March 2019, the Company announced an agreement in principle to
the settle the XARELTO(R) cases in the United States.

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

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Suits Over Ethicon Pelvic Mesh Devices Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company has
established accruals with respect to product liability litigation
associated with Ethicon's pelvic mesh products.

Claims for personal injury have been made against Ethicon, Inc.
(Ethicon) and Johnson & Johnson arising out of Ethicon's pelvic
mesh devices used to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic
organ prolapse.

The Company continues to receive information with respect to
potential costs and additional cases. Cases filed in federal courts
in the United States have been organized as a multi-district
litigation in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia.

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

In addition, class actions and individual personal injury cases or
claims have been commenced in various countries outside of the
United States, including claims and cases in the United Kingdom,
the Netherlands and Belgium, and class actions in Israel, Australia
and Canada, seeking damages for alleged injury resulting from
Ethicon's pelvic mesh devices.

In Australia, a trial of class action issues has been completed and
the parties are awaiting a decision. The Company has established
accruals with respect to product liability litigation associated
with Ethicon's pelvic mesh products.

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Talc-Related Class Suit Ongoing in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the
District Court of New Jersey involving talc contained in
JOHNSON'S(R) Baby Powder and JOHNSON'S(R) Shower to Shower.

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

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

In October 2016, both cases were transferred to the United States
District Court for the District Court of New Jersey as part of a
newly created federal multi-district litigation. In July 2017, the
district court granted Johnson & Johnson's and JJCI's motion to
dismiss one of the cases.

In September 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit affirmed this dismissal.

In September 2017, the plaintiff in the second case voluntarily
dismissed the complaint. In March 2018, the plaintiff in the second
case refiled in Illinois State Court.

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

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Trial in AWP Suit in Illinois Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that trial is ongoing in the
Illinois class action suit related to Average Wholesale Price (AWP)
Litigation.

Johnson & Johnson and several of its pharmaceutical subsidiaries
(the J&J AWP Defendants), along with numerous other pharmaceutical
companies, were named as defendants in a series of lawsuits in
state and federal courts involving allegations that the pricing and
marketing of certain pharmaceutical products amounted to fraudulent
and otherwise actionable conduct because, among other things, the
companies allegedly reported an inflated Average Wholesale Price
(AWP) for the drugs at issue.

Payors alleged that they used those AWPs in calculating provider
reimbursement levels. The plaintiffs in these cases included three
classes of private persons or entities that paid for any portion of
the purchase of the drugs at issue based on AWP, and state
government entities that made Medicaid payments for the drugs at
issue based on AWP.

Many of these cases, both federal actions and state actions removed
to federal court, were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in a
multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, where all claims against the J&J AWP
Defendants were ultimately dismissed.

The J&J AWP Defendants also prevailed in a case brought by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Other AWP cases have been resolved
through court order or settlement. Two cases remain pending.

In a case brought by Illinois, trial has been scheduled for May
2019.

In New Jersey, a putative class action based upon AWP allegations
is pending against Centocor, Inc. and Ortho Biotech Inc. (both now
Janssen Biotech, Inc.), Johnson & Johnson and ALZA Corporation.

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: XARELTO Class Suit Underway in Louisiana
-----------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that in August 2015, two
third-party payors filed a purported class action in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against
Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Janssen Ortho LLC, Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and Johnson & Johnson (as well as certain Bayer entities), alleging
that the defendants improperly marketed and promoted XARELTO(R) as
safer and more effective than less expensive alternative
medications while failing to fully disclose its risks. The
complaint seeks damages.

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

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


KITON CORPORATION: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kiton Corporation.
The case is styled as Brian Fischler Individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kiton
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04752 (S.D. N.Y., May 23,
2019).

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

Kiton is a luxury ready-to-wear and made-to-measure clothing
company founded in 1956 as CIPA in Naples, Italy by Ciro Paone, a
fifth-generation fabric merchant, and Antonio Carola.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
     Lipsky Lowe LLP
     630 Third Avenue
     New York, NY 10017-6705
     Phone: (212) 392-4772
     Fax: (212) 444-1030
     Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


L.L. BEAN: Pershouse Files Appeals in Suit
------------------------------------------
A notice of appeal has been filed in the class action  styled as
BENJAMIN T. PERSHOUSE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. L.L. BEAN, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 19-1422 (D. Mass., May 1, 2019).

Pending before the Court are the Defendant's (1) motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim and (2) motion to strike the
nationwide class claims from the class action complaint.

Mr. Pershouse alleges that L.L. Bean rescinded its well-known "100%
Satisfaction Guarantee" by inserting new conditions for its return
policy and then applying them retroactively to purchases made under
the original policy. Mr. Pershouse claims, among other things,
breach of contract, unjust enrichment and unfair or deceptive
practices in violation of M.G.L. c. 93A. He also seeks to certify a
nationwide class of similarly situated individuals, as well as a
subclass of individuals in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Pershouse is a resident of Woburn, Massachusetts.

L.L. Bean is a Maine corporation headquartered in Freeport,
Maine.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq.
     Ben Barnow, Esq.
     Barnow and Associates, P.C.
     1 North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312)621-2000
     Email: aparkhill@barnowlaw.com
            b.barnow@barnowlaw.com

          - and -

     Michael Liskow, Esq.
     The Sultzer Law Group, P.C.
     351 W. 54th St., Suite 1C
     New York, NY 10019
     Phone: (212) 618-1938
     Fax: 888-749-7747
     Email: liskowm@thesultzerlawgroup.com

          - and -

     David Pastor, Esq.
     Pastor Law Office, LLP
     63 Atlantic Avenue
     3rd Floor
     Boston, MA 02110
     Phone: 617-742-9700
     Fax: 617-742-9701
     Email: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com

The Defendants are represented by:

     Anthony J. Anscombe, Esq.
     Daniel Raymond, Esq.
     Steptoe & Johnson, Esq.
     Jeremy S. Goldkind, Esq.
     Mary E. Buckley, Esq.
     Stephanie A. Sheridan, Esq.
     Steptoe & Johnson
     115 S. LaSalle St., Suite 3100
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: 312-577-1265
     Email: aanscombe@Steptoe.com
            draymond@steptoe.com
            dalt@steptoe.com
            jgoldkind@steptoe.com
            mbuckley@steptoe.com
            ssheridan@steptoe.com

          - and -

     Darlene K, Alt, Esq.
     Edwards & Angell
     2800 Financial Plaza
     Providence, RI 02903
     Phone: 401-276-6476
     Fax: 888-325-9045
     Email: dalt@steptoe.com

          - and -

     Peter J. Brann, Esq.
     Stacy O. Stitham, Esq.
     Brann & Isaacson
     184 Main Street
     P.O. Box 3070
     Lewiston, ME 04243-3070
     Phone: 207-786-3566
     Email: pbrann@brannlaw.com
            sstitham@brannlaw.com


LANDS' END: Decrescentis Sues Over Contaminated Uniforms
--------------------------------------------------------
MONICA DECRESCENTIS and GWYNETH GILBERT, on behalf of themselves
and the Putative Class, Plaintiffs, v. LANDS' END, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-04717 (S.D. N.Y., May 22, 2019) is brought on
behalf of Plaintiffs and all similarly-situated individuals (the
"Class") who are frontline employees--flight attendants and gate
agents--working for Delta Air Lines ("Delta") who have been
required to wear Passport Plum uniforms manufactured by Defendant.

Wearing these uniforms has resulted in employees, including the
Plaintiffs, suffering from skin rashes, headaches, fatigue,
breathing difficulties, hair loss, low white blood cell counts and
nausea. According to the Guardian article, many doctors believe
that formaldehyde and Teflon chemical finishing put on the uniforms
to make them stain resistant and durable are likely the culprit.
Additionally, the uniforms are not colorfast and result in crocking
and bleeding, both staining the wearer and their possessions
purple. The purple dye comes off on the wearer's skin and then
stains the bathtub when they try to wash it off. The dyes in the
fabric 'bleed' onto the wearers sheets and towels and permanently
stain their possessions. As Delta flight attendants are non-union,
at-will employees, many are reluctant to complain about the
problems with their uniforms and suffer in silence and other flight
attendants wear undergarments or long underwear to protect
themselves from new uniforms, says the complaint.

Defendant was engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing,
advertising, distributing, selling, and warranting Lands' End
products, including the uniforms manufactured for Delta,
specifically for Delta's Flight attendants and gate agents,
throughout the United States of America.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Bruce H. Nagel, Esq.
     Randee M. Matloff, Esq.
     NAGEL RICE, LLP
     103 Eisenhower Parkway
     Roseland, NJ 07068
     Phone: 973-618-0400
     Email: bnagel@nagelrice.com
            rmatloff@nagelrice.com

          - and -

     Edward Cerasia II, Esq.
     CERASIA & DEL REY-CONE LLP
     150 Broadway, Suite 1517
     New York, NY 10038
     Phone: 646-525-4231
     Email: ed@cdemploymentlaw.com


LATINO REGAL: Jaramillo Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------
Fernan Y. Jaramillo, individually and on behalf of all employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Latino Regal Corp. d/b/a El
Tucanazo Bar, Hornado Ecuatoriano Corp. d/b/a Sal y Pimienta, NY
Romanticos Inc. d/b/a Romanticos, NY El Diamante Corp. d/b/a Prima
Dona Ristorante, Guadalajara De Noche Inc. d/b/a Los Temerarios,
Jimmy Zambrano a/k/a Giovanny, Eduardo Brito a/k/a El Tigre, Manuel
Cusco, Maximino A. Cisneros a/k/a Adolfo, Maria Dutan, Carlos
Carrillo, Jorge A. Rios and Christian Toral Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-03104 (E.D. N.Y., May 23, 2019) is an action brought by
Plaintiff on his own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated
employees, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law, arising from Defendants'
various willful and unlawful employment policies, patterns and/or
practices.

The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed
widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in a pattern
and practice of failing to pay their employees, including
Plaintiff, overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each
workweek, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Fernan Y. Jaramillo is a resident of Queens County and
was employed as an inventory clerk by Defendant.

Defendants are a conglomerate of Latin-style bar and restaurant
establishments in Queens, NY.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lorena P. Duarte, Esq.
     HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
     136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G
     Flushing, NY 11354
     Phone: (718)353-8588
     Email: lduarte@hanglaw.com


LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Bid to Dismiss Smith Class Action Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
LifeVantage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the motion to dismiss
filed in the class action suit entitled, Smith v. LifeVantage
Corp., 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.
Connecticut filed Jan. 24, 2018).

In this action, plaintiff 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 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).

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

With the matter now being fully briefed, the Court can issue a
ruling based on the briefs submitted by the parties or schedule a
hearing for oral argument before entering a decision on the motion.


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.


LIGHTHOUSE INSURANCE: Core Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Core and D'Angelo Williams, On behalf of themselves and
those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Lighthouse Insurance
Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01186-DAP (N.D. Ohio, May
23, 2019) seeks all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act,
("the Ohio Wage Act"); and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act ("OPPA"),
against Defendant for its failure to pay employees overtime wages.

Named Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees frequently
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. During their employment
with Defendant, Named Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
employees were not fully and properly paid for all of their
compensable hours worked because Defendant did not properly
calculate their regular rate of pay for the purposes of meeting the
minimum requirements set forth in the FLSA, resulting in unpaid
overtime wages, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs worked as hourly, non-exempt "employee" of Defendant as
defined in the FLSA and the Ohio Acts as a licensed sales agent.

Defendant is an Ohio for-profit corporation with its principal
place of business believed to be located at 6100 Rockside Woods
Blvd. N., Suite 310, Independence, Ohio 44131.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
     Coffman Legal, LLC
     1550 Old Henderson Road, Ste. 126
     Columbus, OJ 43220
     Phone: 614-949-1181
     Fax: 614-386-9964
     Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

          - and -

     Peter Contreras, Esq.
     CONTRERAS LAW, LLC
     1550 Old Henderson Road, Ste. 126
     Columbus, OH 43220
     Phone: 614-787-4878
     Fax: 614-923-7369
     Email: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com


LINCOLN NATIONAL: 2017 COI Rate Litigation Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6,
2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the
company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit
entitled, In re: Lincoln National 2017 COI Rate Litigation, Master
File No. 2:17-cv-04150.

In re: Lincoln National 2017 COI Rate Litigation, Master File No.
2:17-cv-04150 is a consolidated litigation matter related to
multiple putative class action filings that were consolidated by an
order of the court in March 2018.  

Plaintiffs own universal life insurance policies originally issued
by former Jefferson-Pilot (now The Lincoln National Life Insurance
Company (LNL).  

Plaintiffs allege that LNL and Lincoln National Corporation (LNC)
breached the terms of policyholders' contracts by increasing
non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in 2017.  

Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of policyholders and seek
damages on their behalf.  

The Lincoln said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

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

The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides life insurance
products and services. It offers life insurance policies,
annuities, and financial planning instruments, such as retirement
savings accounts and mutual funds. The company was incorporated in
1905 and is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana. The Lincoln National Life
Insurance Company operates as a subsidiary of Lincoln National
Corporation.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: COI Litigation in Pennsylvania Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6,
2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the
company continues to defend a class action suit in Pennsylvania
entitled, In re: Lincoln National COI Litigation.

In re: Lincoln National COI Litigation, pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Master
File No. 2:16-cv-06605-GJP, is a consolidated litigation matter
related to multiple putative class action filings that were
consolidated by an order dated March 20, 2017.  

In addition to consolidating a number of existing matters, the
order also covers any future cases filed in the same district
related to the same subject matter. Plaintiffs own universal life
insurance policies originally issued by Jefferson-Pilot (now The
Lincoln National Life Insurance Company (LNL)).  

Plaintiffs allege that LNL and Lincoln National Corporation LNC
breached the terms of policyholders' contracts by increasing
non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in 2016.  

Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of policyowners and seek
damages on their behalf.  

The Lincoln said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

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

The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides life insurance
products and services. It offers life insurance policies,
annuities, and financial planning instruments, such as retirement
savings accounts and mutual funds. The company was incorporated in
1905 and is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana. The Lincoln National Life
Insurance Company operates as a subsidiary of Lincoln National
Corporation.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: TVPX ARS' Suit in Pennsylvania Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6,
2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the
company continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated
by TVPX ARS Inc., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated
Wealth Management, LTD.

TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth
Management, LTD. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company
(LNL), filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, No. 2:18-cv-02989, is a putative class action that
was filed on July 17, 2018.  

Plaintiff alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of
insurance than permitted by the policy.  

Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable
universal life policyholders who own policies issued by LNL or its
predecessors containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions
that are similar to those of Plaintiff's policy and seeks damages
on behalf of all such policyholders.  

The Lincoln said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

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

The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides life insurance
products and services. It offers life insurance policies,
annuities, and financial planning instruments, such as retirement
savings accounts and mutual funds. The company was incorporated in
1905 and is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana. The Lincoln National Life
Insurance Company operates as a subsidiary of Lincoln National
Corporation.


LIV FITNESS CLUBS: Naranjo Suit Asserts Invasion of Privacy
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARIA NARANJO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. LIV FITNESS CLUBS - CONDADO, LLC, a Puerto
Rico Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-22070-DPG (S.D. Fla., May 22, 2019) is an action against
Defendant, to secure redress for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

To promote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process, says the
complaint. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief
to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the
invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the
daily life of thousands of individuals. Plaintiff also seeks
statutory damages on behalf of herself and members of the class,
and any other available legal or equitable remedies.

Plaintiff is a natural person who, at all times relevant to this
action, was a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida.

Defendant is fitness club and gymnasium.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
     Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
     SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
     14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
     Miami, FL 33132
     Phone: 305-479-2299
     Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
            gberg@shamisgentile.com

          - and -

     Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
     EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
     19495 Biscayne Blvd #607
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Phone: 305-975-3320
     Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com


LIVANOVA PLC: 3T Device Suits in US State Courts & Outside Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
LivaNova PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019, that cases in state courts in the U.S. and in
jurisdictions outside the U.S. involving the company's 3T
Heater-Cooler device, continues to progress.

The Company is currently involved in litigation involving its 3T
device. As of April 30, 2019, the company is aware of approximately
210 filed and unfiled claims worldwide, with the majority of the
claims in various federal or state courts throughout the United
States.

On March 29, 2019, the company announced a settlement framework
that provides for a comprehensive resolution of the personal injury
cases pending in the multi-district litigation in U.S. federal
court, the related class action pending in federal court, as well
as certain cases in state courts across the United States.

The agreement, which makes no admission of liability, is subject to
certain conditions, including acceptance of the settlement by
individual claimants and provides for a total payment of up to $225
million to resolve the claims covered by the settlement, with up to
$135 million to be paid no earlier than July 2019 and the remainder
in January 2020.

LivaNova said, "However, cases in state courts in the U.S. and in
jurisdictions outside the U.S. continue to progress. In the fourth
quarter of 2018, we recognized a $294.1 million provision, which
represents our best estimate of the Company's liability for these
matters. At March 31, 2019, the provision estimate remains
unchanged."

LivaNova PLC, a medical device company, designs, develops,
manufactures, and sells therapeutic solutions worldwide. It
operates in two segments, Cardiovascular (CV) and Neuromodulation
(NM). The company was founded in 1987 and is headquartered in
London, the United Kingdom.


LIVENT CORPORATION: Nikolov Files Suit Over Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------------
Bisser Nikolov, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Livent Corporation, Paul W. Graves,
Gilberto Antoniazzi, Nicholas L. Pfeiffer, Pierre R. Brondeau,
Andrea E. Utecht, Merill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Goldman
Sachs & Co. LLC, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Citigroup
Global Markets LLC, and Nomura Securities International, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02218-CFK (E.D. Pa., May 22, 2019) is a
class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Livent securities pursuant and/or traceable to
the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with
the Company's October 2018 initial public offering ("IPO" or the
"Offering"). Plaintiff pursues claims against Defendants, under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Securities Act").

On October 12, 2018, the company files it prospectus form 424B1
with the sec, which forms part of the Registration Statement. In
the IPO, the Company sold 23 million shares of common stock at a
price of $17.00 per share. The Company received proceeds of
approximately $389 million from the Offering, net of underwriting
discounts and commissions. The proceeds from the IPO were
purportedly to be used to make a distribution to FMC and to fund
origination fees associated with Livent's revolving credit
facility. On February 11, 2019, Livent released its fourth quarter
2018 financial results that missed top line sales targets, citing
difficulties negotiating contracts with existing customers. On this
news, the Company's share price fell $0.57, over 4%, to close at
$12.55 per share on February 2019, on unusually heavy trading
volume. On May 8, 2019, the Company announced disappointing
financial results for first quarter 2019, citing further customer
issues. On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.70, over
16%, to close at $9.03 per share on Mqy 8, 2019, on unusually heavy
trading volume. By the commencement of this action, Livent stock
was trading as low as &7.36 share, a nearly 57% decline from the
%17 per share IPO price.

The complaint assert that the Registration Statement was false and
misleading and omitted to state material adverse facts.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
a supply contract with Nemaska Lithium Inc. had been terminated;
(2) that, as a result, the Company would be forced to fulfill its
customer contracts using alternative vendors at reduced revenues
and lower margins; (3) that the Company had a long-standing
contract to supply lithium hydroxide to a customer at a much lower
price than any of the Company's existing contracts; (4) that the
Company's margins were squeezed due to the customer's increased
orders; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations and
prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and
the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, adds the complaint.

Plaintiff Bisser Nikolow purchased or otherwise acquired Livent
securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement
issued in conncetion with the Company's IPO.

Livent produces and distributes lithium chemicals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     LEE ALBERT, ESQ.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     230 Park Avenue, Suite 530
     New York NY 10169
     Phone: (212) 682-5340
     Facsimile: (212) 8884-0988
     Email: lalber@glancylaw.com

          - and -

     LIONEL Z. GLANCY, ESQ.
     ROBERT V. PRONGAY, ESQ.
     LESLEY F. PORTNOY, ESQ.
     CHARLES LINEHAN, ESQ.
     PAVITHRA RAJESH, ESQ.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 201-9150
     Facsimile: (310) 201-9160


LOUISIANA: Landry Files Wage and Hour Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
JOHN LANDRY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF SIMILARLY SITUATED
EMPLOYEES, Plaintiff v. THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, THROUGH THE
SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-10636 (E.D. La., May 22, 2019) is an action brought to
remedy a wage and hour violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and a breach of contract.

The Board had complete control, supervision and management
authority over Southern University at New Orleans ("SUNO"). In or
around February 2016, SUNO and Officer Landry entered into a
contract (the "Contract") whereby Officer Landry, in his capacity
as Courtesy Officer, would reside in housing on SUNO's campus. When
he was off duty as a police officer, he would be on call as a
Courtesy Officer and respond to calls for police assistance on
SUNO's campus. His compensation for being on call and responding to
calls as a Courtesy Officer consisted of being allowed to live on
campus for free or at a reduced rate. During the period February
2016 to present, Officer Landry, in his capacity as Courtesy
Officer, has responded to numerous calls for police assistance on
campus. Despite the Contract, SUNO has refused to allow Officer
Landry to live on campus for free or at a reduced rate. SUNO
further refused to pay Officer Landry wages and overtime pay for
the hours worked as a Courtesy Officer, the complaint adds.

Plaintiff Officer Landry was employed by SUNO's Police Department
as a police officer and Courtesy Officer.

The State of Louisiana is a southeastern U.S. state on the Gulf of
Mexico. Its history as a melting pot of French, African, American
and French-Canadian cultures is reflected in its Creole and Cajun
cultures.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Danatus N. King, Esq.
     DANATUS N. KING & ASSOCIATES
     2475 Canal Street, Suite 308
     New Orleans, LA 70119
     Phone: (504) 821-3221
     Facsimile: (504) 821-3131
     Email: dking@dkinglawfirm.com


MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that motions to
dismiss a consolidated class action suit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York remains pending.

The Motions to Dismiss were filed by:

     -- Barclays Capital Inc.;

     -- Macquarie Infrastructure Management (USA) Inc.; and

     -- Robert Choi, Norman H. Brown, Jr., George W. Carmany III,
Richard D. Courtney, Jay Davis, James Hooke, Henry E. Lentz,
Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation, Ouma Sananikone, Martin
Stanley, Liam Stewart, and William H. Webb.

On April 23, 2018, a complaint captioned City of Riviera Beach
General Employees Retirement System v. Macquarie Infrastructure
Corp., et al., Case 1:18-cv-03608 (VSB), was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

A substantially identical complaint captioned Daniel Fajardo v.
Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-03744 (VSB) was filed in the same court on April 27, 2018.


Both complaints asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder on
behalf of a putative class consisting of all purchasers of MIC
common stock between February 22, 2016 and February 21, 2018.

The named defendants in both cases were the Company and four
current or former officers of MIC and one of its subsidiaries, IMTT
Holdings LLC.

The complaints in both actions allege that the Company and the
individual defendants knowingly made material misstatements and
omitted material facts in its public disclosures concerning the
Company's and IMTT’s business and the sustainability of the
Company's dividend to stockholders.

On January 30, 2019, the Court issued an opinion and order
consolidating the two cases, appointing Moab Partners, L.P. (Moab)
as Lead Plaintiff, approving Moab's selection of lead counsel. On
February 20, 2019, Moab filed a consolidated class action
complaint.

In addition to the claims noted above, the consolidated class
action complaint also asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 relating to the Company's
November 2016 secondary public offering of common stock. The
consolidated amended complaint also adds Macquarie Infrastructure
Management (USA) Inc., Barclays Capital Inc. and seven additional
current or former officers or directors of MIC as defendants.

On April 22, 2019, the Company and the other defendants filed
motions to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint in its
entirety, with prejudice.

Macquarie Infrastructure said, "The Company intends to continue to
vigorously contest the claims asserted, which the Company believes
are entirely meritless."

Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation owns and operates a portfolio
of businesses that provide services to other businesses, government
agencies, and individuals. It operates through: International-Matex
Tank Terminals (IMTT), Atlantic Aviation, and MIC Hawaii segments.
The company was founded in 2004 and is based in New York, New
York.


