/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200507.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, May 7, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 92

                            Headlines

012 SMILE: Appeal in Excessive Charge Suit Underway
012 SMILE: Appeal in Suit over Use of Router, Call Adaptor Nixed
012 SMILE: Data Speed Suit Underway
012 SMILE: Dismissal of Tariff Suit Under Appeal
012 SMILE: Litigation over International Call Rates Ongoing

1LIFE HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Suit Over Membership Fees
ACE AMERICAN: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Sandbergen FLSA Suit
ADMIN RECOVERY: Faces Iacuone FDCPA Suit Over Collection Letter
AETERNA ZENTARIS: Settlement Reached in Suit over Macrilen Reports
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Buero Appeals D. Oregon Ruling to 9th Cir.

AMBRY GENETICS: Faces Cercas Suit in California Over Data Breach
ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: Earmarks $65MM to Cover Silicosis Settlement
ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: Suits Against AGAC in Columbia Ongoing
ANIXTER INT'L: Faces 3 WESCO Merger Related Class Suits
APYX MEDICAL: Bid to Dismiss Pritchard Class Action Denied

ARC INSPECTION: Court Certifies FLSA Class of X-Ray Technicians
ASSET RECOVERY: Quinn Files FDCPA Suit in