MDL 2741: Burns v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES L. BURNS AND ROSE BURNS, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00956 (Filed April 23,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on May 22, 2019. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02768-VC to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Charles L.
Burns's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Burns case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The
Plaintiff alleges that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiff also alleges that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com

MDL 2741: Crump v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALLAN CRUMP and PATRICIA CRUMP, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00962 (Filed April 23,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on May 22, 2019. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02801-VC to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Allan Crump's
injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated
victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Crump case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The
Plaintiff alleges that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiff also alleges that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com

MDL 2741: Delesline v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
EDMUND L. DELESLINE, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00963 (Filed April 23, 2019), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Francisco) on May 22, 2019. The Northern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02802-VC to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. the
Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Delesline case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re:
Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order
of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions
arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide,
particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The Plaintiff alleges that they or their
decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over
the course of several or more years. Plaintiff also alleges that
the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in
particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA),
renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues
concerning general causation, the background science, and
regulatory history will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com

MDL 2741: Hudson v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
JANET B. HUDSON, Individually and as ANTICIPATED REPRESENTATIVE of
the Estate of BENJAMIN E. HUDSON, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00983 (Filed April 24,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on May 22, 2019. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02818-VC to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Benjamin E.
Hudson's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Hudson case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The
Plaintiff alleges that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiff also alleges that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric D. Holland, Esq.
          HOLLAND LAW FIRM
          300 North Tucker, Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: 314-241-8111
          Facsimile: 314-241-5554
          E-mail: eholland@allfela.com

               - and -

          Michael S. Werner
          PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
          6 Harbor Park Drive
          Port Washington, NY 11050
          Telephone: (516) 723-4631
          Facsimile: (516) 723-4731
          E-mail: mwerner@yourlawyer.com


MDL 2741: Pease v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL PEASE, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No.  4:19-cv-00984 (Filed April 24, 2019), was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(San Francisco) on May 22, 2019. The Northern District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02819-VC to the
proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Plaintiff's
injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated
victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Pease case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The
Plaintiff alleges that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiff also alleges that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com

MDL 2741: Sutliff et al v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DONNA SUTLIFF, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF TIMOTHY SUTLIFF, DECEASED,
ROBERT TIGNOR, and RONNIE WYNNE, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01129 (Filed May 1, 2019),
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on May 22, 2019. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02832-VC to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Mr. Sutliff,
Tignor, and Wynne's injuries, like those striking thousands of
similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Sutliff case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The
Plaintiff alleges that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiff also alleges that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James T. Corrigan, Esq.
          ONDER, SHELTON, CORRIGAN,
          PETERSON, DALTON & QUILLIN, LLC
          1034 S. Brentwood Blvd.
          23rd Floor Penthouse - 1A
          St. Louis, MO 63117
          Telephone: (314) 405-9000
          Facsimile: (314) 405-9999
          E-mail: corrigan@osclaw.com


MDL 2741: Sutton et al v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALLEN C. SUTTON AND MASAYO SUTTON, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00964 (Filed April 23,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on May 22, 2019. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02803-VC to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Allen C.
Sutton's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Sutton case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The
Plaintiff alleges that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiff also alleges that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com

MDL 2741: Walsh v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS F. WALSH AND KAREN WALSH, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00961 (Filed April 23,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on May 22, 2019. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02800-VC to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Thomas F.
Walsh's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Walsh case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The
Plaintiff alleges that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiff also alleges that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com

MDL 2741: Whitaker v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES WHITAKER AND GAYLE WHITAKER, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00960 (Filed April 23,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on May 22, 2019. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02799-VC to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. James
Whitaker's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Whitaker case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re:
Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order
of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions
arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide,
particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The Plaintiff alleges that they or their
decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over
the course of several or more years. Plaintiff also alleges that
the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in
particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA),
renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues
concerning general causation, the background science, and
regulatory history will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com

METLIFE INC: Appeal in Martin Class Action Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the appeal in the case,
Martin v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, (Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Contra Costa, filed December 17,
2015), is still pending.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and all California persons who have been charged
compound interest by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MLIC) in
life insurance policy and/or premium loan balances within the last
four years.

Plaintiffs allege that MLIC has engaged in a pattern and practice
of charging compound interest on life insurance policy and premium
loans without the borrower authorizing such compounding, and that
this constitutes an unlawful business practice under California
law.

Plaintiffs assert causes of action for declaratory relief,
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and Usury Law, and
unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive
relief, restitution of interest, and damages in an unspecified
amount.

On April 12, 2016, the court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs appealed this ruling to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.

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

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. MetLife, Inc. was founded in 1863 and
is headquartered in New York, New York.


METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend Newman Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Newman v. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company (N.D. Ill., filed March 23, 2016).

Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging causes of
action for breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, on
behalf of herself and all persons over age 65 who selected a
Reduced Pay at Age 65 payment feature on their long-term care
insurance policies and whose premium rates were increased after age
65.

Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory and punitive
damages, as well as recessionary and injunctive relief. On April
12, 2017, the court granted Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's
(MLIC's) motion to dismiss the action. Plaintiff appealed this
ruling and the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit reversed and remanded the case to the district court for
further proceedings.

The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.

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

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. MetLife, Inc. was founded in 1863 and
is headquartered in New York, New York.


METLIFE INC: Non-Certification Affirmed by Ontario Appeals Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the Court of Appeal for
Ontario has affirmed the lower court's decision to decline
certification of the sales practices claims in the Ontario
Litigation in relation Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada sales
practices lawsuits.

In 2006, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada ("Sun Life"), as
successor to the purchaser of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's
(MLIC's) Canadian operations, filed a lawsuit in Toronto, seeking a
declaration that MLIC remains liable for "market conduct claims"
related to certain individual life insurance policies sold by MLIC
that were subsequently transferred to Sun Life.

In January 2010, the court found that Sun Life had given timely
notice of its claim for indemnification but, because it found that
Sun Life had not yet incurred an indemnifiable loss, granted MLIC's
motion for summary judgment. In September 2010, Sun Life notified
MLIC that a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Sun
Life in Toronto alleging sales practices claims regarding the
policies sold by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life (the "Ontario
Litigation").

On August 30, 2011, Sun Life notified MLIC that another purported
class action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Vancouver, BC
alleging sales practices claims regarding certain of the same
policies sold by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life. Sun Life
contends that MLIC is obligated to indemnify Sun Life for some or
all of the claims in these lawsuits.

In September 2018, the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed the
lower court's decision to not certify the sales practices claims in
the Ontario Litigation.

MetLife said, "These sales practices cases against Sun Life are
ongoing, and the Company is unable to estimate the reasonably
possible loss or range of loss arising from this litigation."

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. MetLife, Inc. was founded in 1863 and
is headquartered in New York, New York.


METLIFE INC: Owens Class Action in Georgia Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Owens v. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company (N.D. Ga., filed April 17, 2014).

Plaintiff filed this class action lawsuit on behalf of persons for
whom Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MLIC) established a Total
Control Account ("TCA") to pay death benefits under an Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") plan.

The action alleges that MLIC's use of the TCA as the settlement
option for life insurance benefits under some group life insurance
policies violates MLIC’s fiduciary duties under ERISA. As
damages, plaintiff seeks disgorgement of profits that MLIC realized
on accounts owned by members of the class.

In addition, plaintiff, on behalf of a subgroup of the class, seeks
interest under Georgia's delayed settlement interest statute,
alleging that the use of the TCA as the settlement option did not
constitute payment.

On September 27, 2016, the court denied MLIC’s summary judgment
motion in full and granted plaintiff’s partial summary judgment
motion. On September 29, 2017, the court certified a nationwide
class. The court also certified a Georgia subclass.

The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.

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

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. MetLife, Inc. was founded in 1863 and
is headquartered in New York, New York.


METLIFE INC: Still Defends Julian & McKinney Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action lawsuit entitled, Julian & McKinney v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (S.D.N.Y., filed February 9,
2017).

Plaintiffs filed this putative class and collective action on
behalf of themselves and all current and former long-term
disability ("LTD") claims specialists between February 2011 and the
present for alleged wage and hour violations under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Connecticut Minimum
Wage Act.

The suit alleges that MetLife improperly reclassified the
plaintiffs and similarly situated LTD claims specialists from
non-exempt to exempt from overtime pay in November 2013.

As a result, they and members of the putative class were no longer
eligible for overtime pay even though they allege they continued to
work more than 40 hours per week.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, as
well as other relief. On March 22, 2018, the Court conditionally
certified the case as a collective action, requiring that notice be
mailed to LTD claims specialists who worked for the Company from
February 8, 2014 to the present.

The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.

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

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. MetLife, Inc. was founded in 1863 and
is headquartered in New York, New York.


MJB ALE HOUSE: Santiago Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums, Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the case captioned MANUEL SANTIAGO, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MJB ALE HOUSE,
INC. d/b/a BOURBON STREET, MARK BOCCIA, JOHN RY AN, and BARRY
GREENFIELD, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03095 (E.D. N.Y., May 23,
2019) alleges that, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law, he is entitled to recover
from Defendants unpaid overtime compensation, "spread of hours"
premium for each day he worked a shift in excess of 10 hours,
liquidated and statutory damages, prejudgment and post judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiff worked over 40 hours per week. From the beginning of his
employment and continuing through in or about December 2017,
Plaintiff was not paid proper overtime compensation. Work performed
above 40 hours per week was not paid at the statutory rate of time
and one-half as required by state and federal law. The Defendants
knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff his lawfully earned
overtime compensation in direct contravention of the FLSA and New
York Labor Law, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was hired by Defendant to work as a non-exempt dishwasher
and porter at the Restaurant on or about January 10, 2017.

MJB ALE HOUSE, owns and operates a restaurant known as Bourbon
Street located at 40-12 Bell Boulevard, Bayside, New York
11361.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Justin Cilenti, Esq.
     Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
     CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
     10 Grand Central
     155 East 44th Street - 6th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 209-3933
     Fax: (212) 209-7102
     Email: info@jcpclaw.com


MKS INSTRUMENTS: Parties in ESI Litigation Agree to Settle
----------------------------------------------------------
MKS Instruments, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the parties in the
Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. ("ESI") litigation have agreed
in principle to settle the lawsuits.

On November 29, 2018, a complaint captioned Brian Morris et. al. v.
Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. et al. was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Oregon by alleged former
stockholders of ESI in connection with the ESI Merger.

The complaint named the Company's subsidiary, ESI, and the former
members of ESI's board of directors as defendants.

Five additional complaints were subsequently filed, two in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Oregon and three in the
Multnomah County Circuit Court in the State of Oregon.

The cases filed in the U.S. District Court were dated December 6,
2018 and December 12, 2018 and captioned Melvyn Klein et. al. v.
Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. et al. and Donald Mager et. al.
v. Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. et al., respectively.

The complaints filed in Multnomah County Circuit Court were dated
December 5, 2018, December 5, 2018 and December 13, 2018 and
captioned Michael Kent et. al v. Electro Scientific Industries,
Inc. et al., Christopher Stanley et. al v. Electro Scientific
Industries, Inc. et al. and Eduardo Colmenares et. al. v. Electro
Scientific Industries, Inc., MKS Instruments, Inc., et al.,
respectively (collectively with Brian Morris et. al. v. Electro
Scientific Industries, Inc. et. al., the "Lawsuits").

The Lawsuits are purported class actions brought on behalf of
former ESI stockholders, asserting various claims against the
former members of the ESI board of directors, ESI, the Company and
the Company's merger subsidiary, including breach of fiduciary duty
and aiding and abetting the breach of fiduciary duty.

The Lawsuits allege that the consideration paid to the ESI
shareholders did not appropriately value ESI, and that merger
related disclosures failed to disclose certain material information
regarding the merger. The Lawsuits purported to seek unspecified
damages.

On February 26, 2019, the parties entered into a settlement
agreement, pursuant to which plaintiffs dismissed their individual
claims with prejudice and class claims without prejudice in return
for ESI's previous supplemental merger related disclosures in
connection with the transaction.

ESI provided supplemental merger related disclosures to eliminate
the burden and expense of litigation and to avoid any possible
disruption to the merger that could result from further
litigation.

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

MKS Instruments, Inc. develops, manufactures, and supplies
instruments and components used to control and analyze gases in
semiconductor and similar industrial manufacturing processes. The
Company offers products to manufacture flat panel displays,
magnetic and optical storage devices and media, solar cells, fiber
optic cables, and diamond thin films. The company is based in
Andover, Massachusetts.


MONSANTO COMPANY: Benzels Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS JAY BENZEL and TRACY ANN BENZEL, husband and wife and their
marital community, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00174 (E.D. Wash., May 22, 2019),
seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as a direct
and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture,
testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Thomas Jay
Benzel's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Corrie J. Yackulic, Esq.
          CORRIE YACKULIC LAW FIRM, PLLC
          705 Second Avenue, #1300
          Seattle, Washington 98104
          Telephone: 206 787 1915
          Facsimile: 206 299 9725
          E-mail: Corrie@cjylaw.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Bourgeoises Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD P. BOURGEOIS and TONI M. BOURGEOIS, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01407-SPM (E.D.
Mo., May 23, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the
Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing,
advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide
Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Ronald P.
Bourgeois' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Brenans Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN BRENAN and SUZANNE E. BRENAN, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01409 (E.D. Mo., May 23,
2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Brian
Brenan's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, Brian
Brenan developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Joneses Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD F. JONES and LINDA JONES, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01412 (E.D. Mo., May 23,
2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Donald F.
Jones' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com


NABORS INDUSTRIES: Wins Dismissal of Texas Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Nabors Industries Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company's motion to
dismiss the putative shareholder class action suit pending before
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division, has been granted.

On September 29, 2017, Nabors and Nabors Maple Acquisition Ltd.
were sued, along with Tesco Corporation and its Board of Directors,
in a putative shareholder class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division.  

The plaintiff alleges that the September 18, 2017 Preliminary Proxy
Statement filed by Tesco with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission omitted material information with respect to
the proposed transaction between Tesco and Nabors announced on
August 14, 2017.  

The plaintiff claims that the omissions rendered the Proxy
Statement false and misleading, constituting a violation of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The court consolidated several matters and entered a lead plaintiff
appointment order.

The plaintiff filed their amended complaint, adding Nabors
Industries, Ltd. as a party to the consolidated action. Nabors
filed its motion to dismiss, which was granted by the court on
March 29, 2019.  

Plaintiffs have thirty (30) days to seek a new trial or file an
appeal.

Nabors will continue to vehemently defend itself against the
allegations.

Nabors Industries Ltd. provides drilling and drilling-related
services and technologies for land-based and offshore oil and
natural gas wells. It operates through five segments: U.S.
Drilling, Canada Drilling, International Drilling, Drilling
Solutions, and Rig Technologies. Nabors Industries Ltd. was founded
in 1952 and is headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda.


NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS: Manna Sues Over Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY MANNA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS PLC, and TED
SCHROEDER, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04713 (S.D. N.Y., May 22,
2019) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Nabriva securities between November
1, 2018 and April 30, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

One of the Company's product candidates is CONTEPO, an epoxide
antibiotic developed by Zavante Therapeutics ("Zavante"), which the
Company acquired in July 2018. On April 30, 2019, the Company
revealed that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") would
not approve its New Drug Application ("NDA") for CONTEPO due to
"issues related to facility inspections and manufacturing
deficiencies at one of Nabriva's contract manufacturers." On this
news, the Company's share price fell $0.82 per share, or over 27%,
to close at $2.17 per share on May 1, 2019, on unusually high
trading volume.

The Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (i) the Company's
manufacturers failed to meet good manufacturing practices; (ii)
these manufacturers would be subject to inspections by the FDA in
connection with the Company's NDA; (iii) as a result of the
manufacturing deficiencies, the Company's NDA for CONTEPO was
unlikely to be approved by the FDA; and (iv) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of Defendants'
wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the
market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class
members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff purchased Nabriva securities during the Class Period.

Nabriva is a biopharmaceutical company that purports to develop
novel anti-infective agents to treat serious infections.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
     J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
     Jonathan Lindenfeld, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 661-1100
     Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
     Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
            ahood@pomlaw.com
            jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com

          - and -

     Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 377-1181
     Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
     Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


NATIONAL BANCORP: Albrecht Sues Over TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
The class action styled as PETER ALBRECHT, Individually And On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL
BANCORP HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a THE FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, Defendant,
Case No. 8:19-cv-00810 (C.D. Cal., May 1, 2019) alleges that the
Defendant negligently and/or willfully contacted Plaintiff in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"),
thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

On or about March 13, 2019, Plaintiff Albrecht received a call on
his landline telephone number. The calls were placed via an
"automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS). Plaintiff has never
had any business relationship with Defendant. Plaintiff has never
given Federal Savings Bank express consent to call his telephone
using a prerecorded voice or otherwise. Through Defendant's
conduct, Plaintiff suffered an invasion of a legally protected
interest in privacy, which is specifically addressed and protected
by the TCPA. The Defendant's calls forced Plaintiff and other
similarly situated class members to live without the utility of
their telephone by occupying their telephone with one or more
unwanted calls, causing a nuisance and lost time, says the
Complaint.

Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of the State of California.

Defendant is a corporation whose corporate headquarters is in
Illinois, and is incorporated within Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
     Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
     Nicholas R. Barthel, Esq.
     KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
     245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Phone: (800) 400-6808
     Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
     Email: ak@kazlg.com
            jason@kazlg.com
            nicholas@kazlg.com


NATIONAL GENERAL: Agreement Reached in Consolidated Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
National General Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that an agreement has been
reached in the consolidated multi-district class action suit in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.

The Company as a defendant and the other parties involved in the
consolidated multi-district class action litigation in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California with
respect to allegations of improper practices in the placement of
insurance in the historical and no longer existing collateral
protection insurance program for Wells Fargo have recently reached
agreement upon a preliminary settlement of the litigation subject
to final documentation and court approval.

As of December 31, 2018, the Company accrued a net liability
relating to the settlement of $10,000.

National General Holdings Corp., a specialty personal lines
insurance holding company, provides various insurance products and
services in the United States, Bermuda, Luxembourg, and Sweden. The
company was formerly known as American Capital Acquisition
Corporation. National General Holdings Corp. was founded in 1939
and is headquartered in New York, New York.


NEW JERSEY: C.P. Files Suit v. Dept of Educ.
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION et al. The case is styled as C.P. Individually and on
behalf of F.P., a minor, D.O. Individually and on behalf of M.O., a
minor, A.S. Individually and on behalf of A.A.S., a minor, S.B.C.
Individually and on behalf of C.C., a minor, JOHN DOE Individually
and on behalf of their minor child, James Doe, JANE DOE
Individually and on behalf of their minor child, James Doe, Y.H.S.
Individually and on behalf of their minor child, C.H.S., H. Y.
Individually and on behalf of their minor child, C.H.S., J.M.
Individually and on behalf of E.M., a minor, E.M. Individually and
on behalf of C.M., a minor, M.M. Individually and on behalf of
K.M., and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, LAMONT REPOLLET Commissioner of
Education, Defendants, Case No 1:19-cv-12807-NLH-KMW (D. N.J., May
22, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Education Civil Rights.

The New Jersey Department of Education administers state and
federal aid programs affecting more than 1.4 million public and
non-public elementary and secondary school children in the state of
New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     JOHN DOUGLAS RUE, ESQ.
     JOHN RUE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
     2 BROAD STREET, SUITE 607
     BLOOMFIELD, NJ 07003
     Phone: (800) 488-1364
     Fax: (973) 860-0869
     Email: john@johnruelaw.com


NEWLINK GENETICS: Appellees' Brief in Nguyen Due June 21
--------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit is underway
and the appellees' (defendants) brief is due June 21, 2019, NewLink
Genetics Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

On or about May 12, 2016, Trevor Abramson filed a putative
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York (the Court), captioned
Abramson v. NewLink Genetics Corp., et al., Case 1:16-cv-3545 (the
Securities Action).

Subsequently, the Court appointed Michael and Kelly Nguyen as lead
plaintiffs and approved their selection of Kahn, Swick & Foti, LLC
as lead counsel in the Securities Action.

On October 31, 2016, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
asserting claims under the federal securities laws against the
Company, the Company's Chief Executive Officer Charles J. Link,
Jr., and the Company's Chief Medical Officer and President Nicholas
Vahanian (collectively, the Defendants).

The amended complaint alleges the Defendants made material false
and/or misleading statements that caused losses to the Company's
investors. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on July 14, 2017. On March 29, 2018, the Court dismissed
the amended complaint for failure to state a claim, without
prejudice, and gave the lead plaintiffs until May 4, 2018 to file
any amended complaint attempting to remedy the defects in their
claims.

On May 4, 2018, the lead plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint asserting claims under the federal securities laws
against the Defendants. Like the first amended complaint, the
second amended complaint alleges that the Defendants made material
false and/or misleading statements or omissions relating to the
Phase 2 and 3 trials and efficacy of the product candidate
algenpantucel-L that caused losses to the Company's investors. The
lead plaintiffs do not quantify any alleged damages in the second
amended complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs,
they sought to recover damages on behalf of themselves and other
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock
during the putative class period of September 17, 2013 through May
9, 2016, inclusive, at allegedly inflated prices and purportedly
suffered financial harm as a result.

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint on July 31, 2018. On February 13, 2019, the Court
dismissed the second amended complaint for failure to state a
claim, with prejudice, and closed the case. On March 14, 2019, lead
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

The court set a schedule in which appellants' (plaintiffs) brief is
due May 17, 2019, appellees' (defendants) brief is due June 21,
2019, and appellants may file a reply no later than July 8, 2019.
The Company intends to continue defending the Securities Action
vigorously.

NewLink Genetics Corporation, a late clinical-stage immuno-oncology
company, focuses on discovering and developing novel
immunotherapeutic products for the treatment of patients with
cancer. NewLink Genetics Corporation was founded in 1999 and is
headquartered in Ames, Iowa.


NISOURCE INC: Deal Reached in Suits over Greater Lawrence Fire
--------------------------------------------------------------
NiSource Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company has entered
into a settlement agreement with certain of the plaintiffs in the
lawsuits related to the so-called Greater Lawrence Incident subject
to certain conditions, including court approval.

On September 13, 2018, a series of fires and explosions occurred in
Lawrence, Andover and North Andover, Massachusetts related to the
delivery of natural gas by Columbia of Massachusetts (the "Greater
Lawrence Incident"). The Greater Lawrence Incident resulted in one
fatality and a number of injuries, damaged multiple homes and
businesses, and caused the temporary evacuation of significant
portions of each municipality.

Various lawsuits, including several purported class action
lawsuits, have been filed by various affected residents or
businesses in Massachusetts state courts against the Company and/or
Columbia of Massachusetts in connection with the Greater Lawrence
Incident.

A special judge has been appointed to hear all pending and future
cases and the class actions will be consolidated into one class
action. On January 14, 2019, the special judge granted the parties'
joint motion to stay all cases until April 30, 2019 to allow
mediation, and the parties subsequently agreed to extend the stay
until May 13.

The class action lawsuits allege varying causes of action,
including those for strict liability for ultra-hazardous activity,
negligence, private nuisance, public nuisance, premises liability,
trespass, breach of warranty, breach of contract, failure to warn,
unjust enrichment, consumer protection act claims, negligent,
reckless and intentional infliction of emotional distress and gross
negligence, and seek actual compensatory damages, plus treble
damages, and punitive damages.

Many residents and business owners have submitted individual damage
claims to Columbia of Massachusetts.

The company also have received notice from three parties indicating
an intent to assert wrongful death claims.

In Massachusetts, punitive damages are available in a wrongful
death action upon proof of gross negligence or willful or reckless
conduct causing the death.

In addition, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the
municipalities of Lawrence, Andover and North Andover are seeking
reimbursement from Columbia of Massachusetts for their respective
expenses incurred in connection with the Greater Lawrence Incident.
The outcomes and impacts of the private actions are uncertain at
this time.

The company is discussing potential settlements with the affected
municipalities and certain of the wrongful death and bodily injury
plaintiffs.

On April 25, 2019, the company entered into a settlement agreement
with certain of these plaintiffs involving bodily injury claims,
subject to certain conditions, including court approval.

NiSource Inc., an energy holding company, operates as a regulated
natural gas and electric utility company in the United States. The
company operates in two segments, Gas Distribution Operations and
Electric Operations. NiSource Inc. was founded in 1912 and is
headquartered in Merrillville, Indiana.


NITE OWL: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Mays Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM MAYS, On behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NITE OWL CONSTRUCTION, INC. and MARTY
PICKENS, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01187-JRA (N.D. Ohio, May 23,
2019) challenges the policies and practices of Defendants that
violate the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), as well as the
statutes of the State of Ohio.

Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours each workweek. For
example, during the one week pay period October 14, 2018 to October
20, 2018, Plaintiff worked at least 70.5 hours. However, instead of
compensating Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective at one and one-half
times their regular hourly rates for hours more than 40 hours per
workweek, Defendants paid Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective their
regular, straight time hourly rates for all hours worked. The
Defendants' failure to compensate Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective
for hours worked more than 40 hours per week at "one and one-half
times" the employees' "regular rates" of pay violates the FLSA and
corresponding Ohio law, says the complaint.

Plaintiff William Mays was employed by Defendants from
approximately 2015 to November 2018 as a carpenter and laborer.

Nite Owl Construction is a construction company. Nite Owl
Construction is an "Ohio-based contractor servicing franchise
owners and corporations across the United States with their
restaurant, hotel, and retail renovations".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NORTH AMERICAN: Lewis Sues Over WARN Act Violation
--------------------------------------------------
MELONY LEWIS and CHRISTIAN PADILLA on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NORTH AMERICAN
COMMUNICATIONS INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00081-KRG (W.D.
Pa., May 23, 2019) is a civil action for collection of unpaid wages
and benefits for 60 calendar days pursuant to the Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (the "WARN Act").

The Plaintiffs were employees of the Defendant until they were
terminated as part of, or as a result of a mass layoff and/or plant
closing ordered by the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is liable
under the WARN Act for the failure to provide the Plaintiffs and
the other similarly situated former employees at least 60 days'
advance written notice of termination, as required by the WARN Act,
says the complaint.

Plaintiffs were employees who were employed by Defendant and worked
at or reported to the Facility until their termination without
cause on or about May 20, 2019 and thereafter.

Defendant was a Missouri corporation which maintained a facility at
141 NAC Dr, Duncansville, PA 16635 (the "Facility").[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Charles H. Saul, Esq.
     MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
     Henry W. Oliver Building
     535 Smithfield Street, Suite 100
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
     Phone: 412-355-4961 / F: 412-642-2380
     Email: csaul@margolisedelstein.com

          - and -

     James Huggett, Esq.
     MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
     300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 800
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Phone: 302-313-9605
     Facsimile: 610-329-9250
     Email: jhuggett@margolisedelstein.com

          - and -

     Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
     LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
     132 Nassau Street, Suite1100
     New York, NY 10038
     Phone: (212) 581-5005
     Fax: (212) 581-2122

          - and -

     Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
     M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
     THE GARDNER FIRM, PC
     210 S. Washington Ave.
     Mobile, AL 36602
     Phone: (251) 433-8100
     Fax: (251) 433-8181


NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY: Kioutas Files Suit Over Insurance Dispute
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANNA KIOUTAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY HEALTHSYSTEM, an
Illinois not for profit corporation, individually and d/b/a
NORTHSHORE HOSPITAL, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH06286 (Circuit Ct.,
Cook Cty., Ill. May 22, 2019) is a consumer class action lawsuit,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons
who from 2009 to the date of judgment, were treated by NORTHSHORE
and/or its affiliated hospitals and medical facilities when
they-were-injured and in accidents where there is third party
liability, and NORTHSHORE refused to bill Medicare and Plaintiff's
and the Class' Medicare supplemental insurance providers including,
but not limited to Blue Cross Blue Shield, and instead placed
medical provider's liens for services rendered with the third party
tortfeasor(s) and/or their liability insurance carriers.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff was involved in an accident
on November 18, 2016. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff
suffered personal injuries for which she received medical treatment
at NORTHSHORE HOSPITAL in Skokie, Illinois. At the time of her
treatment at NORTHSHORE, Plaintiff was covered by health insurance
from Medicare and a Blue Cross Blue Shield Medicare supplemental
policy. On information and belief, at the time of her treatment at
NORTHSHORE, Plaintiffs health insurance carriers, Medicare and Blue
Cross Blue Shield had contracts for' medical services discounts
with Defendant NORTHSHORE. By side stepping Medicare and
Plaintiff's and the Class' Medicare supplemental Insurance carriers
and sending a Lien to third party tortfeasor(s) and/or their
liability insurances carrier, NORTHSBORE deprives Plaintiff and the
Class of discounts for treatment provided them by Medicare and
their Medicare supplemental insurance carriers to which they are
entitled and NORTHSHORE could thereby receive an amount up to and
including the full payment of its invoices from Plaintiff and the
Class's settlement with the third party instead of the discounted
invoice to be paid by Medicare and their supplemental insurance
carriers.

By NORTHSHORE's actions of refusing to bill Medicare and the
Plaintiff sand the Class' Medicare supplemental insurance carriers,
and by its action of sending a Lien to third party  tortfeasor(s)
and/or their liability insurance carriers, Plaintiff and the Class
not only incur value, the loss from the settlement of those funds
claimed by NORTHSHORE and the diminished of their Medicare and
Medicare  supplemental policies, but Plaintiff and the Class are
also deprived of discounts to which they were entitled to through
Medicare-and their Medicare supplemental insurance carriers and
they are liable to NORTHSHORE for the balance of their unpaid
invoices that do not reflect the discounts they were entitled to,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff resides in Cook County, Illinois, and is a citizen ofthe
State of Illinois.

NORTHSHORE is an Illinois corporation providing hospital and
medical services and facilities, individually and under various
assumed names throughout the State of Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Larry D. Drury, Esq.
     Larry D. Drury, Ltd.
     100 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2200
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 346-7950
     Email: lld@larrydrury.com

          - and -

     John H. Alexander, Esq.
     John H. Alexander & Associates LLC
     55 W Monroe Street, Suite 2455
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 263-7731


OCHER REALTY: Gotham Seeks Balance Payment Under Work Deal
----------------------------------------------------------
GOTHAM BUILDERS GROUP, LLC, Plaintiffs v.  OCHER REALTY LLC, ILYA
OCHER, MILITADIS LEPTOURGOS, PE, ALMA BANK, and "John Doe" and
"Jane Doe" as their interests may appear, Defendants, Case No.
511428/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., May 22, 2019) is action on
behalf of Plaintiff and on behalf of all others entitled to share
in the funds received by OCHER REALTY, LLC, as Trustee, in
connection with the improvement of the real property known as 378
Humboldt Street a/k/a 1 Maspeth Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, Block:
2892; Lot: 1.

Ocher Realty LLC ("Ocher Realty") was and is a limited liability
company formed and existing under the laws of the State of New
York. Gotham was and is a domestic limited liability company formed
and existing under the laws of the State of New York.

On or before August 12, 2016, Gotham and Ocher Realty entered into
an Initial Work Agreement by which Gotham agreed to perform
certain: (a) pre construction services, including, but not limited
to, reviewing and commenting on design development documents,
attending meetings, assisting Ocher Realty in obtaining permits,
preparing an initial budget, and developing construction schedules,
and, (b) initial construction services including subcontracting
with certain early work trades such as demolition,
scaffolding/hoist, concrete column encasement, long lead elevator
purchases, jobsite safety and security, and surveying for Ocher
Realty's planned construction of a two story commercial building
and related amenities and improvements ("Initial Work"). The
project involved the erection of commercial building located at the
Premises. On or August 12, 2016, Gotham and Ocher Realty entered
into an agreement ("Agreement") where Gotham was to furnish to
Ocher Realty with all necessary labor, material, equipment and
supervision for certain work and improvements at the Premises for
the construction of the Project ("Improvements"). The Agreement
provided for a construction completion date of 480 days after
commencement of the work.

The Defendant Ocher Realty has failed to perform its obligations
under the Agreement, including, but not limited to, its duty to pay
Gotham the balance due for its Work pursuant to the Agreement
balance, which is fully due and owing. By reason of the foregoing,
Gotham has been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial, but not
less than $913,442.12, which represents the balance due and owing
in the Agreement, no part of which has been paid, although duly
demanded together with statutory interest, plus costs,
disbursements and attorney's fees, says the complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Constantine T. Tzifas, Esq.
     ARTHUR J. SEMETIS, P.C.
     286 Madison Avenue, Suite 1801
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212)557-5055


OHIO STATE TEACHERS: Sued for Terminating Retirement Benefits
-------------------------------------------------------------
DEAN DENNIS AND ROBERT BUERKLE, Individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. OHIO STATE
TEACHERS RETIREMENT BOARD, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00386-SJD
(S.D. Ohio, May 23, 2019) challenges the Defendant's unlawful
elimination of vested retirement benefits, namely the annual
allowance increases (also known as the annual cost of living
adjustments or "COLAs"), for Plaintiffs and all other retirees
beginning on July 1, 2017.

Specifically, Ohio Revised Code provides in pertinent part that,
after August 1, 2013, the Defendant shall annually increase
retirees' allowances by two percent (2%) except as provided by RC
§ 3307.67(E). Subsection (E) of that same statute provides that
the STRS "may adjust the increase payable under this section if the
board's actuary, in its annual actuarial valuation required by
section 3307.51 of the Revised Code or in other evaluations
conducted under that section, determines that an adjustment does
not materially impair the fiscal integrity of the retirement system
or is necessary to preserve the fiscal integrity of the system."

On April 2017, Defendant eliminated COLAs for STRS retirees
receiving monthly pension allowances by voting to indefinitely
eliminate COLAs for STRS retirees beginning on July 1, 2017. At no
time prior to the Board's vote did the Board's actuary present an
actuarial valuation or other report required by section 3307.51 to
the Board determining that the indefinite elimination of COLAs was
necessary to preserve the fiscal integrity of the system.

Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's indefinite elimination of
the two-percent annual COLAs mandated by Ohio law without the
presentation to the Board of an actuarial valuation or other report
required by section 3307.51, as mandated by RC Section 3307.67(E),
violates the United States Constitution, the Ohio Constitution, and
state laws. Plaintiffs seek damages and declaratory and injunctive
relief for themselves and all other similarly situated persons in
the form of reinstatement of their COLA's, restitution of foregone
COLAs and reasonable attorney fees and costs.

Plaintiffs and their employers contributed to STRS during their
employment.

Defendant Board is a sui juris public entity established that
oversees and administers approximately $80 billion on behalf of the
494,000 active, inactive and retired Ohio public educators.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
     Todd B. Naylor, Esq.
     GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
     One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor
     Cincinnati, OH 45202
     Phone: 513.345.8291
     Fax: 513.345.8294
     Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
            tnaylor@gs-legal.com

          - and -

     Stephen E. Imm, Esq.
     Matthew S. Okiishi, Esq.
     FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
     4270 Ivy Pointe Blvd., Suite 225
     Cincinnati, OH 45245
     Email: stephen@finneylawfirm.com
            matt@finneylawfirm.com

          - and -

     Christian A. Jenkins, Esq.
     MINNILLO & JENKINS, CO., L.P.A.
     2712 Observatory Avenue
     Cincinnati, OH 45208
     Phone: 513.723.1600
     Fax: 513.723.1620
     Email: cjenkins@minnillojenkins.com


OMEGA FLEX: Missouri Class Action Ongoing
-----------------------------------------
Omega Flex, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a re-filed class action suit in Missouri.

In March 2017, a putative class action case was re-filed against
the Company and other parties in Missouri state court after the
predecessor case was dismissed without prejudice by the federal
court.

The Company successfully removed the case to federal court and is
currently vigorously defending the case.

Omega Flex, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, manufactures and
sells flexible metal hoses and accessories in the United States and
internationally. The company was formerly known as Tofle America,
Inc. and changed its name to Omega Flex, Inc. in 1996. Omega Flex,
Inc. was founded in 1975 and is based in Exton, Pennsylvania.


OOMA INC: Reid Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------
VALENTIN REID, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. OOMA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-04815-LTS (S.D. N.Y., May 23, 2019) is a civil rights
action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by 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 goods and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"), says the complaint.

Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

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

Defendant is a telecommunications provider that markets and sells
telephone service as well as portable telephones and telephone
accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Force, Esq.
     STEIN SAKS, PLLC
     285 Passaic Street
     Hackensack, NJ 07601
     Phone: (201) 282-6500
     Fax: (201) 282-6501
     Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com


PANERA LLC: Philpott Suit Removed to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned DEBORA PHILPOTT, an individual, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PANERA, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00254303 was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of
Sacramento, to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California on May 22, 2019, and assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-00928-MCE-DB.

The Complaint alleges these causes of action against the Defendant:
(1) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; (2) Failure to Pay Wages and
Overtime; (3) Meal Period Liability; (4) Rest-Break Liability; (5)
Violation of Labor Code;  and (6) Violation of Business &
Professions Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     Jon D. Meer, Esq.
     Daniel C. Whang, Esq.
     SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
     2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
     Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
     Phone: (310) 277-7200
     Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
     Email: jmeer@seyfarth.com
            dwhang@seyfarth.com

          - and -

     Christopher Im, Esq.
     SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
     601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3300
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Phone: (213) 270-9600
     Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
     Email: cim@seyfarth.com


PATENAUDE & FELIX: Acosta Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Patenaude & Felix.
The case is styled as Amanda Acosta individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Patenaude & Felix A
Professional Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00954-JAH-BGS
(S.D. Cal., May 22, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Patenaude & Felix is a debt collection agency that purchase debts,
and represents other debt purchasers and original creditors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
     Martin & Bontrager, APC
     6464 W. Sunset Blvd., Suite 960
     Los Angeles, CA 90028
     Phone: (323) 940-1700
     Fax: (323) 238-8095
     Email: Nick@mblawapc.com


PBF ENERGY: Bid for Class Certification in Goldstein Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
PBF Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the judge in the case,
Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., has
issued an order denying class certification.

On February 17, 2017, in Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil
Corporation, et al., the company and PBF Energy Company LLC, and
the company's subsidiaries, PBF Energy Western Region LLC and
Torrance Refining Company LLC and the manager of the company's
Torrance refinery along with Exxon Mobil Corporation were named as
defendants in a class action and representative action complaint
filed on behalf of Arnold Goldstein, John Covas, Gisela Janette La
Bella and others similarly situated.

The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles and alleges negligence, strict
liability, ultrahazardous activity, a continuing private nuisance,
a permanent private nuisance, a continuing public nuisance, a
permanent public nuisance and trespass resulting from the February
18, 2015 electrostatic precipitator ("ESP") explosion at the
Torrance refinery which was then owned and operated by ExxonMobil.


The operation of the Torrance refinery by the PBF entities
subsequent to the company's acquisition in July 2016 is also
referenced in the complaint. To the extent that plaintiffs' claims
relate to the ESP explosion, Exxon has retained responsibility for
any liabilities that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the
agreement relating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery.

On July 2, 2018, the Court granted leave to plaintiffs' to file a
Second Amended Complaint alleging groundwater contamination. With
the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs' added an
additional plaintiff.

On March 18, 2019, the class certification hearing was held and the
judge took the matter under submission. On April 1, 2019, the judge
issued an order denying class certification.

PBF Energy said, "As it is currently unclear what the plaintiffs
plan to do regarding the denial of class certification, we cannot
currently estimate the amount or the timing of its resolution. We
presently believe the outcome will not have a material impact on
our financial position, results of operations or cash flows."

PBF Energy Inc., together with its subsidiaries, engages in
refining and supplying petroleum products. The company operates in
two segments, Refining and Logistics. PBF Energy Inc. was founded
in 2008 and is based in Parsippany, New Jersey.


PBF ENERGY: Continues to Defend Kendig Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
PBF Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Michelle Kendig and Jim
Kendig, et al. v. ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, et al.

On September 18, 2018, in Michelle Kendig and Jim Kendig, et al. v.
ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, et al., PBF Energy Limited and Torrance
Refining Company LLC along with ExxonMobil Oil Corporation and
ExxonMobil Pipeline Company were named as defendants in a class
action and representative action complaint filed on behalf of
Michelle Kendig, Jim Kendig and others similarly situated.

The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles and alleges failure to authorize
and permit uninterrupted rest and meal periods, failure to furnish
accurate wage statements, violation of the Private Attorneys
General Act and violation of the California Unfair Business and
Competition Law.

Plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified economic damages, statutory
damages, civil penalties provided by statute, disgorgement of
profits, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, interest,
attorney's fees and costs.

To the extent that plaintiffs' claims accrued prior to July 1,
2016, ExxonMobil has retained responsibility for any liabilities
that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the agreement
relating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery and logistics
assets.

On October 26, 2018, the matter was removed to the Federal Court,
California Central District. A mediation hearing between the
parties is currently scheduled for April 29, 2019.

PBF Energy said, "As this matter is in the class certification
phase, we cannot currently estimate the amount or the timing of its
resolution. We presently believe the outcome will not have a
material impact on our financial position, results of operations or
cash flows."

PBF Energy Inc., together with its subsidiaries, engages in
refining and supplying petroleum products. The company operates in
two segments, Refining and Logistics. PBF Energy Inc. was founded
in 2008 and is based in Parsippany, New Jersey.


PETER CONLEY: Rubencayuqueo Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
CLAUDIO RUBENCAYUQUEO and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. PETER CONLEY, ANA CONLEY, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-22063-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 22, 2019) is an action arising
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

According to the complaint, the Defendants willfully and
intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff's overtime wages as required
by the FLSA as Defendants knew of the wage and overtime
requirements of the FLSA and recklessly failed to investigate
whether Defendants' payroll practices were in accordance with the
FLSA. The Defendants still owe Plaintiff these wages, says the
complaint. It is also believed that Defendants have employed
several other similarly situated employees like Plaintiff who have
not been paid overtime and/or minimum wages for work performed in
excess of 40 hours weekly from the filing of this complaint back
three years.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a construction worker from June
20, 2015 through December 15, 2018.

Defendants are corporate officers and/or owners and/or managers of
the company where Plaintiff worked.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J.H. Zidell, Esq.
     J.H. Zidell, P.A.
     300 71st Street, Suite 605
     Miami Beach, FL 33141
     Phone: (305) 865-6766
     Fax: (305) 865-7167
     Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


POTBELLY CORP: Awaits Court OK to Amend Assistant Managers' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Potbelly Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the court has not ruled
on whether to permit the amendment in the class action suit
initiated by the company's assistant managers.

In October 2017, plaintiffs filed a purported collective and class
action lawsuit (the "Complaint") in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New
York Labor Law (NYLL).

The plaintiffs allege that the Company violated the FLSA and NYLL
by not paying overtime compensation to the company's assistant
managers and violated NYLL by not paying spread-of-hours pay.

The Complaint was brought as a nationwide "collective action" under
the FLSA and as a "class action" under NYLL. Since the filing of
the Complaint, the plaintiffs filed a proposed amended complaint
removing the NYLL class claim, but adding a proposed Illinois state
law class action.

The Court has not ruled on whether to permit this amendment.

The Company believes the assistant managers were properly
classified under state and federal law. The Company intends to
vigorously defend this action.

Potbelly Corporation, through its subsidiaries, owns, operates, and
franchises Potbelly Sandwich Works sandwich shops in the United
States. The company was formerly known as Potbelly Sandwich Works,
Inc. and changed its name to Potbelly Corporation in 2002. Potbelly
Corporation was founded in 1977 and is headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois.


PRICESMART INC: Harari Files Securities Class Suit Over Share Drop
------------------------------------------------------------------
MAX MORRIS HARARI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. PRICESMART, INC., JOSE LUIS
LAPARTE, JOHN M. HEFFNER, and MAARTEN O. JAGER, Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-00958-JM-LL (S.D. Cal., May 22, 2019) is a class action on
behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
PriceSmart securities between October 26, 2017 and October 25,
2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

On October 25, 2018, the Company disclosed poor operating results
for the fourth quarter and year ended August 31, 2018. The Company
also announced that its Chief Executive Officer had resigned, and
also disclosed that certain financial statements would be restated
to correct a balance sheet misclassification of certain assets. On
this news, the Company's share price fell $12.41, or more than 15%,
to close at $69.16 per share on October 26, 2018, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

The complaint asserts that Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company's omni-channel business strategy
had failed to reach key operating goals; (2) that the Company's
South America distribution strategy had failed to realize key cost
saving goals; (3) that the Company had invested Trinidad and Tobago
dollars into certificates of deposits with financial institutions;
(4) that these investments had been improperly classified as cash
and cash equivalents; (5) that the relevant corrections would
materially impact financial statements; (6) that there was a
material weakness in the Company's internal controls over financial
reporting; (7) that increasing competition negatively impacted the
Company's revenue and profitability; and (8) that, as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Max Morris Harari purchased PriceSmart securities during
the Class Period.

PriceSmart owns and operates membership-shopping warehouse clubs in
Central America, the Caribbean, and Colombia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     LIONEL Z. GLANCY, ESQ.
     ROBERT V. PRONGAY, ESQ.
     LESLEY F. PORTNOY, ESQ.
     CHARLES LINEHAN, ESQ.
     PAVITHRA RAJESH, ESQ.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 201-9150
     Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
     Email: info@glancylaw.com


PRICESMART INC: Rosen Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
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 PriceSmart, Inc. (NASDAQ: PSMT) from October 26, 2017
through October 25, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for PriceSmart investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the PriceSmart class action, go
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1581.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company's omni-channel business strategy had failed
to reach key operating goals; (2) the Company's South America
distribution strategy had failed to realize key cost saving goals;
(3) the Company had invested Trinidad and Tobago dollars into
certificates of deposits with financial institutions; (4) these
investments had been improperly classified as cash and cash
equivalents; (5) the relevant corrections would materially impact
financial statements; (6) there was a material weakness in the
Company's internal controls over financial reporting; (7)
increasing competition negatively impacted the Company's revenue
and profitability; and (8) as a result, PriceSmart's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 22,
2019. 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-1581.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

Contact:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                cases@rosenlegal.com [GN]


QUADISCO INC: Lap Distributors Sues Over Unwanted Fax Advertisement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LAP DISTRIBUTORS, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
QUADISCO, INC. D/B/A QUADIS VOICE & DATA SOLUTIONS, a Pennsylvania
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02265-JD (E.D. Pa., May
23, 2019) seeks to stop Defendant's practice of sending
unauthorized and unwanted fax advertisements; and to obtain redress
for all persons and entities injured by its conduct.

In an attempt to generate sales leads, and ultimately increase its
revenues, Quadisco created a fax-based marketing campaign wherein
it sent numerous unsolicited faxes advertising its products and
services. Quadisco sent the fax advertisements at issue to
Plaintiff and members of the Classes despite: (i) having no
previous relationship with them; and (ii) never receiving the
recipients' consent to receive such faxes.

The federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended
by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, ("JFPA" or the "Act"), and
the regulations promulgated under the Act, prohibits a person or
entity from faxing or having an agent fax advertisements without
the recipient's prior express consent, invitation, and permission.
As such, Defendant's fax advertisements violate the JFPA, and
caused Plaintiff and members of the Classes to suffer actual harm,
including the aggravation and nuisance of receiving such faxes, the
loss of use of their fax machines during the receipt of such faxes,
increased labor expenses, and the loss of any ink and paper used to
print them, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Lap Distributors is a corporation incorporated and
existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Quadisco provides voice and data communications products and
systems to businesses in the Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware
areas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Adam T. Savett, Esq.
     Savett Law Offices LLC
     2764 Carole Lane
     Allentown PA 18104
     Phone: (610) 621-4550
     Facsimile: (610) 978-2970
     Email: adam@savettlaw.com


QUALCOMM INC: Bid to Dismiss Calif. Consolidated Class Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the court has denied
the company's motion to dismiss a consolidated class action suit
pending before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California.

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

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

The complaints sought unspecified damages, interest, fees and
costs. On May 4, 2017, the court consolidated the two actions and
appointed lead plaintiffs. On July 3, 2017, the lead plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint asserting the same basic
theories of liability and requesting the same basic relief.

On September 1, 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. On March 18, 2019, the court denied
the company motion to dismiss the complaint. Discovery will
commence in the coming months.

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

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


QUALCOMM INC: Calif. Consumer Action Still Stayed Pending Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that a consolidated consumer
class-action lawsuit remains stayed pending an appeal before the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

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

In April 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred the cases that had been filed in the Southern District
of California to the Northern District of California. On May 15,
2017, the court entered an order appointing the plaintiffs' co-lead
counsel.

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

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

On August 11, 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. On November 10, 2017, the court
denied the company's motion, except to the extent that certain
claims seek damages under the Sherman Antitrust Act. On July 5,
2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, and
the court granted that motion on September 27, 2018.

On January 23, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the
company's permission to appeal the court's class certification
order. On January 24, 2019, the court stayed the case pending the
company's appeal.

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

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


QUALCOMM INC: Securities Suit over Broadcom Merger Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, In re Qualcomm/Broadcom
Merger Securities Litigation (formerly Camp v. Qualcomm
Incorporated et al).

On June 8, 2018 and June 26, 2018, securities class action
complaints were filed by purported stockholders of the company in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California against us and two of our current officers.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the company
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by failing to disclose that the
company had submitted a notice to the Committee on Foreign
Investment in the United States (CFIUS) in January 2018. The
complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, fees and costs.

On January 22, 2019, the Court appointed the lead plaintiff in the
action and designated that the case be captioned "In re
Qualcomm/Broadcom Merger Securities Litigation." On March 18, 2019,
the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint.

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

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


QUALITY LIVE: Ponce-Marquez Sues Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------
JUAN DIEGO PONCE-MARQUEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. QUALITY LIVE POULTRY CORP. V, QUALITY LIVE
POULTRY INC., YOUSEF JAARAH, HAMAD JAARAH, MUST AF A JAARAH, and
KUAR SINGH, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02554 (E.D. N.Y., May 1,
2019) alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), he is entitled to
recover from the Defendants unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime
compensation, unpaid "spread of hours" premium for each day he
worked a shift in excess of 10 hours, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

Plaintiff alleged that he worked over 40 hours per week but was not
paid proper overtime compensation. The Defendants knowingly and
willfully failed to pay Plaintiff his lawfully earned minimum and
overtime wages in direct contravention of the FLSA and New York
Labor Law. The Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay
Plaintiff his lawfully earned "spread of hours" premium in direct
contravention of the New York Labor Law, says the Complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants to work as a non-exempt
poultry handler/cutter at the Slaughterhouse from in or about 2007
until on or about March 16, 2019.

Quality Live Poultry Corp. owns and operates a poultry-small animal
slaughterhouse.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Justin Cilenti, Esq.
     Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
     CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
     10 Grand Central
     155 East 44th Street- 61h Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 209-3933
     Fax: (212) 209-7102
     Email: info@jcpclaw.com


QUANTA SERVICES: Court Awards $7.5MM in Benton Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Quanta Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the court in Lorenzo
Benton v. Telecom Network Specialists, Inc., et al., granted, in
part, the plaintiff class' final motion for summary judgment on
damages awarding the class approximately $7.5 million for its
meal/rest break and overtime claims, and denied the motion as to
penalties

In June 2006, plaintiff Lorenzo Benton filed a class action
complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, alleging various wage and hour violations against Telecom
Network Specialists (TNS), a former subsidiary of Quanta. Quanta
retained liability associated with this matter pursuant to the
terms of Quanta's sale of TNS in December 2012.

Benton represents a class of workers that includes all persons who
worked on certain TNS projects, including individuals that TNS
retained through numerous staffing agencies.

The plaintiff class in this matter is seeking damages for unpaid
wages, penalties associated with the failure to provide meal and
rest periods and overtime wages, interest and attorneys' fees.

In January 2017, the trial court granted a summary judgment motion
filed by the plaintiff class and found that TNS was a joint
employer of the class members and that it failed to provide
adequate meal and rest breaks and failed to pay overtime wages.

In February 2019, the court granted, in part, the plaintiff class's
final motion for summary judgment on damages awarding the class
approximately $7.5 million for its meal/rest break and overtime
claims, and denied the motion as to penalties.

Quanta believes the court's decisions on liability and damages are
not supported by controlling law and continues to contest its
liability and the damage calculation asserted by the plaintiff
class in this matter.

Quanta Services, Inc. provides specialty contracting services in
the United States, Canada, Australia, Latin America, and
internationally. The company serves electric power, energy, and
communications companies, as well as commercial, industrial, and
governmental entities. Quanta Services, Inc. was founded in 1997
and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


RAINBOW SANDALS: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rainbow Sandals, Inc.
The case is styled as Brian Fischler Individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rainbow Sandals,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03102 (E.D. N.Y., May 23, 2019).

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

Rainbow Sandals Inc. specializes in men's and women's leather,
hemp, and rubber flip-flops.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
     Lipsky Lowe LLP
     630 Third Avenue
     New York, NY 10017-6705
     Phone: (212) 392-4772
     Fax: (212) 444-1030
     Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


ROADRUNNER TRANS: Continues to Defend Gomez Class Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6,
2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the
company continues to defend a class action suit brought by Fernando
Gomez.

In December 2018, a class action lawsuit was brought against the
Company in the Superior Court of the State of California by
Fernando Gomez, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
persons, alleging violation of California labor laws.

The Company is currently determining the effects of this lawsuit
and intends to vigorously defend against such claims; however,
there can be no assurance that it will be able to prevail.

Roadrunner said, "In light of the relatively early stage of the
proceedings, the Company is unable to predict the potential costs
or range of costs at this time."

Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. provides asset-right
transportation and asset-light logistics services. The company
operates through three segments: Truckload & Express Services
(TES), Less-than-Truckload (LTL), and Ascent Global Logistics.
Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. is headquartered in Downers
Grove, Illinois.


ROADRUNNER TRANS: Stipulation of Settlement Submitted in WI Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6,
2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the
parties in the case entitled, In re Roadrunner Transportation
Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation (Case No. 17-cv-00144) have
submitted a Stipulation of Settlement to the Court for preliminary
approval.

Following the Company's press release on January 30, 2017, three
putative class actions were filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin against the Company and
its former officers, Mark A. DiBlasi and Peter R. Armbruster.

On May 19, 2017, the Court consolidated the actions under the
caption In re Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. Securities
Litigation (Case No. 17-cv-00144), and appointed Public Employees'
Retirement System as lead plaintiff. On March 12, 2018, the lead
plaintiff filed the Consolidated Amended Complaint ("CAC") on
behalf of a class of persons who purchased the Company's common
stock between March 14, 2013 and January 30, 2017, inclusive.

The CAC alleges (i) the Company and Messrs. DiBlasi and Armbruster
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and (ii)
Messrs. DiBlasi and Armbruster, the Company's former Chairman Scott
Rued, HCI Equity Partners, L.L.C., and HCI Equity Management, L.P.
violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making or causing to
be made materially false or misleading statements, or failing to
disclose material facts, regarding (a) the accuracy of the
Company's financial statements; (b) the Company's true earnings and
expenses; (c) the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure
controls and controls over financial reporting; (d) the true nature
and depth of financial risk associated with the Company's tractor
lease guaranty program; (e) the Company's leverage ratios and
compliance with its credit facilities; and (f) the value of the
goodwill the Company carried on its balance sheet.

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

On November 19, 2018, the parties entered into a binding term sheet
agreeing to settle the action for $20 million, $17.9 million of
which will be funded by the Company's D&O carriers ($4.8 million of
which is by way of a pass through of the D&O carriers' payment to
the Company in connection with the settlement of the Federal
Derivative Action described below).

The settlement is conditioned on a settlement of the Federal
Derivative Action (Kent v. Stoelting et al (Case No. 17-cv-00893),
dismissal of the State Derivative Action (Case No. 17-cv-004401),
and final court approval of the settlements in this action and in
the Federal Derivative Action.

The parties have submitted a Stipulation of Settlement to the Court
for preliminary approval.

Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. provides asset-right
transportation and asset-light logistics services. The company
operates through three segments: Truckload & Express Services
(TES), Less-than-Truckload (LTL), and Ascent Global Logistics.
Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. is headquartered in Downers
Grove, Illinois.


RUMBLE FITNESS: Andrews Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rumble Fitness, LLC.
The case is styled as Victor Andrews, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. Rumble Fitness, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03094 (E.D.
N.Y., May 23, 2019).

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

Rumble Fitness, LLC provides boxing training classes for
individuals. It also sells its boxing classes, boxing gift cards,
wraps, and bottled water online, as well as provides gloves for
rental.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dan Shaked, Esq.
     Shaked Law Group, P.C.
     44 Court Street, Suite 1217
     Brooklyn, NY 11217
     Phone: (917) 373-9128
     Fax: (718) 504-7555
     Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Deka Class Action Still Stayed
--------------------------------------------------
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the case
entitled, Deka Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA
Holdings Inc. et al., is still stayed.  

The Company is a defendant in a purported securities class action
lawsuit (the Deka Lawsuit) in the United States District Court,
Northern District of Texas, captioned Deka Investment GmbH et al.
v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K.


The Deka Lawsuit, which was filed in August 26, 2014, was brought
against the Company, certain of its current and former directors
and executive officers and certain institutions that served as
underwriters in the Company's IPO on behalf of a class consisting
of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's
securities between January 23, 2014 and June 12, 2014.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company's
initial public offering (IPO) registration statement and prospectus
and certain subsequent public disclosures violated federal
securities laws by containing misleading statements concerning the
Company's ability to pay dividends and the adequacy of the
Company's compliance systems and oversight.

In December 2015, the Company and the individual defendants moved
to dismiss the lawsuit, which was denied.

In December 2016, the plaintiffs moved to certify the proposed
classes. In July 2017, the court entered an order staying the Deka
Lawsuit pending the resolution of the appeal of a class
certification order in In re Cobalt Int'l Energy, Inc. Sec. Litig.,
No. H-14-3428, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91938 (S.D. Tex. June 15,
2017).

In October 2018, the court vacated the order staying the Deka
Lawsuit and ordered that merits discovery in the Deka Lawsuit be
stayed until the court ruled on the issue of class certification.

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

Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc., a specialized consumer
finance company, provides vehicle finance and third-party servicing
in the United States. Its products and services include retail
installment contracts and vehicle leases, as well as dealer loans
for inventory, construction, real estate, working capital, and
revolving lines of credit. The company was founded in 1995 and is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Santander Consumer USA Holdings
Inc. is a subsidiary of Santander Holdings USA, Inc.


SEQUANS COMMUNICATIONS: Bid to Dismiss Reener Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sequans Communications S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the parties in the
consolidated Reener action and Shillito action are awaiting the
Court's decision on a previously-filed motion to dismiss.

On August 9, 2017, a putative securities class action captioned
Andrew Renner v. Sequans Communications S.A., Georges Karam, and
Deborah Choate (Case 1:17-cv-04665) was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The plaintiff alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on purported
misrepresentations regarding Sequans' revenue recognition policy in
the Company's Form 20-F annual reports filed on April 29, 2016 and
March 31, 2017.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and costs and fees.

On August 10, 2017, an almost identical class action complaint
captioned Kevin Shillito v. Sequans Communications S.A., Georges
Karam, and Deborah Choate (Case 2:17-cv-04707) was filed in the
same court.

On September 28, 2017, the Shillito action was consolidated with
the Renner action.

On October 10, 2017, candidates to be the lead plaintiff filed
motions to appoint a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On February
6, 2018, the Court appointed the lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.
Lead plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended Complaint (the
"CAC") on April 9, 2018, which did not significantly alter the
allegations made in the earlier pleadings.

On May 24, 2018, the Company, Mr. Karam and Ms. Choate filed a
pre-motion letter requesting permission to file a motion to dismiss
the CAC, a request that was granted on August 21, 2018. The motion
to dismiss was fully briefed and filed (along with lead plaintiffs'
opposition briefing) on November 30, 2018.

On December 12, 2018, at the parties' request, the Court stayed the
action pending a scheduled mediation. The mediation occurred on
February 7, 2019, but did not result in a resolution of the case.

On February 12, 2019, the Court lifted the stay, and the parties
await the Court's decision on the previously-filed motion to
dismiss.

Sequans Communications S.A., together with its subsidiaries,
engages in fabless designing, developing, and supplying 4G LTE
semiconductor solutions for wireless broadband and Internet of
Things applications. Sequans Communications S.A. was founded in
2003 and is headquartered in Paris, France.


SEVEN POINT ENERGY: Crigler Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
William Crigler, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Seven Point Energy Services,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00604-MJH (W.D. Pa., May 22,
2019) is a Collective and Class Action Complaint against Defendant
seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 ("FLSA"), the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA"),
and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA").

This lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime
compensation for Plaintiff and other similarly situated co-workers
who work or have worked for Defendant. Plaintiff and the Hourly
Employees regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek
without being paid wages for all hours worked and without being
paid overtime wages, in violation of the FLSA, Ohio law, and
Pennsylvania law, says the complaint. During the entire time that
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant, Plaintiff was not paid
properly for his driving time. Defendant cannot dispute that it
owed Plaintiff and Collective Action Members overtime compensation
for all hours worked over 40. Plaintiff complained about
Defendant's pay practices to his superiors, but they did not remedy
their failure to pay him for all hours worked, the complaint adds.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant, including from approximately
December 2018 until in and around February 2019.

Defendant maintains control, oversight, and discretion over the
operations of worksites, including employment practices with
respect to Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
     Robert Peirce & Associates, P.C.
     707 Grant Street, Suite 2500
     Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1918
     Phone: 412-281-7229
     Email: arihn@peircelaw.com

          - and -

     Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
     Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
     Erick J. Quezada, Esq.
     Migliaccio & Rathod LLP
     412 H Street N.E., Suite 302
     Washington, DC 20002
     Phone: 202-470-3520
     Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
            jrathod@classlawdc.com
            equezada@classlawdc.com


SHUTTERFLY INC: Awaits Arbitrator's Decision in Taylor Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shutterfly, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company has
successfully compelled the matter, Taylor v. Shutterfly, Inc., to
private arbitration and is awaiting a decision from the arbitrator
whether the class action waiver contained in the terms of use that
the plaintiff agreed to is enforceable.

On December 12, 2017, Megan Taylor filed a purported class action
complaint on behalf of herself and other customers in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

The complaint alleges that the Company misrepresents a deal it
currently offers through Groupon because it does not allow
purchasers of the Groupon offer to combine or "stack" it with other
promotional codes offered by the Company.

The Company successfully compelled the matter to private
arbitration and is awaiting a decision from the arbitrator whether
the class action waiver contained in the terms of use that the
plaintiff agreed to is enforceable.

Taylor is seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief.

The Company believes the suit is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against it.

Shutterfly, Inc. manufactures and retails personalized products
primarily in the United States, Canada, and the European Community.
The company operates through three reportable segments: Shutterfly
Consumer, Lifetouch, and Shutterfly Business Solutions. Shutterfly,
Inc. was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Redwood City,
California.


SHUTTERFLY INC: Claims in Monroy Class Action Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Shutterfly, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois has dismissed the claims in
Monroy v. Shutterfly, Inc., with prejudice.

On November 30, 2016, Alejandro Monroy on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, filed a complaint against the Company in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The complaint asserts that the Company violated the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act by extracting his and others'
biometric identifiers from photographs and seeks statutory damages
and an injunction. Monroy was seeking monetary damages and
injunctive relief.

On April 8, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois dismissed Monroy's claims with prejudice.

Shutterfly, Inc. manufactures and retails personalized products
primarily in the United States, Canada, and the European Community.
The company operates through three reportable segments: Shutterfly
Consumer, Lifetouch, and Shutterfly Business Solutions. Shutterfly,
Inc. was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Redwood City,
California.


SHUTTERFLY INC: Lifetouch Faces Davis Class Suit
------------------------------------------------
Shutterfly, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company subsidiary
Lifetouch, Inc. is defending against a purported class action suit
entitled, Antonio Davis v. Lifetouch, Inc.

On March 10, 2019, Antonio Davis filed a purported class action
complaint on behalf of himself and other Lifetouch customers in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.

The complaint alleges that Lifetouch violated Kansas consumer
protection statutes prohibiting the sale of unsolicited goods.
Davis is seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief.

The Company believes the suit is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against it.

Shutterfly, Inc. manufactures and retails personalized products
primarily in the United States, Canada, and the European Community.
The company operates through three reportable segments: Shutterfly
Consumer, Lifetouch, and Shutterfly Business Solutions. Shutterfly,
Inc. was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Redwood City,
California.


SHUTTERFLY INC: Notice of Appeal Filed in Vigeant Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Shutterfly, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that a notice of appeal has
been filed in the case, Vigeant v Meek et al., with the Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals.

On March 1, 2018, a purported class action complaint was filed
against several directors of Lifetouch, Inc. (which became a direct
wholly-owned subsidiary of Shutterfly on April 2, 2018) and the
trustee of the Lifetouch Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the "ESOP")
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

On April 2, 2018, the complaint was amended to include the prior
ESOP trustees and plan sponsor (Lifetouch) as additional named
defendants.

The complaint alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, including that the ESOP should not have been
permitted to continue investing in Lifetouch stock during a period
in which the Lifetouch stock price was declining.

The plaintiffs seek recovery for damages arising from the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty.

On November 7, 2018, the District Court granted defendant's motion
to dismiss in its entirety and with prejudice.

Plaintiffs' counsel filed a timely notice of appeal with the 8th
Circuit Court of Appeals.

Shutterfly, Inc. manufactures and retails personalized products
primarily in the United States, Canada, and the European Community.
The company operates through three reportable segments: Shutterfly
Consumer, Lifetouch, and Shutterfly Business Solutions. Shutterfly,
Inc. was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Redwood City,
California.


SI FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Bushanksy Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
SI Financial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Bushanksy v. SI Financial
Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00321.

On March 5, 2019, one purported SI Financial stockholder filed a
putative class action lawsuit against SI Financial and the members
of the SI Financial board of directors in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut, captioned Bushanksy
v. SI Financial Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00321.

The plaintiff, on behalf of himself and similarly-situated SI
Financial stockholders, generally alleged that the Proxy
Statement/Prospectus contained material misstatements and omissions
in violation of Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder.

The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, rescission of the merger or
rescissory damages (if the merger is consummated), declaratory
relief, and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

As of May 17, 2019, SI Financial Group, Inc. was acquired by
Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. SI Financial Group, Inc. operates as
the holding company for Savings Institute Bank and Trust Company
that provides various financial services to consumers and
businesses. SI Financial Group, Inc. was founded in 1842 and is
headquartered in Willimantic, Connecticut.


SI FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Raul Class Action in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
SI Financial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Raul v. SI Financial Group,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02038.  

On March 5, 2019, one purported SI Financial stockholder filed a
putative class action lawsuit against SI Financial and the members
of the SI Financial board of directors in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned
Raul v. SI Financial Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02038.

The plaintiff generally alleged that the proxy statement/prospectus
filed on February 26, 2019 with the SEC contains material and
misleading statements or material misrepresentations or omissions
in violation of Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder.

The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, unspecified damages, a
direction that SI Financial and the SI Financial board of directors
disseminate a corrective amendment to the Proxy
Statement/Prospectus, and an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses.

As of May 17, 2019, SI Financial Group, Inc. was acquired by
Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. SI Financial Group, Inc. operates as
the holding company for Savings Institute Bank and Trust Company
that provides various financial services to consumers and
businesses. SI Financial Group, Inc. was founded in 1842 and is
headquartered in Willimantic, Connecticut.


SI FINANCIAL: Parshall Class Action Underway in Baltimore
---------------------------------------------------------
SI Financial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Parshall v. Mark Alliod, et
al., Docket No. C-03-CV-19-000124.

On December 11, 2018, the Company entered into a Merger Agreement
with Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. ("Berkshire"). Under the Merger
Agreement, the Company will merge with and into Berkshire, with
Berkshire as the surviving corporation, in an all-stock
transaction. The stockholders of the Company approved the Merger
Agreement at a meeting of the Company's stockholders held on April
2, 2019.

On February 20, 2019, one purported SI Financial stockholder filed
a putative class action lawsuit against SI Financial, Berkshire
Hills and the members of the SI Financial board of directors in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore County, captioned Parshall v. Mark
Alliod, et al., Docket No. C-03-CV-19-000124 (the "Complaint").

The plaintiff, on behalf of himself and similarly-situated SI
Financial stockholders, generally alleged that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to SI Financial and its
stockholders in connection with the Merger Agreement. The Complaint
alleged that the defendants failed to secure adequate value for SI
Financial stockholders in connection with the merger and that the
registration statement filed with the SEC on February 4, 2019
contained materially incomplete information regarding the merger.

The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, rescission of the merger or
rescissory damages (if the merger is consummated), other
unspecified damages, and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.


As of May 17, 2019, SI Financial Group, Inc. was acquired by
Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. SI Financial Group, Inc. operates as
the holding company for Savings Institute Bank and Trust Company
that provides various financial services to consumers and
businesses. SI Financial Group, Inc. was founded in 1842 and is
headquartered in Willimantic, Connecticut.


SI-BONE INC: Wants Fromer Chiropractic's Suit Tossed or Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
SI-BONE, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company filed a
motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay the action filed
by Eric B. Fromer Chiropractic, Inc., pending resolution of the PDR
Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic Inc.

On February 6, 2019, a putative class action captioned Eric B.
Fromer Chiropractic, Inc. v. SI-BONE, Inc. (Civil Action No.
5:19-cv-633-SVK), was filed in the United States District Court,
Northern District of California.

The complaint alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (the "TCPA") on behalf of an individual and putative
classes 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 Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends
to vigorously defend itself in the action.

On March 28, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss or, in the
alternative, to stay the action pending resolution of the PDR
Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic Inc. case currently
before the U.S. Supreme Court, the outcome of which may affect this
case.

SI-BONE said, "It is too early in this matter to reasonably predict
the probability of the outcomes or to estimate the range of
possible loss, if any."

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.


SIMPLEHUMAN LLC: Kiler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Simplehuman, LLC. The
case is styled as Marion Kiler on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Simplehuman, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-03096 (E.D. N.Y., May 23, 2019).

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

Simplehuman is a privately owned designer and manufacturer of
kitchen, bath and beauty tools.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dan Shaked, Esq.
     Shaked Law Group, P.C.
     44 Court Street, Suite 1217
     Brooklyn, NY 11217
     Phone: (917) 373-9128
     Fax: (718) 504-7555
     Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


SKECHERS U.S.A.: Wilk Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
-------------------------------------------------
EALEEN WILK, an individual, the Plaintiff, vs. SKECHERS U.S.A.,
INC. and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
5:18-cv-01921-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for
an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the action as a representative
      collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), pursuant to

      the Fair Labor Standards Act;

   2. facilitating and authorizing notice of the action to
      prospective collective action members, pursuant to the FLSA:

      "consisting of all current and former non-exempt employees
of
      Defendant, who were employed by Defendant and who received
      commissions, non-discretionary bonuses and/or other items of

      compensation and worked overtime during one or more pay
      periods from September 10, 2015, through the present";

   3. approving proposed Notice and Consent Forms;

   4. directing Defendants to produce to the third-party
      administrator retained by class counsel to administer the
      Notice, Simpluris, Inc., the names, addresses, alternate
      addresses, email addresses, and all telephone numbers of all

      Putative FLSA Class Members; that such information shall be
      provided in Microsoft Excel format to Plaintiff’s counsel
      within 10 days of the date of the Court’s Order granting
this
      motion;

   5. directing all Putative FLSA Class Members to have 90 days
      from the sending of the Notice to postmark their Consents to

      Join and mail such Consents to the third-party administrator

      retained by class counsel to administer the Notice,
      Simpluris, Inc.; and

   6. conditionally certifying Mayall Hurley, P.C. as FLSA class
      counsel.[CC]

Attorneys for Ealeen Wilk and the Putative Class:

          Robert J. Wasserman, Esq.
          William J. Gorham, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Scardigli, Esq.
          Vladimir J. Kozina, Esq.
          MAYALL HURLEY P.C.
          2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
          Stockton, CA 95207-8253
          Telephone: (209) 477-3833
          Facsimile: (209) 473-4818
          E-mail: rwasserman@mayallaw.com
                  wgorham@mayallaw.com
                  nscardigli@mayallaw.com
                  vjkozina@mayallaw.com

SKY SOLAR: New York Court Dismisses A. Barilli Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned ANDREW BARILLI and RONALD
PENA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. SKY SOLAR HOLDINGS, LTD., WEILI SU, JIANMIN WANG, YI
ZHANG, XIAOGUANG DUAN, HAO WU, DONGLIANG LIN, RORTH CAPITAL
PARTNERS, LLC, and NORTHLAND SECURITIES, INC., Defendants. No. 17
CV 4572-LTS-DCF. (S.D.N.Y.).

Andrew Barilli and Ronald Pena (Plaintiffs) bring this action
against Sky Solar Holdings, Ltd. (Sky), Roth Capital Partners, LLC
(Roth), and Northland Securities, Inc. (Underwriter Defendants),
Weili Su, Jainmin Wang, Yi Zhang, Xiaoguang Duan, Hao Wu, and
Dongliang Lin (Defendants), asserting claims for violations of
section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) (Section
11), section 15 of the Securities Act, (Section 15), section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) (Section
10(b)) and 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5 (Rule 10b-5), and section
20(a) of the Exchange Act, (Section 20(a)).

In determining whether a plaintiff has set forth the short and
plain statement of the claim showing that she is entitled to relief
required by the Federal Rules, the Court looks to whether the
allegations in the complaint establish the facial plausibility of
the plaintiff's claims. A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.

Securities Act Claims

Section 11 of the Securities Act imposes strict liability on
issuers and signatories, and negligence liability on underwriters,
where any part of the registration statement, when such part became
effective, contained an untrue statement of a material fact or
omitted to state a material fact required to be stated therein or
necessary to make the statements therein not misleading.

In judging whether an alleged omission was material in light of the
information already disclosed to investors, courts in this Circuit
consider whether there is a substantial likelihood that the
disclosure of the omitted material would have been viewed by the
reasonable investor as having significantly altered the total mix
of information already made available. The court's inquiry should
not focus on whether the particular statements, taken separately,
were literally true, but whether defendants' representations, taken
together and in context, would have misled a reasonable investor
about the nature of the securities.

The Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs' Securities Act claims
should be dismissed because Plaintiffs have failed to identify any
actionable material misrepresentations or omissions and that the
claims are, in any event, time barred under the relevant statutes
of limitation and/or repose. The Court turns first to the
sufficiency of Plaintiffs' claims of materially misleading
statements and omissions.

Allegedly Untrue or Misleading Statements

Certain categories of statements are immaterial as a matter of law,
such as puffery, opinions, and forward-looking statements
accompanied by adequate cautionary language. Puffery is an
optimistic statement that is so vague, broad, and non-specific that
a reasonable investor would not rely on it, thereby rendering it
immaterial as a matter of law.

The Defendants argue that many of the statements on which the
Plaintiffs base their claims were merely puffery, and are thus not
actionable.

The Defendants also argue that many of the challenged statements
constituted opinions rather than assertions of fact.

In order to state claims based on false or misleading statements of
opinion, which are otherwise not actionable, Plaintiffs must allege
that (1) the speaker does not hold the belief professed; (2) the
facts supplied in support of the belief professed are untrue or (3)
the speaker omits information that makes the statement misleading
to a reasonable investor.

The Defendants assert that certain of the challenged statements
cannot support viable claims because they were forward looking
statements and were accompanied by sufficient cautionary language.
Forward looking statements are protected by the bespeaks caution
doctrine if such statements are accompanied by cautionary language
such that, when examined in the context of the total mix of
information, the statement would not mislead an investor.  

The Plaintiffs' SAC identifies several categories of information in
the registration statement and/or prospectus as violative of the
Securities Act.

Statements Regarding Su's Conduct and Business Acumen

The Plaintiffs assert that the Prospectus's positive statements
about Su's experience and business acumen, as well as positive
statements about Sky's management team more generally, were
materially misleading insofar as they were not accompanied by
disclosures of Su's alleged prior failures in the solar industry
and unethical conduct, specifically the seven judgments totaling
$44 million entered against him in Chinese courts, the purported
true nature of the SSD transaction allegedly undertaken to defraud
Sky's predecessor's creditors, and the fraud that was perpetrated
by Su's business partners in connection with the project in Spain.


Omissions concerning corporate mismanagement or uncharged criminal
conduct are not actionable unless the non-disclosures render other
statements by defendants misleading. Such omissions become
materially misleading and must thus be disclosed in three
circumstances: (1) when a corporation puts the reasons for its
success at issue, but fails to disclose that a material source of
its success is the use of improper or illegal business practices
(2) when a defendant makes a statement that can be understood, by a
reasonable investor, to deny that the illegal conduct is occurring
and (3) when a defendant states an opinion that, absent disclosure,
misleads investors about material facts underlying that belief.

Here, similarly, the absence of disclosures regarding facts and
allegations regarding Su's past business relationships did not, as
a matter of law, render Sky's statements misleading. None of the
omitted material would contradict the disclosures that Su was
responsible for Sky's strategic planning and would be essential to
Sky's future success. Nor does Plaintiff contend that the facts
recited in the disclosure documents regarding Su's roles in
connection with the Spanish solar park and other projects were
false. None of these statements became misleading in the absence of
information relating to Su's past alleged misdeeds because none of
them affirmatively represented that Su did not engage in past
improper transactions as alleged by Plaintiffs, nor would the
statements lead a reasonable investor to conclude as much.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Securities Act claims based on
statements in the Prospectus about Su's history and attributes, as
well as those made about Sky's management generally, fail to allege
facts supporting an inference of falsity or material omission that
renders them misleading and will be dismissed.

Statements Regarding the Adequacy of Sky's Internal Controls

The Plaintiffs next assert that statements describing Sky's
implementation of internal controls to evaluate and approve
related-party transactions, its code of ethics, and the recitation
of the fiduciary duties of Sky's directors under Cayman Islands law
were misleading because the controls were either inadequate or
nonexistent, as evidenced by Su's subsequent misconduct, and that
such information was material in light Su's past misconduct.

Similarly, statements regarding the introduction of internal
controls do not, standing alone, constitute assertions that the
controls are adequate, nor does a subsequent circumvention of such
controls support an inference that descriptive statements about the
implementation of such controls were false. In fact, the Prospectus
disclosed both weaknesses in its internal controls and the risk
that one of Sky's challenges in transitioning from a small, private
company to a public corporation was that continued weaknesses of
such internal controls, which the creation of the audit committee
and related-party review process were intended to address, put at
risk Sky's ability to prevent fraud.

The statements were made to reassure the public about the company's
integrity, while management was aware of corruption within the
company. The Plaintiffs have pointed to no such use of assurances
in Sky's Prospectus to conceal known, ongoing ethical violations,
and, as Defendants highlight, the Prospectus disclosed the current
weaknesses of Sky's internal controls, which included the
related-party transaction review process, and the risk that Sky
would not completely remedy these weaknesses.  

Sky's claims based on alleged misrepresentations and omissions
concerning its internal governance procedures will be dismissed for
failure to state a claim.

Market Conditions in Japan

The Plaintiffs next contend that Sky's positive characterizations
of the Japanese market, both generally and as it would affect Sky,
were false and materially misleading in that actual conditions were
unfavorable.

To the extent the Plaintiffs contend that these statements were
misleading because the statements failed to convey accurate
information about the state of the Japanese solar market, The
Defendants argue that the SAC fails to state a claim because
information regarding the conditions and regulatory actions
Plaintiffs allege were not disclosed was publicly available at the
time the Prospectus was filed and/or was actually disclosed in the
Prospectus. A defendant has no duty to disclose information that is
within the public domain through publication in the news media.   

Here, the general state of the Japanese solar market, information
about which was published in several articles cited by Plaintiffs
in the SAC, was not information uniquely within Defendants' control
and thus Defendants had no duty to disclose such information.
Furthermore, Sky disclosed the relevant Japanese regulatory actions
and grid limitations in the Prospectus.

The Plaintiff argues that the Court should not deem knowledge of
the Japanese markets to be within the public domain because the
articles disclosing the economic conditions were in highly
specialized or Asian publications and because the Japanese
legislation, the Strategic Energy Plan, and Ministry of Economy,
Trade and Industry (METI) actions were highly complex and technical
and, in the case of the legislation, not available in English at
the time. The cited articles and the Prospectus, however, provide
the context of the legal and regulatory developments in Japan, were
published in the English language, and were equally available to
both Sky and Plaintiffs.

In general, Sky's statements about the attractiveness of the market
and statements characterizing the feed-in tariffs (FIT) levels as
favorable or generous constitute statements of opinion that, while
optimistic, were not so inconsistent with the underlying facts as
to support an inference that Sky did not actually believe the
opinions, nor has Plaintiff shown that they were misleading.

The Plaintiffs allege that Japan reduced its FIT subsidies to
diversify new power generation projects, but do not allege that
subsidies were eliminated or that the reductions rendered future
solar projects economically infeasible. While the reduction of FIT
subsidies and the suspension of new solar projects by some
utilities could have provided a basis for pessimism, Plaintiffs
have offered no factual allegations from which to infer that Sky
could not have found the Japanese market attractive for other
reasons or in comparison to other national markets, even if the
regulatory environment and energy market had become less favorable
than it had previously been or did not actually develop as Sky had
hoped.

Sky's assertion in the Prospectus that recent government
investigations and rulings should accelerate the development of
solar parks within Sky's Japanese pipeline, cannot be read as false
and will be dismissed. In the SAC, Plaintiffs allege that the
reduction in subsidies would in fact incentivize Sky to accelerate
the development of its projects to secure the most favorable FIT
rates, although Plaintiffs characterize this as a negative
development because Sky could not take advantage of future
decreases in construction costs and would be exposed to higher FIT
rates if construction was not timely completed. This statement was
not false and, thus, may not form the basis of a Securities Act
claim.

The Defendants' motion to dismiss will be granted with respect to
the statements made in connection with the Japanese market and
Sky's operations there.

Item 303 and 503 Claims

The Plaintiffs assert that Sky had an independent obligation under
Items 303 and 503 of SEC Regulation S-K to disclose the state of
the Japanese regulatory environment.

Item 303 requires a registrant to describe any known trends or
uncertainties that have had or that the registrant reasonably
expects will have a material favorable or unfavorable effect on net
sales or revenues or income from continuing operations and disclose
events that will cause a material change in the relationship
between costs and revenues. Similarly, Item 503 of SEC Regulation
S-K creates a duty to disclose "the most significant factors that
make the offering speculative or risky. Plaintiffs assert that Item
503 created a requirement that Sky disclose the same information
they assert is required under Item 303, plus Su's civil liability
for allegedly avoiding debt, as a significant risk to the company.

To the extent that Plaintiffs argue that the relevant disclosures
were obscured by Sky's other more optimistic statements, these
optimistic statements were, as previously explained, non-actionable
statements of opinion and Plaintiffs have not stated a viable
Securities Act Claim on the theory that the optimistic statements
rendered in the Prospectus noncompliant with Items 303 and 503.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Securities Act claim based upon Sky's
duties under Item 303 will be dismissed and, for substantially the
same reasons, the claim will also be dismissed to the extent it
relies on Item 503.

Market Conditions in Chile

The Plaintiffs allege that Sky made misleading statements about the
condition of the solar power market in Chile, misleading statements
about which projects in Chile were shovel ready, and a false
statement that it had financing in place with the IADB. Plaintiffs
also point to Sky's positive statements about the condition of the
Chilean solar power market and Sky's prospects in that market.

Sky's characterizations of the Chilean solar market and Sky's
prospects to prosper within it, like Sky's statements regarding the
attractiveness of the Japanese market, were statements of opinion,
and the challenges cited by Plaintiffs are not so inconsistent with
the view expressed as to support an inference that Sky could not
have believed its own statements of optimism.

The Plaintiffs assert that Sky's representation that it had 44 MW
of shovel-ready projects in Chile was false because it did not have
grid connection permits for those projects and the Prospectus
defined shovel-ready projects as, inter alia, ones having all
permits required for construction and grid connection, except
certain non-discretionary permits that are granted if the technical
or administrative requirements are met.

The Plaintiffs' allegation that designating these projects as
shovel-ready was misleading because the technical permits were very
complicated and time-consuming to obtain is also without merit. The
definition of a shovel-ready project only specified that permits
that had not yet been granted were non-discretionary, not that they
would be easy to obtain. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to
state a claim that Sky's statements about the status of Sky's
Chilean projects were misleading.

Statements About Sky's Geographic Reach and Projects

The Plaintiffs allege that Sky also made several misrepresentations
in the Prospectus about its broad geographic reach and established
presence across key solar markets as well as about the state of its
established pipeline projects. Plaintiffs contend that Sky was
actually scaling back its presence in or divesting from operations
in several of the countries in which it operated.

The Defendants assert that these statements amount to immaterial
puffery, characterizing them as vague statements upon which no
reasonable investor would rely.

The Court agrees that no reasonable investor would read statements
about Sky's purportedly global presence as describing a certain
minimum presence in a threshold number of countries, and in fact,
despite Sky's allegedly reduced operations, Plaintiffs do not
allege that Sky's operations became strictly local to one
geographic area.  

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Securities Act claims relating to
these statements about Sky's geographic reach will be dismissed.

Statements Concerning Sky's Access to Financing

The Plaintiffs allege that Sky made several statements that
misleadingly represented that Sky had access to financing to build
out its solar projects. The Plaintiffs allege that, in fact, Sky
had limited access to financing, raising over $75 million less than
originally anticipated from the IPO and only being able to obtain
financing from vendors selling inferior solar equipment and from
Japanese silent partners on distressed terms.

These statements are not actionable, however, because they
constituted forward-looking statements accompanied by appropriate
cautionary language, and/or were puffery.

Plaintiffs argue that Sky's cautionary language was boiler-plate
and did not contain warnings that were specific enough so as to be
meaningful. Adequate cautionary language must be tailored to the
specific future projections, estimates or opinions in the
prospectus which the plaintiffs challenge, rather than a vague
statement that the investment generally entails risks.  

Sky's disclosure was not vague or of a boilerplate level of
generalization. It was specific to risks affecting access to
financing, and enumerated such relevant risks. Plaintiffs' argument
that Sky's failure to change these warnings between the third draft
of the Prospectus and the final version notwithstanding the drop in
projected IPO revenues renders the warnings boilerplate is without
merit. Although the amount Sky forecasted it would raise from the
IPO did change during that period, Sky changed the relevant
financial figures in the disclosure and Plaintiffs proffer no facts
that would plausibly support an inference that the risks Sky faced
with respect to access to loans from third parties changed between
drafts. The cautionary language was also closely tied to the risks
that caused Plaintiffs' loss, namely that lenders would lose
confidence in Sky and that the political, regulatory, and market
environment for solar power had deteriorated, resulting in Sky's
diminished ability to raise funds to develop more solar projects.

Plaintiffs' claims based on allegations that Sky misrepresented its
ability to secure financing will, therefore, be dismissed.

Statements Regarding Sky's Ability to Expand

Plaintiffs contend that the Prospectus misrepresented Sky's ability
to expand its assets and operations. Specifically, Sky stated in
the Prospectus that it was developing certain projects around the
world, including several that were shovel-ready, which Sky expected
to be ready for funding in 12 to 18 months, and that certain
projects could begin construction upon the receipt of
administrative permits. Plaintiffs contend that these statements,
which implied that several projects would be built within a
relatively short time frame, were misleading because Sky failed to
adjust its project development forecast based on the vastly reduced
proceeds from the IPO, thus supporting an inference that Sky no
longer had the ability to expand such assets.

Sky's statements made in connection with its ability to develop its
shovel-ready and pipeline projects constituted forward-looking
statements tempered by appropriate cautionary language. Although
Sky did not alter its projections for the development of its
shovel-ready and pipeline projects, Sky did accurately reduce its
allocations for the funds it expected to raise through the IPO
amongst its broad spending categories. The fact that the final IPO
resulted in a reduced amount of cash on hand for investments
supports the simple inference that Sky intended to accomplish the
same development goals by increasing its reliance on loans and on
financing from other sources.  

Plaintiffs' claim based on its contention that Defendants
misrepresented Sky's ability to expand its operations will be
dismissed.

Sky's Disclosure of its Reasons for Shifting to an IPP Business
Model

Plaintiffs allege that Sky's statement in its Prospectus that the
IPP model would generate a more stable and recurring long-term cash
flow concealed Sky's true rationale for moving from a model in
which it developed and sold solar projects to an IPP model, and
that the omission of the alleged true rationale was material.
Plaintiffs contend that Sky was only able to build projects with
inferior solar modules because these vendors were the only parties
willing to extend financing to Sky, thus diminishing the appeal of
Sky's solar projects to potential project buyers.

Defendants argue that, even if Plaintiffs' contention as to Sky's
motivation were true, disclosing Sky's decision to turn away from a
failing business model in favor of another model would not add
material information. Indeed, Plaintiffs have not alleged, and the
Court finds no basis upon which to draw a reasonable inference,
that disclosure of Sky's alleged reasoning for abandoning its
previous model based on the sale of projects would have
significantly altered the total mix of relevant information
available to an investor who was considering investing in Sky's new
IPP model.

Plaintiffs' Securities Act claims will therefore be dismissed with
respect to Sky's statements
related to its reasons for switching to an IPP model.

Other Alleged Misrepresentations

Plaintiffs assert that Sky's disclosure that it was subject to
lawsuits and other hostile conduct was misleading because it did
not disclose that Plaintiffs' confidential witness also contended
that he too was cheated by Su of his ownership interest in Sky
Solar.

The Prospectus, however, cannot be found false or misleading on
this basis because the disclosure of the lawsuit and attendant
conduct was given by way of example and was the same type of
malfeasance that Plaintiffs' confidential witness alleges Su
committed. If anything, the Prospectus supports an inference that
other suits against Sky were ongoing or at least possible.

Plaintiffs' Securities Act claims based on this conduct will
therefore be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Plaintiffs also allege that the Prospectus's characterization of Fu
as an independent, rather than a related, third party in connection
with the SSD transaction was materially misleading.

Plaintiffs have offered only a conclusory recitation of the belief
of their confidential witness that the purpose of the transaction
was to defraud creditors, without specifying any basis for that
belief whatsoever.

Accordingly, the SAC does not contain sufficient allegations that
the purpose of the transaction stated in the Prospectus was false
and, without allegations showing that the transaction was
undertaken for a fraudulent purpose, provides insufficient
information to support an inference that the alleged
misrepresentations would be material to an investor. Plaintiffs'
Securities Act claim based on this disclosure will also, therefore,
be dismissed.

Securities Act Statute of Repose

Section 11 and 12(a)(2) claims are subject to a statute of repose
(Section 13) that provides that in no event shall any such action
be brought to enforce a liability created under Sections 11 or
12(a)(2) more than three years after the security was bona fide
offered to the public.

Defendants contend that the claim based on Sky's statement that it
had secured IADB financing for a project in Chile was first pleaded
in the SAC, which was filed more than three years after the
registration statement and associated Prospectus, is barred by the
statute of repose. Courts in this circuit have held that plaintiffs
may not avoid the expiration of the repose period by utilizing
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) (Rule 15(c)) to relate-back
to a previous, timely complaint.  

Plaintiffs take the above quote out of context in contending that
it permits a timely complaint to be expanded to assert new claims
without regard to the statute of repose. The Supreme Court was
cautioning against conflating complaints by different plaintiffs in
different courts for Section 13 purposes, not holding that filing a
complaint within the three-year period would permit the addition of
otherwise untimely Securities Act claims. To permit Plaintiffs to
seek liability for Sky's alleged misstatement that the mandate with
the IADB was binding, a claim that was introduced in the SAC after
the repose period lapsed, would be to undermine Section 13's
purpose and abridge Defendants' right to be free from liability
after the expiration of three years. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' claim
based on Sky's statement that it secured IADB financing will be
dismissed.

Section 15 Liability

To plead a Section 15 cause of action, a plaintiff must allege an
underlying violation of Sections 11 or 12 and that the defendant
exercised the requisite control. Because no underlying Securities
Act violation remains, Plaintiffs' Section 15 claim will also be
dismissed.

Exchange Act Section 10(b) Claims

Plaintiffs also assert a claim pursuant to Exchange Act Section
10(b) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder against Sky and Wang. They allege
that Sky misrepresented or materially omitted information related
to (1) Su's biography and history and (2) Sky's internal controls,
particularly as Sky's internal controls related to Sky's planned
expansion to China.

To succeed on a claim under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, a
plaintiff must establish (1) a false or misleading material
misrepresentation or omission by the defendant (2) scienter (3) a
connection between the misrepresentation or omission and the
purchase or sale of a security (4) reliance upon the
misrepresentation or omission (5) economic loss and (6) loss
causation.
The claims based on statements about Su's history and capabilities
will be dismissed as non-actionable and/or immaterial for the
reasons explained above in connection with Plaintiffs'
corresponding Securities Act cause of action. Plaintiff's Rule
10b-5 claims relating to statements made in the Prospectus and
similar statements made in subsequent communications about Sky's
corporate governance and internal controls must, similarly, also be
dismissed for the reasons stated in connection with Plaintiffs'
Securities Act claims.

Plaintiffs have, however, asserted Exchange Act fraud claims based
on additional alleged misstatements that the Court has not yet
evaluated, specifically Sky's statements after the IPO, in
conference calls in 2015 and a press release in 2014, that in
acquiring Chinese assets, including those held by or affiliated
with Su, it would adhere to its strong and rigorous internal
control process to evaluate and approve related-party transactions.
The Statements were made on Sky's behalf by Defendants Wang and
Zhang.

These statements fail to state an Exchange Act claim in connection
with the 2016 transaction because Plaintiffs have failed to allege
sufficient facts to demonstrate that representations that the
transaction would be subjected to the related-party transaction
approval process were false.

The 2016 transaction was indeed subjected to board approval, and
Plaintiffs point to no particular standards of review that Sky
failed to follow.  

A securities fraud complaint will only survive a motion to dismiss
if a reasonable person would deem the inference of scienter cogent
and at least as compelling as any opposing inference one could draw
from the facts alleged. A court conducting a scienter inquiry,
however, must assess the complaint in its entirety, and not
scrutinize each allegation. Scienter may be established by alleging
facts to show either (1) that defendants had the motive and
opportunity to commit fraud, or (2) strong circumstantial evidence
of conscious misbehavior or recklessness.

The motive' showing is generally met when corporate insiders
allegedly make a misrepresentation in order to sell their own
shares at a profit, but motives more common to corporate officers,
such as the desire for the corporation to appear profitable and the
desire to keep stock prices high to increase officer compensation,
do not constitute `motive' for purposes of this inquiry.

If there is no showing of improper motive, a plaintiff may
establish scienter by strong circumstantial evidence of conscious
misbehavior or recklessness by, inter alia, sufficiently alleging
that the defendants (1) benefitted in a concrete and personal way
from the purported fraud; (2) engaged in deliberately illegal
behaviour (3) knew facts or had access to information suggesting
that their public statements were not accurate or (4) failed to
check information they had a duty to monitor.

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have not made the requisite
showing of a basis for inferring scienter in connection with Wang's
conference call statements that related-party transactions would be
subjected to Sky's approval process.

Plaintiffs assert that Wang knew the approval process was severely
lax and deficient because it enabled Su to engage in the 2016
management fee transaction and to cause Sky to enter into
transactions, without board approval, worth $15 million with
entities affiliated with him in April of 2017.  

Wang's statements on the conference call predated both the
allegedly improper 2016 transaction and the April 2017
transactions. Because only Su is alleged to have profited from
these transactions, Plaintiff has pleaded no facts that plausibly
support an inference as to an improper motive on the part of Wang
in making the challenged statements.  

The SAC also fails to allege sufficient circumstantial evidence to
support a finding that Wang was reckless or engaged in conscious
misbehavior in making these statements.  

Plaintiffs have therefore failed to offer a sufficiently cogent
basis for an inference of scienter on Wang's part. Plaintiffs'
theory that Wang offered assurance that the approval process would
be followed when he in fact believed that it would not be followed
is implausible in light of Plaintiffs' failure to allege any facts
suggesting that Wang knew that Su would engage in transactions by
circumventing the approval process and that the board would approve
a questionable 2016 related-party transaction benefitting Su at the
expense of Sky, without any personal benefit accruing to Wang.
Accordingly, the Exchange Act claims relating to Wang's conference
call statements will be dismissed as against Wang.

The statements in the conference calls and press releases were made
by Wang and Zhang,38neither of whom exhibited the requisite
individual scienter or knowledge of falsity to be imputed to Sky.
Plaintiffs have also failed to allege with particularity sufficient
facts to establish that Su exhibited conscious misbehavior by
permitting the statements to be made in that Su knew in 2014 and
2015 that the statements regarding adherence to the related-party
review process were false because he intended to circumvent the
related-party approval procedure in 2017.

To the extent that Plaintiffs assert that Su's scienter can be
inferred from his motive and opportunity, this argument also fails.
Given the extended time that elapsed between the misstatements and
the 2017 transactions and the fact that he did submit the 2016
transaction to the board for approval, the more cogent theory is
that Su intended to comply with approval requirements when the
alleged misrepresentations were made, but later changed his mind or
took advantage of an emerging opportunity to circumvent the
applicable procedures. Plaintiffs have thus failed to allege
plausibly a basis for inferring scienter on the part of Sky.
Therefore the Exchange Act claims against Sky will be dismissed.

Accordingly, all of the Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act will be dismissed as against the Moving
Defendants. Finding no primary violation, the Court also dismisses
the control person claim pursuant to Section 20 of the Exchange Act
against Wang.  

The motion of Sky, Wang, Roth Capital Partners, LLC, and Northland
Securities, Inc. to dismiss the SAC as against them is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 23, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6hdcb68 from
Leagle.com.

Ronald Pena, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Eugene Lencyk --
alencyk@wolfpopper.com -- Wolf Popper LLP & Robert Craig Finkel --
rfinkel@wolfpopper.com -- Wolf Popper LLP.

Andrew Barilli, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Alexander Hood, II  --
ahood@pomlaw -- Pomerantz LLP, Jeremy Alan Lieberman --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Robert Craig Finkel, Wolf
Popper LLP.

Ronald Pena, Movant, represented by Robert Craig Finkel, Wolf
Popper LLP.

Edgar Acosta & Raphael Domingo, Movants, represented by Jeremy Alan
Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP.
Joseph Lobo, Movant, represented by Richard William Gonnello --
rgonnello@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP.

Dr. Gordon E. Besse, Movant, represented by Lesley Frank Portnoy
-LPORTNOY@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Perry Lasky & Douglas Milton, Movants, represented by Phillip C.
Kim  -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm P.A.

Weili Su, Defendant, represented by Anthony B. Ullman --
anthony.ullman@dentons.com -Dentons US LLP.

Yi Zhang, Xiaoguang Duan, Hao Wu & Dongliang Lin, Defendants,
represented by Roger Allen Cooper, Cleary Gottlieb, Jared Mitchell
Gerber -- jgerber@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb & Russell A. Mawn --
rmawn@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP.


SMA DELI GROCERY: Does not Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Rodriguez Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARGARITO FERNANDEZ RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SMA DELI GROCERY, CORP. (D/B/A
CASA DORO GOURMET DELI), MOHAMED ALROBYE (A.K.A. MOHAMED ALROBEAL)
, AHMED ALROBYE (A.K.A. AHMED ALROBEAL), and SHAREQI DOE,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04746 (S.D. N.Y., May 22, 2019) seeks
unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y.
Labor Law (the "NYLL"), and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage
orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor, including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiff Fernandez worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that he worked, says the
complaint. Moreover, Defendants failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff
Fernandez appropriately for any hours worked, either at the
straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. The
Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff
Fernandez and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per
week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation
required by federal and state law and regulations, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Fernandez was employed as a deli worker and a sandwich
preparer at the deli located at 2487 Eastchester Rd., Bronx, NY
10469.

Defendants own, operate, or control a deli, located at 2487
Eastchester Rd., Bronx, NY 10469 under the name "Casa Doro Gourmet
Deli".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SOUTHERN CO: Georgia Power Continues to Defend Franchise Fees Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Southern Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that Georgia Power Company
continues to defend a putative class action suit in the Superior
Court of Fulton County, Georgia.

In 2011, plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Georgia
Power in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia alleging that
Georgia Power's collection in rates of amounts for municipal
franchise fees (which fees are paid to municipalities) exceeded the
amounts allowed in orders of the Georgia PSC and alleging certain
state tort law claims.

In 2016, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's
previous dismissal of the case and remanded the case to the trial
court. Georgia Power filed a petition for writ of certiorari with
the Georgia Supreme Court, which was granted in 2017.

In June 2018, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of
the Georgia Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the trial
court for further proceedings.

Following a motion by Georgia Power, on February 13, 2019, the
Superior Court of Fulton County ordered the parties to submit
petitions to the Georgia PSC for a declaratory ruling to address
certain terms the court previously held were ambiguous as used in
the Georgia PSC's orders. The order entered by the Superior Court
of Fulton County also conditionally certified the proposed class.

In March 2019, Georgia Power and the plaintiffs filed petitions
with the Georgia PSC seeking confirmation of the proper application
of the municipal franchise fee schedule pursuant to the Georgia
PSC's orders. Georgia Power and the plaintiffs also have filed
notices of appeal with the Georgia Court of Appeals regarding the
Superior Court of Fulton County's February 2019 order.

Southern Company said, "Georgia Power believes the plaintiffs'
claims have no merit. The amount of any possible losses cannot be
calculated at this time because, among other factors, it is unknown
whether conditional class certification will be upheld and the
ultimate composition of any class and whether any losses would be
subject to recovery from any municipalities. The ultimate outcome
of this matter cannot be determined at this time."

The Southern Company, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity. It
operates in four segments: Gas Distribution Operations, Gas
Pipeline Investments, Wholesale Gas Services, and Gas Marketing
Services. The Southern Company was founded in 1945 and is
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


SOUTHERN CO: Mississippi Power Still Defends Turnage Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Southern Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that Mississippi Power
Company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Ray C.
Turnage

In November 2018, Ray C. Turnage and 10 other individual plaintiffs
filed a putative class action complaint against Mississippi Power
and the three current members of the Mississippi PSC in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.

Mississippi Power received Mississippi PSC approval in 2013 to
charge a mirror CWIP rate premised upon including in its rate base
pre-construction and construction costs for the Kemper IGCC prior
to placing the Kemper IGCC into service.

The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed that approval and ordered
Mississippi Power to refund the amounts paid by customers under the
previously-approved mirror CWIP rate.

The plaintiffs allege that the initial approval process, and the
amount approved, were improper. They also allege that Mississippi
Power underpaid customers in the refund process by applying an
incorrect interest rate.

The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and their
putative class, actual damages, punitive damages, pre-judgment
interest, post-judgment interest, attorney's fees, and costs.

In response to Mississippi Power and the Mississippi PSC each
filing a motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on March 14, 2019. The amended complaint included four
additional plaintiffs and additional claims for gross negligence,
reckless conduct, and intentional wrongdoing. Mississippi Power and
the Mississippi PSC have each filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

Mississippi Power believes this legal challenge has no merit;
however, an adverse outcome in this proceeding could have a
material impact on Mississippi Power's results of operations,
financial condition, and liquidity. The ultimate outcome of this
matter cannot be determined at this time.

The Southern Company, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity. It
operates in four segments: Gas Distribution Operations, Gas
Pipeline Investments, Wholesale Gas Services, and Gas Marketing
Services. The Southern Company was founded in 1945 and is
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


SP PLUS: Pierre-Louis Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
JEAN EMMANUEL PIERRE-LOUIS, individually, and EVENS HILAIRE,
individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs, v. SP PLUS CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation, and BAGGAGE AIRLINE GUEST SERVICES, INC., a Florida
corporation doing business as BAGS, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv
22107-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 23, 2019) is an action brought
individually and as a collective action for unpaid overtime
compensation, for liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and costs,
and for any other relief available under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, as amended ("FLSA"), as well as attorneys' fees and costs
under the Florida Statutes.

While working for Defendants, Plaintiffs were hourly, non-exempt
employees of Defendants, who earned but did not receive, overtime
wages calculated at time and one-half their regular rate of pay for
all time they spent working over 40 hours per week from Defendants.
The Defendants paid Plaintiffs an hourly rate ranging from $12.63
to $14.90 per hour, and they were not paid an overtime rate for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs were employed as wheelchair attendants, transporting
airline passengers on behalf of Defendants at the Ft. Lauderdale
Hollywood International Airport.

SP PLUS is a Delaware profit corporation and has been conducting
business at the Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood International
Airport.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Kristy M. Johnson, Esq.
     Jason R. Alderman, Esq.
     THE ALDERMAN LAW FIRM
     9999 NE 2nd Avenue, Suite 211
     Miami Shores, FL 33138
     Phone: 305-200-5473
     Facsimile: 305-200-5474
     Email: kjohnson@thealdermanlawfirm.com
            jalderman@thealdermanlawfirm.com


STATE STREET: Court Approves $4.9 Million Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
State Street Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the court has approved
a class settlement for $4.9 million.

A shareholder of the company has filed a purported class action
complaint against the company alleging that the company's financial
statements in its annual reports for the 2011-2014 period were
misleading due to the inclusion of revenues associated with the
invoicing matter referenced above and the facts surrounding the
company's 2017 settlements with the U.S. government relating to the
company's transition management business.

The Court approved the settlement in April 2019.

State Street Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides a
range of financial products and services to institutional investors
worldwide. State Street Corporation was founded in 1792 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.


STATE STREET: Still Defends Suit Over Invoicing Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
State Street Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend itself in a purported class action suit related to the
company's invoicing practices.

In March 2017, a purported class action was commenced against State
Street alleging that its invoicing practices violated duties owed
to retirement plan customers under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

In addition, the company has received a purported class action
demand letter alleging that the company's invoicing practices were
unfair and deceptive under Massachusetts law. A class of customers,
or particular customers, may assert that the Company has not paid
to them all amounts incorrectly invoiced, and may seek double or
treble damages under Massachusetts law.

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

State Street Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides a
range of financial products and services to institutional investors
worldwide. State Street Corporation was founded in 1792 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.


SUN TOWER SUITES: Honeywell Files ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SUN TOWER SUITES INC.
The case is styled as Cheri Honeywell, Lanie Quarterman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. SUN TOWER SUITES INC. a Florida corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-61304-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 23, 2019).

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

SUN TOWER SUITES INC. is a Lauderdale, Florida hotel right on the
Atlantic Ocean and offers free WiFi, free parking, and a private
beach.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
     Jessica L.Kerr, P.A. dba The Advocacy Group
     200 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 504
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: (954) 282-1858
     Fax: (844) 786-3694
     Email: service@advocacypa.com


SYNCHRONY BANK: Tucker Sues for Invasion of Privacy
---------------------------------------------------
DOUGLAS TUCKER, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SYNCHRONY BANK, Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-00966-AJB-LL (S.D. Cal., May 23, 2019) is a class action
complaint for damages and to enjoin the deceptive business
practices of Defendant which violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA").

On March 4, 2017, Defendant pulled Plaintiff's Trans Union credit
report without a permissible purpose. Despite the fact that
Plaintiff did not have an account with Defendant, Defendant
performed an unauthorized regular or "hard" credit report inquiry
with Trans Union. Upon review of Plaintiff's Trans Union credit
report dated September 24, 2018, Plaintiff discovered Defendant's
unauthorized credit inquiry on March 4, 2017. Defendant's inquiry
was unauthorized and illegal and was an invasion of privacy.
Plaintiff did not seek out nor inquire about Defendant's services
or credit extensions. Therefore, its inquiry was not promotional,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a natural person who resides in the County of San
Diego, State of California, whose credit report(s) were affected by
at least one unauthorized inquiry by Defendant.

Defendant is a corporation registered in the State of Delaware and
located in Draper, Utah.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Yana A. Hart, Esq.
     HYDE & SWIGART, APC
     2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
     San Diego, CA 92108-3609
     Phone: (619) 233-7770
     Fax: (619) 297-1022
     Email: yana@westcoastlitigation.com

          - and -

     Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
     409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101B
     San Diego, CA 92108
     Phone: (619) 222-7429
     Fax: (866) 431-3292
     Email: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com


TABLEAU SOFTWARE: Continues to Defend Scheufele Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Tableau Software, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend the Scheufele securities class action suit.

On July 28, 2017, and August 2, 2017, respectively, two
substantially similar securities class action complaints were filed
against the Company and two of its current and former executive
officers.  

The first complaint was filed in the U.S. District for the Southern
District of New York (the "Scheufele Action").

The second complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington (the "Abarrientos Action"). On
October 17, 2017, the Abarrientos Action was voluntarily dismissed.


On October 18, 2017, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel in the Scheufele Action. On December 8, 2017, lead
plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which alleged that between
February 5, 2015 and February 4, 2016, the Company and certain of
its executive officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in
connection with statements regarding the Company's business and
operations by allegedly failing to disclose that product launches
and software upgrades by competitors were negatively impacting the
Company's competitive position and profitability.

The amended complaint sought unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and other costs. Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint on January 12, 2018.

On February 2, 2018, lead plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint (the "SAC"), which contains substantially similar
allegations as the amended complaint, and adds as defendants two of
the Company's current and former executive officers and directors.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the SAC on March 13, 2018.

On February 8, 2019, the court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss
the SAC. Defendants filed an answer to the SAC on March 1, 2019,
and subsequently amended their answer on April 18, 2019. There is
currently no scheduling order set in this matter.

Tableau Software, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides
business analytics software products. The company sells its
products directly, as well as through indirect sales channels, such
as technology vendors, resellers, original equipment manufacturers,
independent software vendor, and distributors in the United States,
Canada, and internationally. Tableau Software, Inc. was founded in
2003 and is headquartered in Seattle, Washington.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Zheng-Lawson et al Seek to Certify Class & Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit YAN MEI ZHENG-LAWSON, YUANTENG PEI, and
JOANNE E. FERRARA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, TOYOTA
NORTH AMERICA, INC., and TOYOTA MOTOR SALES U.S.A., INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-06591-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs
will move the Court on September 25, 2019, for an order:

   1. certifying the a Nationwide Class of:

      "all persons who purchased and/or leased a model year ("MY")
      2016 Toyota RAV4 XLE, XLE Hybrid or SE vehicle (the "Class
      Vehicles") from Defendants Toyota Motor Corporation ("TMC"),

      Toyota Motor North America, Inc. ("Toyota North America"),
      and/or Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. ("Toyota Sales",
      collectively with TMC and Toyota North America, "Toyota")
      that was not equipped with an automatic on/off headlight
      feature (the "Feature")(the "Class", "Class members")."

   2. designating them as Class representatives for the Class or
      their respective Subclasses, and their counsel, Kantrowitz,
      Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., and TheGrantLawFirm, PLLC, as
      Class Counsel for the Class or Subclasses, and Green &
      Noblin, P.C., as local counsel; and

   3. directinb the parties to meet and confer and present the
      Court with a proposed notice to the certified Class or
      Subclasses, within 15 days of an order granting class
      certification.

To the extent that the Court finds the consumer, express warranty
and/or unjust enrichment laws of states other than California
conflict with those of California, and that those states have a
greater interest in the application of their laws to claims at
issue in their case, alternatively, Plaintiffs seek certification
of a partial nationwide class consisting of Class members, who
reside in states whose laws do not, in whole or in part, conflict
with those of California.

Alternatively, each of the Plaintiffs seeks certification of these
sub-classes:

   a. The New York Subclass by Plaintiff Zheng-Lawson:

      "all persons who were citizens of the State of New York at
      the time of their purchase or lease of a Class Vehicle from
      Defendants that was not equipped with the Feature";

   b. The California Subclass by Plaintiff Pei:

      "all persons who were citizens of the State of California at

      the time of their purchase or lease of a Class Vehicles from

      Defendants that was not equipped with the Feature"; and

   c. The Pennsylvania Subclass by Plaintiff Ferrara:

      "all Persons who were citizens of the State of Pennsylvania
      at the time of their purchase or lease of a Class Vehicles
      from Defendants that was not equipped with the Feature."[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class or
Sub-classes:

          Robert S. Green, Esq.
          James Robert Noblin, Esq.
          GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
          2200 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 101
          Larkspur, CA 94939
          Telephone: (415) 477-6700
          Facsimile: (415) 477-6710
          E-mail: gnecf@classcounsel.com

               - and -

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          Jay I. Brody, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
          747 Chestnut Ridge Road
          Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
          Telephone: (845) 356-2570
          Facsimile: (845) 356-4335
          E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com
                  jbrody@kgglaw.com

               - and -

          Lynda J. Grant, Esq.
          THEGRANTLAWFIRM, PLLC
          521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10175
          Telephone: (212) 292-4441
          Facsimile: (212) 292-4442
          E-mail: lgrant@grantfirm.com

TRANSDIGM GROUP: Consolidated Class Suit in Ohio Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
TransDigm Group Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated class action suit in Ohio entitled, In re
TransDigm Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:17-cv-01677-DCN.

The company and certain of its current or former officers and
directors are defendants in a consolidated securities class action
captioned In re TransDigm Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:17-cv-01677-DCN (N.D. Ohio).

The cases were originally filed on August 10, 2017, and September
18, 2017 and were consolidated on December 5, 2017. A consolidated
amended complaint was filed on February 16, 2018.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made false or misleading
statements with respect to, or failed to disclose, the impact of
certain alleged business practices in connection with sales to the
U.S. government on the Company's growth and profitability. The
plaintiffs assert claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and seek unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.

In addition, the company, as nominal defendant, and certain of its
current or former officers and directors are defendants in a
shareholder derivative action captioned Sciabacucchi v. Howley et
al., No. 1:17-cv-1971-DCN (N.D. Ohio). The case was filed on
September 19, 2017.

The plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty and other claims
arising out of substantially the same actions or inactions alleged
in the securities class actions described above. This action has
been stayed pending the outcome of a motion to dismiss on the
securities class action.

TransDigm said, "Although we are only a nominal defendant in the
derivative action, we could have indemnification obligations and/or
be required to advance the costs and expenses of the officer and
director defendants in the action."

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

TransDigm Group Incorporated designs, produces, and supplies
aircraft components in the United States and internationally. The
company operates in three segments: Power & Control, Airframe, and
Non-aviation. TransDigm Group Incorporated was founded in 1993 and
is headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio.


TWILIO INC: Continues to Defend Bauman TCPA Class Suit in Nevada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Twilio Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class
action suit initiated by Jeremy Bauman.

In September 1, 2015, Twilio was named as a defendant in a First
Amended Complaint in a putative class action captioned Jeremy
Bauman v. David Saxe, et al. pending in the United States District
Court, District of Nevada relating to the alleged sending of
unsolicited text messages to the plaintiffs and putative class
members.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted, and on
September 20, 2016 the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint
with additional allegations that the Company violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), and the Nevada Deceptive Trade
Practices Act ("NDTPA"), NRS 41.600(2)(e).

On January 10, 2019, the court granted Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification under the TCPA and denied plaintiff's request to
certify a class under the NDTPA.

On February 13, 2019, the court issued an order denying the
Company's motion to dismiss as to Plaintiffs' TCPA claim and
granting dismissal as to Plaintiffs' NDTPA claim.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against and
believes it has meritorious defenses to this lawsuit. It is too
early in these matters to reasonably predict the probability of the
outcomes or to estimate the range of possible loss, if any.

Twilio Inc. provides a cloud communications platform that enables
developers to build, scale, and operate communications within
software applications in the United States and internationally. The
company's programmable communications cloud provides a set of
application programming interfaces that enable developers to embed
voice, messaging, and video capabilities into their applications.
Twilio Inc. was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in San
Francisco, California.


TYSON FOODS: Bid to Dismiss Pork Purchasers' Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 30, 2019, that the company's motion to
dismiss the class action suit initiated by the company's indirect
pork purchasers is pending.

On June 18, 2018, a group of plaintiffs acting on their own behalf
and on behalf of a putative class of all persons and entities who
indirectly purchased pork, filed a class action complaint against
the company and certain of the company's pork subsidiaries, as well
as several other pork processing companies, in the federal district
court for the District of Minnesota.

Subsequent to the filing of the initial complaint, additional
lawsuits making similar claims on behalf of putative classes of
direct and indirect purchasers were also filed in the same court.

The complaints allege, among other things, that beginning in
January 2009 the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise,
maintain, and stabilize the price of pork and pork products in
violation of United States antitrust laws.

The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect
purchasers also include causes of action under various state unfair
competition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment
common laws.

The plaintiffs seek treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and
post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the
putative classes. The direct purchaser actions and indirect
purchaser actions have been consolidated for pretrial purposes.

On October 23, 2018, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaints. A hearing on the motions was held on January 28, 2019.

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in
1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.


TYSON FOODS: Bid to Drop Broiler Chicken Grower Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 30, 2019, that the motion to dismiss
the case entitled, In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation, is
still pending.

On January 27, 2017, Haff Poultry, Inc., Craig Watts, Johnny
Upchurch, Jonathan Walters and Brad Carr, acting on behalf of
themselves and a putative class of broiler chicken farmers, filed a
class action complaint against the company and certain of the
company's poultry subsidiaries, as well as several other
vertically-integrated poultry processing companies, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

On March 27, 2017, a second class action complaint making similar
claims on behalf of a similarly defined putative class was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Oklahoma.

Plaintiffs in the two cases sought to have the matters
consolidated, and, on July 10, 2017, filed a consolidated amended
complaint styled In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation. The
plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants colluded
not to compete for broiler raising services "with the purpose and
effect of fixing, maintaining, and/or stabilizing grower
compensation below competitive levels."

The plaintiffs also allege that the defendants "agreed to share
detailed data on grower compensation with one another, with the
purpose and effect of artificially depressing grower compensation
below competitive levels."

The plaintiffs contend these alleged acts constitute violations of
the Sherman Antitrust Act and Section 202 of the Grain Inspection,
Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. The plaintiffs are seeking
treble damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative class.

Tyson Foods said, "We and the other defendants filed a motion to
dismiss on September 8, 2017. That motion is pending."

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

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in
1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.


TYSON FOODS: Faces Cattle Feeds Price Fixing Suit in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 30, 2019, that the company has been
named as a defendant in a putative class action suit related to
cattle feeds price fixing.

On April 23, 2019, a group of plaintiffs, acting on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of a putative class of all persons and
entities who directly sold to the named defendants any fed cattle
for slaughter and all persons who transacted in live cattle futures
and/or options traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange or another
U.S. exchange, filed a class action complaint against the company
and the company's beef and pork subsidiary, Tyson Fresh Meats,
Inc., as well as other beef packer defendants, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy
from January 2015 to the present to reduce fed cattle prices in
violation of federal antitrust laws, the Grain Inspection, Packers
and Stockyards Act of 1921, and the Commodities Exchange Act by
periodically reducing their slaughter volumes so as to reduce
demand for fed cattle, curtailing their purchases and slaughters of
cash-purchased cattle during those same periods, coordinating their
procurement practices for fed cattle settled on a cash basis,
importing foreign cattle at a loss so as to reduce domestic demand,
and closing and idling plants.

In addition, the plaintiffs also allege the defendants colluded to
manipulate live cattle futures and options traded on the Chicago
Mercantile Exchange.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, treble monetary damages,
punitive damages, restitution, and pre- and post-judgment interest,
as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in
1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.


TYSON FOODS: Faces Suit over Slaughter Capacity in Minnesota
------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 30, 2019, that the company has been
named as a defendant in a putative class action suit related to the
reduction of slaughter capacity.

On April 29, 2019, a group of plaintiffs, acting on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of a putative class of indirect purchasers
of beef for personal use filed a class action complaint against the
company and other beef packers, along with Agri Stats, Inc., an
information services provider, in the United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota.

The plaintiffs allege that the packer defendants conspired to
reduce slaughter capacity by closing or idling plants, limiting
their purchases of cash cattle, coordinating their procurement of
cash cattle, and reducing their slaughter numbers so as to reduce
beef output, all in order to artificially raise prices of beef.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, damages under state
antitrust and consumer protection statutes and common law of
approximately 30 states, as well as injunctive relief.

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in
1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.


TYSON FOODS: PH Supreme Court Reviews Suit v. Hillshire Brands
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 30, 2019, that the Philippine Supreme
Court has accepted the case were the company's subsidiary The
Hillshire Brands Company (formerly named Sara Lee Corporation) is a
respondent, for review.

The Company's subsidiary, The Hillshire Brands Company (formerly
named Sara Lee Corporation), is a party to a consolidation of cases
filed by individual complainants with the Republic of the
Philippines, Department of Labor and Employment and the National
Labor Relations Commission ("NLRC") from 1998 through July 1999.

The complaint was filed against Aris Philippines, Inc., Sara Lee
Corporation, Sara Lee Philippines, Inc., Fashion Accessories
Philippines, Inc., and Attorney Cesar C. Cruz (collectively, the
"respondents").

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the respondents
engaged in unfair labor practices in connection with the
termination of manufacturing operations in the Philippines in 1995
by Aris Philippines, Inc., a former subsidiary of The Hillshire
Brands Company.

In late 2004, a labor arbiter ruled against the respondents and
awarded the complainants PHP3,453,664,710 (approximately US $66
million) in damages and fees.

The respondents appealed the labor arbiter's ruling, and it was
subsequently set aside by the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) in December 2006. Subsequent to the NLRC's decision, the
parties filed numerous appeals, motions for reconsideration and
petitions for review, certain of which remained outstanding for
several years.

While various of those appeals, motions and/or petitions were
pending, The Hillshire Brands Company, on June 23, 2014, without
admitting liability, filed a settlement motion requesting that the
Supreme Court of the Philippines order dismissal with prejudice of
all claims against it and certain other respondents in exchange for
payments allocated by the court among the complainants in an amount
not to exceed PHP342,287,800 (approximately US $6.5 million).

Based in part on its finding that the consideration to be paid to
the complainants as part of such settlement was insufficient, the
Supreme Court of the Philippines denied the respondents' settlement
motion and all motions for reconsideration thereof. The Supreme
Court of the Philippines also set aside as premature the NLRC's
December 2006 ruling.

As a result, the cases were remanded back before the NLRC to rule
on the merits of the case. On December 15, 2016, the company
learned that the NLRC rendered its decision on November 29, 2016,
regarding the respondents' appeals regarding the labor arbiter's
2004 ruling in favor of the complainants. The NLRC increased the
award for 4,922 of the total 5,984 complainants to
PHP14,858,495,937 (approximately US $282 million). However, the
NLRC approved a prior settlement reached with the group comprising
approximately 18% of the class of 5,984 complainants, pursuant to
which The Hillshire Brands Company agreed to pay each settling
complainant PHP68,000 (approximately US $1,300).

The settlement payment was made on December 21, 2016, to the NLRC,
which is responsible for distributing the funds to each settling
complainant. On December 27, 2016, the respondents filed motions
for reconsideration with the NLRC asking that the award be set
aside. The NLRC denied respondents' motions for reconsideration in
a resolution received on May 5, 2017 and entered a judgment on the
award on July 24, 2017.

Each of Aris Philippines, Inc., Sara Lee Corporation and Sara Lee
Philippines, Inc. appealed this award and sought an injunction to
preclude enforcement of the award to the Philippines Court of
Appeals. On November 23, 2017, the Court of Appeals granted a writ
of preliminary injunction that precluded execution of the NLRC
award during the pendency of the appeal.

The Court of Appeals subsequently vacated the NLRC's award on April
12, 2018. Complainants have filed motions for reconsideration with
the Court of Appeals. On November 14, 2018, the Court of Appeals
denied claimants' motions for reconsideration and granted
defendants' motion to release and discharge the preliminary
injunction bond. Claimants have since filed petitions for writ of
certiorari with the Supreme Court of the Philippines. The Supreme
Court has accepted the case for review.

Tyson Foods said, "We continue to maintain an accrual for this
matter."

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in
1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.


TYSON FOODS: Still Defends Broiler Chicken Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 30, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Broiler
Chicken Antitrust Litigation.

On September 2, 2016, Maplevale Farms, Inc., acting on its own
behalf and a putative class of direct purchasers of poultry
products, filed a class action complaint against us and certain of
our poultry subsidiaries, as well as several other poultry
processing companies, in the Northern District of Illinois.

Subsequent to the filing of this initial complaint, additional
lawsuits making similar claims on behalf of putative classes of
direct and indirect purchasers were filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The court consolidated the complaints, for pre-trial purposes, into
actions on behalf of three different putative classes: direct
purchasers, indirect purchasers/consumers and
commercial/institutional indirect purchasers. These three actions
are styled In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation.

Several amended and consolidated complaints have been filed on
behalf of each putative class. The currently operative complaints
allege, among other things, that beginning in January 2008 the
defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and
stabilize the price of broiler chickens in violation of United
States antitrust laws.

The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect
purchasers also include causes of action under various state unfair
competition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment
common laws. The complaints also allege that defendants
"manipulated and artificially inflated a widely used Broiler price
index, the Georgia Dock." It is further alleged that the defendants
concealed this conduct from the plaintiffs and the members of the
putative classes.

The plaintiffs seek treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and
post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the
putative classes. The litigation is currently in a discovery phase.


Decisions on class certification and summary judgment motions
likely to be filed by defendants are not expected before the latter
part of calendar year 2020 under the scheduling order currently
governing the case.

Scheduling for trial, if necessary, will occur after rulings on
class certification and any summary judgment motions. Certain
putative class members have opted out of this matter and are
proceeding separately, and others may do so in the future.

Tyson Foods said, "Separately, plaintiffs notified the company on
April 26, 2019 that the U.S. Department of Justice issued a grand
jury subpoena to them requesting discovery produced by all parties
in the case."

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in
1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.


UNITED COLLECTION: Ormaza Sues Over FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Antoinette P. Ormaza, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. United Collection Bureau, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02550-WFK-RLM (E.D. N.Y., May 1, 2019)
seeks to recover for violations under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA").

In its efforts to collect the alleged Debt, Defendant contacted
Plaintiff by letter dated May 3, 2018.  The Letter conveyed
information regarding the alleged Debt. The Letter fails to state
whether the payment must be sent by the consumer, or received by
the Defendant, by the stated deadline. The Letter can be
interpreted to mean that such payment must be mailed to the
Defendant by the stated deadline. The Letter can also be
interpreted to mean that such payment must be received by Defendant
by the stated deadline.

As a result, in the eyes of the least sophisticated consumer, the
Letter is open to more than one reasonable interpretation, at least
one of which is inaccurate, the Complaint states.

Plaintiff Antoinette P. Ormaza is an individual who is a citizen of
the State of New York and is a natural person allegedly obligated
to pay a debt.

Defendant regularly collects or attempts to collect debts asserted
to be owed to others.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
     BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
     100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 203-7600
     Fax: (516) 706-5055
     Email: kcsanders@barshaysanders.com


UNUM GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated TN Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Unum Group said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019, that the company is seeking dismissal of a
consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Unum Group
Securities Litigation.

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.

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.


UP THAI CORP: Campos Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
AGUSTIN MORALES CAMPOS, AGUSTIN ROSALES SALAZAR, DAMIAN GARCIA
ROMANO, JOSE CAMPOS, JOSE TRINIDAD CAMPOS, MIGUEL ANGEL LEYVA
GALICIA, SANTIAGO CAMPOS PERAL, and SILVESTRE BASURTO MONTIEL,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. UP THAI CORP. (D/B/A TUNG THONG 181), TUNG THONG
INC. (D/B/A TUNG THONG), JIRAPAT PUTTANAWONG, THITIPHAN SURIYONG,
and THANAPHAN LAONUTWUTTIKUL, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04730
(S.D. N.Y., May 22, 2019) seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for
violations of the N.Y. Labor Law (the "NYLL"), and the "spread of
hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of
Labor, including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Defendants have employed the policy and practice of disguising
Plaintiffs' actual duties in payroll records by designating them as
delivery workers instead of non-tipped employees, says the
complaint. This has allowed Defendants to avoid paying Plaintiffs
at the minimum wage rate and has enabled them to pay them at the
lower tip-credit rate (which they still have failed to do). The
Defendants also required Plaintiffs and other employees to work in
excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and
overtime compensation required by federal and state law and
regulations, the complaint adds.

Plaintiffs have ostensibly been employed as delivery workers at the
Thai restaurants.

Defendants own, operate, or control two Thai restaurants, located
at 812 West 181st Street, New York, New York 10033 under the name
"Tung Thong 181" and at 561 West 169th Street, New York, New York
10032 under the name "Tung Thong".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UTGR, INC: Ramer et al Seek to Certify Two FLSA Classes
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RYAN RAMER AND JULIE MORALES,
individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals,
the Plaintiffs, v. UTGR, INC., d/b/a TWIN RIVER CASINO, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00218-JJM-LDA (D.R.I.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying two Fair Labor Standards Act
      collective action classes.

      The First Class consists of:

      "all individuals employed as Floor Supervisors (or other
      comparable positions including but not limited to Table Game

      Supervisors) who were employed by Defendant and were subject

      to the following common practices and/or policies of
      Defendant at any time from three (3) years before the filing

      of the Complaint to the present: a) Who were paid IRS Form
W-
      2 compensation; b) Who worked more than forty (40) hours in a

      workweek; and, c) Were not paid at least one and one-half
      times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in
      excess of 40 in a workweek"; and

      The Second Class consists of:

      "all individuals employed as Floor Managers (or other
      comparable positions) who were employed by Defendant and were

      subject to the following common practices and/or policies of

      Defendant at any time from three (3) years before the filing

      of the Complaint to the present: a) Who were paid IRS Form
W-
      2 compensation; b) Who worked more than 40 hours in a
      workweek; and, c) Were not paid at least one and  one-half
      times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in
      excess of 40 in a workweek";

   2. setting an expedited briefing schedule and hearing on their
      motion for conditional certification due to the rolling
      statute of limitations and tolling provisions applicable in
      an FLSA collective action;

   3. directing the to provide Plaintiffs' counsel with the names
      and last known addresses, email addresses, and telephone
      numbers of all putative class members within 10 days, and
      also to provide the dates of birth and last four digits of
      the social security number of any potential class member
      whose notice is returned by the post office within 30 days of

      a request by Plaintiffs' counsel, so that Plaintiffs' counsel

      may provide effective notice to such putative class members;

   4. authorizing Plaintiffs' counsel to a) mail and/or email the
      Notice of Pendency of Lawsuit and the Plaintiff Consent to
      Sue Form to all putative class members, b) post the Notice
      and Consent forms on Plaintiffs Counsels' firms' websites
      and/or a website created specifically for the purpose of
      putting prospective class members on notice of this action
      and providing the option to execute opt-in consent forms
      electronically on-line; and, c) send follow up post cards
      and/or emails to any class members who have not responded
      within 15 days after the mailing and/or emailing of the
      initial notice;

   5. directing Defendant to post the Notice and Consent forms in

      conspicuous locations in all its worksites within five days
      including, at a minimum, the lunch room bulletin board or
      bulletin board where job notices are posted, if any, and in
      the same areas in which it is required to post FLSA notices;


   6. setting the duration of the opt-in period at 180 days to
      ensure that potential plaintiffs are provided adequate
      opportunity to receive notice, explore their legal options,
      and make a reasoned determination about whether to join this

      suit, file a separate action, or do nothing; and

   7. authorizing notice to the classes, as court authorization of

      notice to the classes in an FLSA collective action serves the

      legitimate goal of avoiding a multiplicity of duplicative
      suits and setting cutoff dates to expedite disposition of the

      action.[CC]

Plaintiffs' attorneys are:

          Richard A. Sinapi, Esq.
          SINAPI LAW ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          2374 Post Road, Suite 201
          Warwick, RI 02886
          Telephone: (401) 739-9690
          Facsimile: (401) 739-9040
          E-mail: ras@sinapilaw.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Chittick, Esq.
          Ali Khorsand, Esq.
          ADLER POLLOCK & SHEEHAN P.C.
          One Citizens Plaza, 8 th Floor
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 274-7200
          Facsimile: (401) 351-4607
          E-mail: mchittick@apslaw.com
                  akhorsand@apslaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas J. Enright, Esq.
          ENRIGHT LAW, LLC
          696 Reservoir Avenue
          Cranston, RI 02910
          Telephone: (401) 526-2620
          Facsimile: (401) 457-7117
          E-mail: tom@enrightlawoffice.com

VERIZON NEW YORK: Jones Files Suit Over Damaged Water Pipes
-----------------------------------------------------------
ERIC JONES, BERTHA JONES, ANGEL ORDONEZ, BENYAMIN KOSOFSKY, DAVID
OGOREK, GRACE RODRIGUEZ, ILYA DAVYDOV, JIM BUTLER, MAY YU, ROSA
GONZALEZ, ROZA YUSUPOVA, SCARLETT COLEY, BRADLEY DOLL, ALBANIAN
AMERICAN ISLAMIC CENTER, VADIM AULOV, BINYAMIN LEVIYEV, ATEF
MEKAWY, on their own behalf, and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. VERIZON NEW YORK INC., VERIZON
COMMUNICATIONS, INC. d/b/a VERIZON, D/B/A VERIZON FIOS and "JOHN
DOES", Defendants, Case No. 511568/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty.,
May 23, 2019) is a putative class action of homeowners located in
New York State who have copper water pipes connected to their homes
which have been damaged, corroded, cracked or have water leakage
due to the defendants' underground facilities, utilities, wiring
and/or cabling.

The Defendants have been aware of countless incidents of homeowners
who have had their copper water pipes and service lines damaged,
corroded, failed or have leakage caused by the Defendants'
underground Facilities, Utilities and the voltage, currents and
electricity from buried Verizon owned cables, wires and lines. The
voltage, currents and electricity from buried Verizon owned cables,
wires and lines have produced an electrochemical condition that is
causing the water pipes and service lines to corrode, damage and
fail. Many of the plaintiffs have had their water pipes and service
lines damaged on more than one occasion. The defendants have been
aware and put on notice that the voltage, current and electricity
emanating from their facilities, cables and wires have caused
significant damage and have undermined and aggressively
deteriorated copper water pipes and service lines of homes and
property owned by plaintiffs, and others who are similarly
situated.

The damaged water pipes and service lines have caused the
plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, to incur significant
expenses, financial harm, damage to their property and hazardous
conditions to their homes, streets and roadways. However, the
defendants have consciously chosen to look the other way and failed
to take sufficient action or adequate steps to make proper
restitution and to prevent future deterioration of the water pipes
and service lines to plaintiffs' and those who are similarly
situated. If the defendants fail to remedy this situation
expeditiously, New York City Department of Environmental Protection
("DEP"), in a recent memo, has threatened to shut off water service
to the plaintiffs and those similarly situated, making the
plaintiffs' residences uninhabitable and their situation even
worse, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory, consequential, liquidated,
statutory, and punitive damages against the defendants on behalf of
themselves and the putative class, together with all other
appropriate relief provided by law.

Plaintiffs are homeowners who have copper water pipes connected to
their homes.

Defendants are the owners, operators and installers of the Verizon
Facilities which have damaged the Plaintiffs' copper water pipes,
service lines connected to their homes.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     MARC J. HELD, ESQ.
     HELD & HINES, L.L.P.
     2004 Ralph Avenue
     Brooklyn, NY 11234
     Phone: (718)531-9700


VIBERG BOOT MFG: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Viberg Boot Mfg. Ltd.
The case is styled as Brian Fischler Individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Viberg Boot Mfg.
Ltd., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03103 (E.D. N.Y., May 23, 2019).

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

Viberg Boot is a 3rd generation, family owned and operated company
that produces some of the world's best work boots and casual
footwear.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
     Lipsky Lowe LLP
     630 Third Avenue
     New York, NY 10017-6705
     Phone: (212) 392-4772
     Fax: (212) 444-1030
     Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


WABASH NATIONAL: Notice of Appeal Filed in Indiana Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wabash National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the plaintiff in a
class action lawsuit has taken an appeal from a court decision
dismissing the case.

Prior to the Company's acquisition of Supreme, on November 4, 2016,
a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Supreme
Corporation, Mark D. Weber (Supreme's former Chief Executive
Officer) and Matthew W. Long (Supreme's former Chief Financial
Officer) in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California alleging the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 by making material, misleading statements in July 2016
regarding projected backlog.

The plaintiff seeks to recover unspecified damages. On February 14,
2017, the court transferred the venue of the case to the Northern
District of Indiana upon the joint stipulation of the plaintiff and
the defendants.

An amended complaint was filed on April 24, 2017 challenging
statements made during a putative class period of October 22, 2015,
through October 21, 2016.

On May 24, 2018, the Court granted Supreme's motion to dismiss all
claims for failure to state a claim. On July 13, 2018, the
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.

On August 24, 2018, Supreme filed a second motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, and requested dismissal with prejudice.

On March 29, 2019, the Court granted Supreme's motion and dismissed
Plaintiff's second amended complaint, with prejudice. The deadline
for filing an appeal on the merits was April 29, 2019, and the
Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the Court on that same
day.

Wabash National Corporation designs, manufactures, and distributes
transportation and diversified industrial products; and provides
services primarily in the United States. The company operates
through three segments: Commercial Trailer Products, Diversified
Products, and Final Mile Products. Wabash National Corporation was
founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Lafayette, Indiana.


WHITESTONE REIT: Sold Shares at Artificially Inflated Prices
------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW KASTLER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. WHITESTONE REIT, JAMES C. MASTANDREA, and
DAVID K. HOLEMAN, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-01851 (S.D. Tex.,
May 22, 2019) is a federa1 securities class action on behalf of all
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Whitestone securities
from May 9, 2018 through February 27, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover compensable damages caused by
Defendants' violations of federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act").

The Class Period starts on May 9, 2018 when, after the market
close, the Company filed a Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March
31, 2018 ("Q1 2018 10-Q") with the SEC, which provided the
Company's first quarter 2018 financial results and positions and
stated that the Company's internal control over financial reporting
was effective as of March 31, 2018. The Q1 2018 10-Q was signed and
certified under the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 ("SOX") by the
Individual Defendants attesting to the accuracy of the financial
statements, effectiveness of internal controls, and that all fraud
was disclosed. On August 9, 2018, the Company filed a Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended June 30, 2018 ("Q2 2018 10-Q") with the SEC,
which provided the Company's second quarter 2018 financial results
and positions and stated that the Company's internal control over
financial reporting was effective as of June 30, 2018.

The Q2 2018 10-Q contained signed SOX certifications by the
Individual Defendants attesting to the accuracy of the financial
statements, effectiveness of internal controls, and that all fraud
was disclosed. On November 6, 2018, the Company filed a Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 2018 ("Q3 2018 10-Q") with the
SEC, which provided the Company's third quarter 2018 financial
results and positions and stated that the Company's internal
control over financial reporting was effective as of September 30,
2018. The Q3 2018 10-Q contained signed SOX certifications by the
Individual Defendants attesting to the accuracy of the financial
statements, effectiveness of internal controls, and that all fraud
was disclosed.

According to the complaint, the statements made by Defendants were
materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented and
failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the
Company's business, operations, and prospects, which were known to
Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the Company lacked effective internal control
over financial reporting; (ii) Whitestone was incorrectly
recognizing assets and liabilities associated with its contribution
to Pillarstone Capital REIT Operating Partnership LP; (iii) the
Company's financial statements for the fiscal year 2018 were
overstating revenues; (iv) the Company's financial statements for
the fiscal year 2018 could no longer be relied upon; and (v) as a
result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff acquired Whitestone securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period.

Whitestone is a real estate investment trust ("REIT") incorporated
in Maryland.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
     J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
     Jonathan Lindenfeld, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 661-1100
     Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
     Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
            ahood@pomlaw.com
            jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com

          - and -

     Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 377-1181
     Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
     Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


WYNDHAM VACATION: Pagh Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned ANDERS PAGH, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP,
INC., a Delaware Corporation, and Does 1-100, inclusive Defendant,
Case No. 30-2019-01060077-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Orange to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on May 1, 2019, and assigned Case No. 8:19-cv-00812.

The Complaint alleges nine causes of action, including (1) failure
to provide meal periods and pay premiums; (2) failure to provide
rest breaks and pay premiums; (3) failure to pay all wages earned;
(4) failure to pay the minimum wage; (5) failure to pay overtime
and double damages; (6) failure to provide accurate, itemized wage
statements; (7) failure to maintain payroll records; (8) failure to
pay all wages owed upon termination; and (9) unfair business
practices.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     ANTHONY TODARO, ESQ
     BENJAMIN M. GIPSON, ESQ
     ALEXANDRIA WALKER, ESQ
     DLA PIPER LLP (US)
     2000 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 400
     North Tower
     Los Angeles, CA 90067-4704
     Phone: 310.595.3000
     Fax: 310.595.3300
     Email: anthony.todaro@us.dlapiper.com
            ben.gipson@us.dlapiper.com
            alexandria.walker@us.dlapiper.com


XPO LOGISTICS: Continues to Defend Labul Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Labul v. XPO Logistics,
Inc. et al.

On December 14, 2018, two putative class actions were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut and the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company and certain of its current and former executives, alleging
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, based on
alleged material misstatements and omissions in the Company's
public filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On January 7, 2019, the plaintiff in one of the actions, Leeman v.
XPO Logistics, Inc. et al., No. 1:18-cv-11741 (S.D.N.Y.),
voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice.

The other action, Labul v. XPO Logistics, Inc. et al., No.
3:18-cv-02062 (D. Conn.), is pending and in the early stages of
litigation.

The Company intends to defend itself vigorously against the
allegations. The Company is unable at this time to determine the
amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that it may
incur as a result of these matters.

XPO Logistics, Inc. provides transportation and logistics services
in the United States, North America, France, the United Kingdom,
Europe, and internationally. XPO Logistics, Inc. was founded in
1996 and is based in Greenwich, Connecticut.


ZEDRIC'S LLC: West Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------
Ace West, Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. Zedric's LLC and Zachary Lutton, Defendants,
Case No. 5:19-cv-00556 (W.D. Tex., May 23, 2019) is an action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), for declaratory judgment,
monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and
costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of
Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and other salaried cooks
lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week.

Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees worked in excess
of 40 hours per week throughout their tenure but they did not
receive any overtime compensation, says the complaint. The
Defendants did not pay Plaintiff and other similarly-situated
employees one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all
hours worked over forty per week.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a cook from approximately
June of 2017 until May 22, 2019, when he was terminated.

Defendant Zedric's is a commercial meal preparation company that
offers storefront locations, subscriptions, and delivery of
freshly-prepared meals in the San Antonio area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ZIMMER BIOMET: Shah Class Action Ongoing
----------------------------------------
Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Shah v. Zimmer Biomet
Holdings, Inc. et al.

On December 2, 2016, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Indiana (Shah v. Zimmer Biomet
Holdings, Inc. et al.), naming the company, one of its officers and
two of its now former officers as defendants.  

On June 28, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a corrected amended
complaint, naming as defendants, in addition to those previously
named, current and former members of the company's Board of
Directors, one additional officer, and the underwriters in
connection with secondary offerings of the company's common stock
by certain selling stockholders in 2016.  

On October 6, 2017, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the
underwriters without prejudice. On October 8, 2017, the plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint, naming as defendants, in addition
to those current and former officers and Board members previously
named, certain former stockholders of the company who sold shares
of the company's common stock in secondary public offerings in
2016.  The company and its current and former officers and Board
members named as defendants are sometimes hereinafter referred to
as the "Zimmer Biomet Defendant group".  

The former stockholders of the company who sold shares of the
company's common stock in secondary public offerings in 2016 are
sometimes hereinafter referred to as the "Private Equity Fund
Defendant group".  

The second amended complaint relates to a putative class action on
behalf of persons who purchased our common stock between June 7,
2016 and November 7, 2016. The second amended complaint generally
alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by
making materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
omissions about the company's compliance with U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") regulations and the company's ability to
continue to accelerate its organic revenue growth rate in the
second half of 2016.

The defendants filed their respective motions to dismiss on
December 20, 2017, plaintiffs filed their omnibus response to the
motions to dismiss on March 13, 2018 and the defendants filed their
respective reply briefs on May 18, 2018. On September 27, 2018, the
court denied the Zimmer Biomet Defendant group's motion to dismiss
in its entirety. The court granted the Private Equity Fund
Defendant group's motion to dismiss, without prejudice.  

On October 9, 2018, the Zimmer Biomet Defendant group filed a
motion (i) to amend the court's order on the motion to certify two
issues for interlocutory appeal, and (ii) to stay proceedings
pending appeal. On February 21, 2019, that motion was denied.  The
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and interest, attorneys' fees,
costs and other relief.  

Zimmer Biomet said, "We believe this lawsuit is without merit, and
we and the individual defendants are defending it vigorously."

Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
designs, manufactures, and markets musculoskeletal healthcare
products and solutions in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East,
Africa, and the Asia Pacific. It operates through four segments:
Spine, less Asia Pacific; Office Based Technologies;
Craniomaxillofacial and Thoracic; and Dental. The company was
formerly known as Zimmer Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to
Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. in June 2015. Zimmer Biomet Holdings,
Inc. was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in Warsaw, Indiana.


ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Awaits Court Ruling on Evans v. CB&T Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zions Bancorporation, National Association said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8,
2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the
company is awaiting a court ruling on the appeal in the case, Evans
v. CB&T.

A civil class action lawsuit, Evans v. CB&T, was brought against
the company in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California in May 2017. This case was filed on behalf
of a class of up to 50 investors in International Manufacturing
Group (IMG) and seeks to hold the company liable for losses of
class members arising from their investments in IMG, alleging that
the company conspired with and knowingly assisted IMG and its
principal in furtherance of an alleged Ponzi scheme. In December
2017, the District Court dismissed all claims against the Bank.

In January 2018, the plaintiff filed an appeal with the Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appeal was heard in early April
2019 and a ruling is anticipated in mid or late 2019.

Zions Bancorporation, National Association provides various banking
and related services primarily in Arizona, California, Colorado,
Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming. The company was formerly known as ZB, National Association
and changed its name to Zions Bancorporation, National Association
in September 2018. Zions Bancorporation, National Association was
founded in 1873 and is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah.


ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Gregory & Springer Suit Underway in Utah
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zions Bancorporation, National Association said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8,
2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the
company continues to defend a consolidated Gregory & Springer class
suits in Utah.

Two civil class action lawsuits: Gregory, et. al. v. Zions
Bancorporation and Springer, et. al. v. Zions Bancorporation, were
brought against the company in the United States District Court in
Utah in January 2019 which have been consolidated into one case;
and a separate civil action brought by a group of investors North
Valley Partners, et. al. v. Zions Bancorporation, brought against
the company in the Third Judicial District Court for Salt Lake
County, in March 2019.

These cases were filed on behalf of investors in Rust Rare Coin,
Inc. alleging that we aided and abetted a Ponzi scheme fraud
perpetrated by Rust Rare Coin, a Zions Bank customer.

The cases follow civil actions and the establishment of a
receivership for Rust Rare Coin by The Commodities Futures Trading
Commission and the Utah Division of Securities in November 2018, as
well as a separate suit brought by the Securities and Exchange
Commission against Rust Rare Coin and its principal, Gaylen Rust.

Zions Bancorporation, National Association provides various banking
and related services primarily in Arizona, California, Colorado,
Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming. The company was formerly known as ZB, National Association
and changed its name to Zions Bancorporation, National Association
in September 2018. Zions Bancorporation, National Association was
founded in 1873 and is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah.


[*] JND Appoints Jonathan Paul as Mass Tort Senior Consultant
-------------------------------------------------------------
JND Legal Administration, a legal management and administration
company serving law firms, companies and government entities, has
appointed Jonathan Paul as a senior consultant to drive growth for
the company's mass tort and lien resolution service lines.  In late
2018, the company acquired Lien Resolution Group and announced the
JND Lien Resolution division to complement its mass tort
offerings.

"Jonathan brings a great deal of valuable business development
knowledge and consulting experience," comments David Isaac,
executive co-chairman and co-founder at JND Legal Administration.
"His expertise will help continue the rapid growth of our mass tort
administration service line."

Mr. Paul brings over 15 years of experience and expertise to the
coordination and implementation of client relationship and sales
strategy and management.  As a certified Lean Six Sigma Green Belt,
Mr. Paul has held various leadership positions including senior
vice president and business development director at a large legal
consulting and administrative services firm, with a focus on
complex litigation administration.

"I am excited to join the JND team and the company's burgeoning
mass tort and lien resolution divisions," Mr. Paul commented.  "I
look forward to leveraging my experience and expertise to increase
market presence and support JND's continued growth."

Mr. Paul earned his bachelor's degree from St. Cloud State
University and has presented many continuing legal education (CLE)
courses on settlement administration to prominent plaintiff and
defense firms across the country.

The onboarding of Mr. Paul is another step in JND's commitment to
provide the most responsive, full service settlement solutions in
the legal administration industry.  The addition will enhance JND's
existing legal administration footprint, facilitating first class,
end-to-end mass tort settlement solutions.

                  About JND Legal Administration

JND Legal Administration -- http://www.jndla.com-- is a legal
management and administration company led by industry veterans who
are passionate about providing superior service.  Armed with
decades of expertise and a powerful set of tools, JND has deep
experience expertly navigating the intricacies of multiple,
intersecting service lines including class action settlement
administration, eDiscovery, government services, mass tort claims
and lien resolution.  JND is trusted by law firms, government
agencies and Fortune 500 companies across the nation.  The company
is backed by Stone Point Capital and has offices in California,
Minnesota, New York, Washington and Washington, D.C..


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos A Major Concern for Aboriginal Community
------------------------------------------------------------------
Darren Kershaw, writing for The Daily Examiner, reported that a
major concern within the Aboriginal community in the Clarence and
across the north coast at the moment is the long-term effects of
the Baryulgil asbestos mine.

In particular malignant mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer.

Usually the chances of getting this disease are one to two in a
million per year. This disease seems to occur after exposure to
asbestos dust and may take up to 40 years or more to show itself
after first exposure.

Malignant mesothelioma frequently results in the accumulation of
large amounts of fluid in the chest or abdominal cavities. This
tends to cause breathlessness or distension of the abdomen. The
cancer cells also tend to invade the normal tissues of the lung and
chest wall. This causes severe chest pain.

This disease is more far reaching than just affecting the miners.
At the Baryulgil mine everyone in the small community was in daily
contact with asbestos dust, children played in tailings and
tailings were routinely used as landfill in the Baryulgil
community.

Asbestos exposure is a powerful environmental determinant of health
that brings people to our centre for expert health advice,
assessment and management of related health conditions.

Anyone who was living or had any contact with the asbestos mine at
Baryulgil during its period of operation from 1942 to 1979 should
have a simple spirometry test.

This involves blowing into a machine that records breathing
function and capacity. As a first step, make an appointment or come
to one of our clinics for a spirometry test.

Influenza

Most commonly known as the flu, it is easily spread through
coughing and sneezing - the droplets from our coughs carry the
virus.

These droplets carried on our hands have been known to last up to
eight hours on hard surfaces such as stainless steel and plastic.
When you think of all those hands in one day on a shopping trolley
you can see how easily it can be spread.

It is a serious disease that can cause life-threatening
complications in the young, old and those with other health
problems such as diabetes or kidney and heart problems. Influenza
is a group of viruses that causes infections in the respiratory
tract.

All children under five are vulnerable to the flu, but Aboriginal
children are more likely to have complications such as pneumonia or
otitis media and require hospitalisation.

Aboriginal children are five times more likely to die from
influenza than non-Aboriginal children.

Sometimes people are reluctant to have their children vaccinated
against the flu as they believe their kids are fit and healthy and
able to fight it off themselves. However, statistics show half the
children who die from the flu are fit and healthy kids who don't
have any other medical conditions.

Babies under six months are too young for the immunisation but
having those around them vaccinated against the flu gives them some
protection.

Kids under five are also good at spreading it due to their age as
they are yet to develop good hand-washing and coughing practices.

Influenza symptoms can be mild or none and people with flu are
contagious for up to two days before symptoms show. Using good
hygiene practices such as coughing into your bent elbow if you have
no tissues, hand washing and staying home or away from others when
sick helps prevent the spread of the flu and further protects you
and your family.

Bulgarr Ngaru Medical Aboriginal Corporation nurses and doctors
will be only too happy to help you.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Job Abandoned At Ex-Westinghouse Site
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reported that a company renovating a former Westinghouse
research and development facility sued an asbestos abatement
company for breach of contract in Pennsylvania state court over a
$1.17 million lien and $98,585 owed to subcontractors on the
project.

Churchill Crossings Partners LP alleges in its suit that it paid
Triton Holdings LLC $976,900 for asbestos removal services at a
pair of buildings at the former Westinghouse facility. While work
on one building was completed six months past the contractual
deadline, Churchill Crossings claims Triton has instructed its
unpaid subcontractors to file liens against Churchill Crossings and
has filed its own $1.17 million lien.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Global Had 53,000 Open Claims at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Global Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2019, that there were 53,000
asbestos-related claims pending against the Company at March 31,
2019.

The Company states, "The claims alleging personal injury caused by
exposure to asbestos asserted against Ashland result primarily from
indemnification obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection with
the sale of Riley Stoker Corporation (Riley).  The amount and
timing of settlements and number of open claims can fluctuate from
period to period.

"Ashland has insurance coverage for certain litigation defense and
claim settlement costs incurred in connection with its asbestos
claims, and coverage-in-place agreements exist with the insurance
companies that provide substantially all of the coverage that will
be accessed.

"For the Ashland asbestos-related obligations, Ashland has
estimated the value of probable insurance recoveries associated
with its asbestos reserve based on management's interpretations and
estimates surrounding the available or applicable insurance
coverage, including an assumption that all solvent insurance
carriers remain solvent.  A substantial portion of the estimated
receivables from insurance companies are expected to be due from
domestic insurers.

"At March 31, 2019, Ashland's receivable for recoveries of
litigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurers
amounted to US$136 million (excluding the Hercules receivable for
asbestos claims) compared to US$140 million at September 30, 2018.
During the June 2018 quarter, the annual update of the model used
for purposes of valuing the asbestos reserve and its impact on
valuation of future recoveries from insurers was completed.  This
model update resulted in a US$5 million decrease in the receivable
for probable insurance recoveries."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/XaY6v5


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECONY Accrues $7MM Liability at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s subsidiary Consolidated Edison Company
of New York, Inc. (CECONY) had accrued liability of US$7 million
for asbestos suits at March 31, 2019, according to the Companies'
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

CECONY also deferred US$7 million as regulatory assets related to
asbestos suits at March 31, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/osWlKu


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleavage Fragments Discussion Repeats in J&J Trial
-------------------------------------------------------------------
John Sammon, writing for Northern California Record, reported that
a trial over allegations that Johnson & Johnson baby powder and a
face powder product from Colgate-Palmolive called Cashmere Bouquet
caused a woman's mesothelioma returned again to the issue of
cleavage fragments and whether they are toxic.

"The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) disagreed that cleavage
fragments are not known to cause disease?" asked Denyse Clancy, the
attorney for plaintiff Patricia Schmitz.

"The statement is incorrect," responded Dr. Brooke T. Mossman, a
Vermont pathologist and an expert witness called by attorneys for
Johnson & Johnson.

The trial in the Alameda County Superior Court is being streamed
live courtesy of Courtroom View Network.

Schmitz is suing Johnson & Johnson and Colgate-Palmolive over the
powder products she claims gave her the deadly disease
mesothelioma, a cancer of the linings of the lungs. Doctors said
the 61-year-old woman, mother and former school teacher, probably
has only a few months to live.

The argument over cleavage fragments has figured prominently in
this and earlier asbestos trials. Cleavage fragments are crushed
rocks created in the milling process of the mining of talc, a
mineral used in baby powder. The fragments can resemble long and
thin asbestos fibers in size and shape having at least a 3-to-1 or
5-to-1 length to width ratio.

Defendants' attorneys contend cleavage fragments are non-asbestos,
harmless, and have been misidentified by plaintiff attorneys and
their expert witnesses as asbestos fibers. Plaintiff lawyers
maintain that cleavage fragments can be toxic.

"You've not done studies of how cleavage fragments can make it into
the lungs?" Clancy asked.

"Correct," Mossman answered.

Clancy said a Region 9 report from an office of the EPA located in
El Dorado Hills, California had concluded that fibers that met the
correct size dimensions for asbestos should be counted as such.
However, Mossman said the opinion was simply a letter and not an
official national EPA document that had been reviewed by a panel.

Mesothelioma has a latency period, the time from initial asbestos
exposure to illness, of at least 10 years, but can take 40 years to
develop. Clancy asked if lower asbestos exposure rates could result
in a longer latency period.

Mossman said a scientific paper in 2002 made such a conclusion, but
there was doubt expressed.

"It's been questioned by others," she said.

"You didn't study latency?" Clancy asked.

"That's correct," Mossman said.

Clancy challenged Mossman's objectivity, asking her if she had been
a peer reviewer for a National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH) publication. NIOSH is the scientific arm of the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

"Yes," Mossman agreed.

"You should be neutral," Clancy said.

"Yes," Mossman said.

Documents indicated that talc company officials were concerned
about the possibility of regulation of talc powder by agencies such
as OSHA.

Clancy said Mossman did not inform NIOSH officials she was seeking
funding for research in 2011 from R.T. Vanderbilt Co., a
Connecticut chemical, mineral and talc supply company.

"You wrote to R.T. Vanderbilt in 2011 and proposed a study
attacking the NIOSH (publication) that you were supposed to be a
neutral peer reviewer for, correct?"

"That's incorrect," Mossman said.

Clancy presented a 1976 article from the New York Times that said a
sampling of asbestos powder tested by Mount Sinai Hospital had
found asbestos in 10 out of 19 samples.

"You were aware of this article?"

"I'm seeing it for the first time," Mossman said.

Clancy also displayed a letter from the 1970s in which an official
of Johnson & Johnson asked how much tremolite, a mineral that could
contain asbestos or not, would be considered safe in talc powder.

"We can agree no amount of tremolite is safe?" Clancy asked.

"There is no data to support that," Mossman said.

During cross-examination by attorneys for Johnson & Johnson,
Mossman said she never disputed the fact that asbestos tremolite
may be carcinogenic.

Mossman agreed that cleavage fragments can overlap the size
dimensions of asbestos fibers and are not pathogenic, adding that
studies backing that position had not been shown to her by
plaintiff lawyers.

She also said studies, including those conducted on animals, in
which a large amount of tremolite fibers had been injected to see
if they caused tumors were flawed.

"Studies have not shown that tumors develop from cleavage
fragments," Mossman said. "That's what's important. Cleavage
fragments have not given rise to tumors."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Accrues $8MM Liability at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc. had accrued liability of US$8 million for
asbestos suits at March 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.  The Company also
deferred US$8 million as regulatory assets related to asbestos
suits at March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "Suits have been brought in New York State and
federal courts against the Utilities and many other defendants,
wherein a large number of plaintiffs sought large amounts of
compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly
caused by exposure to asbestos at various premises of the
Utilities.  The suits that have been resolved, which are many, have
been resolved without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts
that were not, in the aggregate, material to them.  The amounts
specified in all the remaining thousands of suits total billions of
dollars; however, the Utilities believe that these amounts are
greatly exaggerated, based on the disposition of previous claims.

"At March 31, 2019, Con Edison and CECONY have accrued their
estimated aggregate undiscounted potential liabilities for these
suits and additional suits that may be brought over the next 15
years as shown in the following table.  These estimates were based
upon a combination of modeling, historical data analysis and risk
factor assessment.  Courts have begun, and unless otherwise
determined on appeal may continue, to apply different standards for
determining liability in asbestos suits than the standard that
applied historically.  As a result, the Companies currently believe
that there is a reasonable possibility of an exposure to loss in
excess of the liability accrued for the suits.  The Companies are
unable to estimate the amount or range of such loss.

"In addition, certain current and former employees have claimed or
are claiming workers' compensation benefits based on alleged
disability from exposure to asbestos.  CECONY is permitted to defer
as regulatory assets (for subsequent recovery through rates) costs
incurred for its asbestos lawsuits and workers' compensation
claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/osWlKu


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Spent $16MM for Manhattan Incident
--------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc. has incurred estimated operating costs of
US$16 million as of March 31, 2019, for property damage, clean- up
and other response costs related to the rupture of a steam main
owned by its subsidiary in Manhattan, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.  The Company has
also invested US$9 million in capital and retirement costs as of
March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "In July 2018, a CECONY steam main located on
Fifth Avenue and 21st Street in Manhattan ruptured.  Debris from
the incident included dirt and mud containing asbestos.  The
response to the incident required the closing of buildings and
streets for various periods.  The NYSPSC has commenced an
investigation.  As of March 31, 2019, with respect to the incident,
the company incurred estimated operating costs of US$16 million for
property damage, clean-up and other response costs and invested
US$9 million in capital and retirement costs.  The company has
notified its insurers of the incident and believes that the
policies currently in force will cover the company's costs, in
excess of a required retention (the amount of which is not
material), to satisfy any liability it may have for damages to
others in connection with the incident.  The company is unable to
estimate the amount or range of its possible loss related to the
incident.  At March 31, 2019, the company had not accrued a
liability related to the incident."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/osWlKu


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 28,498 Pending Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. has 28,498 pending asbestos-related claims as of March
31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "Of the 28,498 pending claims as of March 31,
2019, approximately 18,000 claims were pending in New York,
approximately 100 claims were pending in Texas, approximately 300
claims were pending in Mississippi, and approximately 200 claims
were pending in Ohio, all jurisdictions in which legislation or
judicial orders restrict the types of claims that can proceed to
trial on the merits.

"We have tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts by the
jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court.  We further
have pursued appeals of certain adverse jury verdicts that have
resulted in reversals in favor of the defense."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Q5ENR2


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro Had $11.3MM Asbestos Coverage at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enpro Industries, Inc. had approximately US$11.3 million of
insurance coverage for asbestos claims payments and certain expense
payments at March 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "The historical business operations of certain
of our subsidiaries resulted in a substantial volume of asbestos
litigation in which plaintiffs alleged personal injury or death as
a result of exposure to asbestos fibers.  In 2010, certain of these
subsidiaries, including Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC ("GST"),
filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of
the United States Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the Western District of North Carolina (the "Bankruptcy Court").
An additional subsidiary filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition
with the Bankruptcy Court in 2017.  The filings were part of a
claims resolution process for an efficient and permanent resolution
of all pending and future asbestos claims through court approval of
a plan of reorganization to establish a facility to resolve and pay
these asbestos claims.

"These claims against GST and other subsidiaries were resolved
pursuant to a joint plan of reorganization (the "Joint Plan") filed
with the Bankruptcy Court which was consummated on July 29, 2017.
Under the Joint Plan, GST and a corporate predecessor of EnPro
Holdings retained their rights to seek reimbursement under
insurance policies for any amounts they have paid in the past to
resolve asbestos claims, including contributions made to the
asbestos claims resolution trust established under the Joint Plan
(the "Trust").  These policies include a number of primary and
excess general liability insurance policies that were purchased by
a corporate predecessor of EnPro Holdings and were in effect prior
to January 1, 1976 (the "Pre-Garlock Coverage Block").  The
policies provide coverage for "occurrences" happening during the
policy periods and cover losses associated with product liability
claims against the corporate predecessor of EnPro Holdings and
certain of its subsidiaries.  Asbestos claims against GST are not
covered under these policies because GST was not a subsidiary of
EnPro Holdings' corporate predecessor prior to 1976.  The Joint
Plan provides that EnPro Holdings may retain the first US$25
million of any settlements and judgments related to insurance
policies in the Pre-Garlock Coverage Block and EnPro Holdings and
the Trust will share equally in any settlements and judgments EnPro
Holdings may collect in excess of US$25 million.

"As of March 31, 2019, approximately US$11.3 million of available
products hazard limits or insurance receivables existed under
primary and excess general liability insurance policies other than
the Pre-Garlock Coverage Block (the "Garlock Coverage Block") from
solvent carriers with investment grade ratings, which we believe is
available to cover GST asbestos claims payments and certain expense
payments, including contributions to the Trust.  We consider such
amount of available insurance coverage under the Garlock Coverage
Block to be of high quality because the insurance policies are
written or guaranteed by U.S.-based carriers whose credit rating by
S&P is investment grade (BBB-) or better, and whose AM Best rating
is excellent (A-) or better.  The remaining US$11.3 million is
available to pending and estimated future claims.  There are
specific agreements in place with carriers regarding the remaining
available coverage.  Based on those agreements and the terms of the
policies in place and prior decisions concerning coverage, we
believe that all of the US$11.3 million of insurance proceeds will
ultimately be collected, although there can be no assurance that
the insurance companies will make the payments as and when due.
Assuming the insurers pay according to the agreements and policies,
we anticipate that the following amounts should be collected in the
years set out below:

   * 2019 – US$8.8 million
   * 2020 – US$2.5 million

"GST has received US$8.8 million of insurance recoveries from
insolvent carriers since 2007, and may receive additional payments
from insolvent carriers in the future.  No anticipated insolvent
carrier collections are included in the US$11.3 million of
anticipated collections.  The insurance available to cover current
and future asbestos claims is from comprehensive general liability
policies that cover EnPro Holdings, and certain of its other
subsidiaries in addition to GST for periods prior to 1985 and
therefore could be subject to potential competing claims of other
covered subsidiaries and their assignees."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/GEeslk


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Ignored Expert Advice, Report Finds
--------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Maslow, writing for Legal Scoops, reported that the EPA
ignored advice from more than a dozen senior officials who urged
the agency to ban asbestos outright, a new report has found.

The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization obtained two internal
memos, which revealed that the EPA's own scientists and lawyers
advised the issuance of a complete ban of asbestos instead of
restricting its domestic use.

The memos, which were dated August 10, 2018, staff members at the
EPA said the agency should "seek to ban all new uses of asbestos
because the extreme harm from this chemical substance outweighs any
benefit."

The memos also noted that there are adequate alternatives to
asbestos.

House Democrats are hoping to sidestep the EPA's regulation with a
bill that would ban the substance within a year.

In a recent hearing before the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on
Environment and Climate Change, Democrats grilled the EPA's
chemical staff on why the agency didn't take more restrictive
actions on the harmful substance after passing a law that gave them
more authority to regulate chemicals.

The EPA has faced harsh criticism over its latest action on
asbestos. The agency claims that the new rule would limit the use
of asbestos in the U.S., but critics argue that it may actually
reintroduce some asbestos products onto the market.

More than 60 countries have banned asbestos outright. In the U.S.,
the substance is still sometimes used in the production of chlorine
and the construction of roads.

The EPA banned asbestos in 1989, but a court overturned that law in
1991. The ruling allowed limited uses of asbestos to continue.

Committee Republicans claim that Democrats are politicizing the
issue and trying to sidestep the EPA's science-based process.
Republicans are concerned about "the immediate loss of 36 percent"
of the country's national chlorine production. The move, they
argue, would put "hospitals and drinking water supplies" at risk.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Camp Manager Files Asbestos Negligence
----------------------------------------------------------
Recently, The Daily Californian published an article about a former
manager of wilderness camp operated by a city in Northern
California that has filed a lawsuit against the municipality's
Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Department. According to the
article, the plaintiff claims negligence and a willful failure to
warn against asbestos exposure and dangerous conditions of public
property. The former camp manager alleges that when he brought
concerns associated with asbestos in a cabin at the camp to his
supervisors, his warnings were not handled properly.

Asbestos can still be found on the interior and exterior of many
buildings and homes that were constructed up until the late 1970s.
Asbestos was added to numerous building materials to increase the
strength and durability of products and to provide insulating and
fireproofing properties. A few of the many materials that may
contain asbestos include fireproofing materials; attic and wall
insulation; vinyl floor tiles and the backing on vinyl sheet
flooring; adhesives; roofing and siding shingles; textured paint
and patching compounds; and hot water and steam pipes coated with
asbestos materials or covered with an asbestos blanket or tape.

"Exposure to asbestos fibers can cause mesothelioma, lung cancer
and asbestosis," said Michael Chapman, Laboratory Manager at LA
Testing's Huntington Beach facility. "In some cases, these
conditions may not show up for many years after exposure. This is
why there are numerous rules and regulations in place meant to
protect workers and the public from exposure risks."

Unless a material is labeled as containing asbestos, which rarely
is the case, the only way to know if it or dust in a building
contains asbestos is to have it tested. The asbestos experts at LA
Testing offer comprehensive laboratory services, all of the
sampling supplies needed and easy-to-use test kits to identify
asbestos from building materials and from air, dust, soil and other
types of samples. They have even sponsored an educational video
about malignant mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure that can be
seen at: http://youtu.be/lEyopPp9Ck4

To learn more about asbestos or other indoor air quality (IAQ),
environmental, occupational, health and safety testing services,
please visit www.LATesting.com, email info@LATesting.com or call
(800) 755-1794. To access test kits for asbestos and other indoor
environmental quality concerns, visit www.EMSLTestKits.com

                  About LA Testing

LA Testing is California's leading laboratory for indoor air
quality testing of asbestos, mold, lead, VOCs, formaldehyde, soot,
char, ash and smoke damage, particulates and other chemicals. In
addition, LA Testing offers a full range of air sampling and
investigative equipment to professionals and the general public. LA
Testing maintains an extensive list of accreditations including:
AIHA LAP LLC., AIHA ELLAP, AIHA EMLAP and AIHA IHLAP, CDC ELITE,
NVLAP, State of California, State of Hawaii Department of Health
and other states. LA Testing, along with the EMSL Analytical, Inc.
network, has multiple laboratories throughout California including
South Pasadena, Huntington Beach, San Leandro and San Diego.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Generation Had $77MM Liability at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Generation Company, LLC estimated US$77 million liability
for asbestos-related personal injury claims at March 31, 2019,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "Generation maintains a reserve for claims
associated with asbestos-related personal injury actions in certain
facilities that are currently owned by Generation or were
previously owned by ComEd and PECO.  The estimated liabilities are
recorded on an undiscounted basis and exclude the estimated legal
costs associated with handling these matters, which could be
material.

"At March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, Generation had recorded
estimated liabilities of approximately US$77 million and US$79
million, respectively, in total for asbestos-related bodily injury
claims.  As of March 31, 2019, approximately US$25 million of this
amount related to 239 open claims presented to Generation, while
the remaining US$52 million is for estimated future
asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through
2050, based on actuarial assumptions and analyses, which are
updated on an annual basis.  On a quarterly basis, Generation
monitors actual experience against the number of forecasted claims
to be received and expected claim payments and evaluates whether
adjustments to the estimated liabilities are necessary.

"There is a reasonable possibility that Exelon may have additional
exposure to estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury claims
in excess of the amount accrued and the increases could have a
material unfavorable impact on Exelon's and Generation's financial
statements."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/1iI3lV


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules LLC Had $272MM Reserve at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Global Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2019, that wholly-owned subsidiary Hercules
LLC had total reserves of US$272 million at March 31, 2019 for
asbestos claims.

The Company states, "Hercules has liabilities from claims alleging
personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos.  Such claims
typically arise from alleged exposure to asbestos fibers from resin
encapsulated pipe and tank products which were sold by one of
Hercules' former subsidiaries to a limited industrial market.  The
amount and timing of settlements and number of open claims can
fluctuate from period to period.

From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount it believes
to be the best estimate of future payments for litigation defense
and claim settlement costs, which generally approximates the
mid-point of the estimated range of exposure from model results.
Ashland reviews this estimate and related assumptions quarterly and
annually updates the results of a non-inflated, non-discounted
approximate 50-year model developed with the assistance of Nathan.
As a result of the most recent annual update of this estimate,
completed during the June 2018 quarter, it was determined that the
liability for Hercules asbestos-related claims should be decreased
by US$19 million.  Total reserves for asbestos claims were US$272
million at March 31, 2019 compared to US$282 million at September
30, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/XaY6v5


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules LLC Had 12,000 Open Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Global Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2019, that there are 12,000 claims pending
against wholly-owned subsidiary Hercules LLC related to asbestos
matters at March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "Hercules has liabilities from claims alleging
personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos.  Such claims
typically arise from alleged exposure to asbestos fibers from resin
encapsulated pipe and tank products which were sold by one of
Hercules' former subsidiaries to a limited industrial market.  The
amount and timing of settlements and number of open claims can
fluctuate from period to period.

"For the Hercules asbestos-related obligations, certain
reimbursement obligations pursuant to coverage-in-place agreements
with insurance carriers exist.  As a result, any increases in the
asbestos reserve have been partially offset by probable insurance
recoveries.  Ashland has estimated the value of probable insurance
recoveries associated with its asbestos reserve based on
management's interpretations and estimates surrounding the
available or applicable insurance coverage, including an assumption
that all solvent insurance carriers remain solvent.  The estimated
receivable consists exclusively of solvent domestic insurers.

"As of March 31, 2019, Ashland's receivable for recoveries of
litigation defense and claims costs from insurers with respect to
Hercules amounted to US$54 million.  During the June 2018 quarter,
the annual update of the model used for purposes of valuing the
asbestos reserve and its impact on valuation of future recoveries
from insurers was completed.  This model update resulted in a
decrease of US$14 million in the receivable for probable insurance
recoveries."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/XaY6v5


ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Still Defends Lawsuits over Asbestos Talc
--------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019, that it continues to face lawsuits related to
alleged asbestos contamination in body powders containing talc.

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

"In October 2018, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed
against Johnson & Johnson as the nominal defendant and its current
directors as defendants in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, alleging a breach of fiduciary duties
related to the alleged asbestos contamination in body powders
containing talc, primarily JOHNSON'S(R) Baby Powder, and that
Johnson & Johnson has suffered damages as a result of those alleged
breaches.  Plaintiff is seeking damages and an order for the
Company to reform its internal policies and procedures

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

"A lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California alleging violations of Proposition
65, California's Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law.
In addition, the Company has received preliminary inquiries and
subpoenas to produce documents regarding these matters from Senator
Murray, a member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions, the Department of Justice, the Securities and
Exchange Commission and the U.S. Congressional Subcommittee on
Economic and Consumer Policy.  The Company is cooperating with
these government inquiries and will be producing documents in
response."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Xbzck7


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lack of Evidence Dooms Death Suit, Judge Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reported that a Washington federal judge has tossed a
widow's claims against several companies over her husband's death
from mesothelioma, finding that she's presented no evidence linking
those products to her husband's illness.

In orders granting summary judgment, U.S. District Judge Robert J.
Bryan found that as an affidavit signed by Donald Varney a day
before his death was ruled inadmissible as evidence, claims against
Ingersoll-Rand Co., Velan Valve Corp., Air & Liquid Systems Corp.,
Warren Pumps LLC, and Parker-Hannifin Corp. cannot go forward.
Varney and his wife, Maria, sued the companies and others, claiming
that Varney's mesothelioma stemmed from his exposure to products
containing asbestos during his employment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Still Faces Falk PI Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation still faces lawsuits alleging personal injuries
due to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and
drives previously manufactured by The Falk Corporation, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "In connection with the Company's acquisition
of The Falk Corporation ("Falk"), Hamilton Sundstrand provided the
Company with indemnification against certain products-related
asbestos exposure liabilities.  The Company believes that, pursuant
to such indemnity obligations, Hamilton Sundstrand is obligated to
defend and indemnify the Company with respect to the asbestos
claims, and that, with respect to these claims, such indemnity
obligations are not subject to any time or dollar limitations.

"Falk, through its successor entity, is a defendant in multiple
lawsuits pending in state or federal court in numerous
jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the
alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives
previously manufactured by Falk.  There are approximately 100
claimants in these suits.  The ultimate outcome of these lawsuits
cannot presently be determined.  Hamilton Sundstrand is defending
the Company in these lawsuits pursuant to its indemnity obligations
and has paid 100% of the costs to date."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/ezkLmk


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord's Prager Unit Still Subject to PI Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation's Prager subsidiary is the subject of claims by
multiple claimants alleging personal injuries due to the alleged
presence of asbestos in a product it manufactured, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "The Company's Prager subsidiary is the subject
of claims by multiple claimants alleging personal injuries due to
the alleged presence of asbestos in a product allegedly
manufactured by Prager.  However, all these claims are currently on
the Texas Multi-district Litigation inactive docket, and the
Company does not believe that they will become active in the
future.  To date, the Company's insurance providers have paid 100%
of the costs related to the Prager asbestos matters.  The Company
believes that the combination of its insurance coverage and the
Invensys indemnity obligations will cover any future costs of these
matters.

"In connection with its sale, Invensys plc ("Invensys") provided
the Company with indemnification against certain contingent
liabilities, including certain pre-closing environmental
liabilities.  The Company believes that, pursuant to such indemnity
obligations, Invensys is obligated to defend and indemnify the
Company with respect to the matters relating to the Ellsworth
Industrial Park Site and to various asbestos claims.  The indemnity
obligations relating to the matters are subject, together with
indemnity obligations relating to other matters, to an overall
dollar cap equal to the purchase price, which is an amount in
excess of US$900 million."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/ezkLmk


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord's Zurn Had 6,000 Pending Suits at Mar. 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
There were approximately 6,000 asbestos-related lawsuits
representing approximately 14,000 claims filed against Rexnord
Corporation's Zurn subsidiary as of March 31, 2019, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "As of March 31, 2019, Zurn and numerous other
unrelated companies were defendants in approximately 6,000 asbestos
related lawsuits representing approximately 14,000 claims.
Plaintiffs' claims allege personal injuries caused by exposure to
asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers formerly manufactured
by a segment of Zurn.  Zurn did not manufacture asbestos or
asbestos components.  Instead, Zurn purchased them from suppliers.
These claims are being handled pursuant to a defense strategy
funded by insurers.

"As of March 31, 2019, the Company estimates the potential
liability for the asbestos-related claims, as well as the claims
expected to be filed in the next ten years, to be approximately
US$40.0 million, of which Zurn expects its insurance carriers to
pay approximately US$30.0 million in the next ten years on such
claims, with the balance of the estimated liability being paid in
subsequent years.  The US$40.0 million was developed based on
actuarial studies and represents the projected indemnity payout for
current and future claims.  There are inherent uncertainties
involved in estimating the number of future asbestos claims, future
settlement costs, and the effectiveness of defense strategies and
settlement initiatives.  As a result, actual liability could differ
from the estimate described herein and could be substantial.  The
liability for the asbestos-related claims is recorded in Other
liabilities within the consolidated balance sheets.

"Management estimates that its available insurance to cover this
potential asbestos liability as of March 31, 2019, is in excess of
the ten year estimated exposure, and accordingly, believes that all
current claims are covered by insurance.

"As of March 31, 2019, the Company had a recorded receivable from
its insurance carriers of US$40.0 million, which corresponds to the
amount of this potential asbestos liability that is covered by
available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of
recovery.  However, there is no assurance the Company's current
insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that this
asbestos liability will not ultimately exceed the Company's
coverage limits.  Factors that could cause a decrease in the amount
of available coverage or create gaps in coverage include: changes
in law governing the policies, potential disputes and settlements
with the carriers regarding the scope of coverage, and insolvencies
of one or more of the Company's carriers.  The receivable for
probable asbestos-related recoveries is recorded in Other assets
within the condensed consolidated balance sheets."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/ezkLmk


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sydney Counsel Issues Legal Threat Over Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Gorrey, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reported that
a public inquiry into the Blue Mountains City Council's handling of
an asbestos crisis has been reopened after broadcaster Ray Hadley
accused council staff of lying to the investigation.

Lawyers for the council's general manager have threatened legal
action over Hadley's on-air claims after an interim report from the
first stage of the inquiry cleared the council of wrongdoing.

The NSW government last year announced a public inquiry would
examine the council, west of Sydney, and councillors' response to
asbestos problems since 2012. It would also scrutinise the
council's employment processes for staff and contractors, including
those engaged to independently investigate asbestos management and
employment matters.

The hearing was a response to conflict of interest claims that
emerged after the council ordered an investigation into its
handling of asbestos problems in November 2017.

Those allegations centred on a claim first aired by Hadley that an
independent investigator for the inquiry, Michael Tooma, failed to
disclose a friendship with a former council staff member.

The first stage of the hearing, in April, focused on the council's
processes in engaging the law firm Clyde & Co, where Mr Tooma was a
partner, as well as the firm McCullough Robertson, to probe alleged
"employment issues" within the council.

Commissioner Richard Beasley, SC, found in his interim report in
May that the council’s process of engaging those two firms was
"prudent and appropriate".

"Mr Tooma never had a conflict of interest, hence there was no real
conflict for the council to manage. As to the alleged conflict, the
council’s response to those allegations, and the response of the
governing body, was reasonable and appropriate."

The council said in a statement that, days after the interim report
was released, Hadley alleged on-air that the council's general
manager, Rosemary Dillon, had lied in her evidence.

"Having failed to assist the inquiry, and now being unwilling to
accept the umpire’s finding, Mr Hadley, in his May 16 broadcasts,
has -- as seems to be his wont -- used the bully pulpit of his
radio station to attack the council and its personnel instead," the
council's statement said.

The council denied in its statement that the staff member misled
the commission. "That statement was false -- and it is scandalously
so."

However, Commissioner Beasley last week reopened the inquiry after
Hadley alleged that at least some of the inquiry's findings
concerning a former council employee "were based on a 'lie'".

He said he was "gravely concerned" by Hadley's allegations.

"Given the serious nature of these issues, and the fact that
evidence was given under oath, a claim made publicly that the
commissioner was misled or lied to cannot be ignored."

Commissioner Beasley said he had requested 2GB and Hadley hand
over, by the end of May, any documents, or other evidence, related
to his claims the commission had been misled or lied to.

A council spokeswoman said that it had served Macquarie Media with
a concerns notice, which is a precursor to legal action in
defamation, on behalf of Ms Dillon on May 22.

"This follows allegations made by Ray Hadley on [May 16] that the
council lied to the public inquiry," the council spokeswoman said.

A Macquarie Media spokesman said Hadley would cooperate with the
commission and a dossier of material was being prepared to produce
to the inquiry.

"Lawyers acting for the council's general manager Rosemary Dillon
have sent 2GB a letter complaining about a broadcast in May but
have not commenced proceedings."

Nine Entertainment Co, the owner of this masthead, has a majority
stake in Macquarie Media.



                            *********

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 2019. 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 ***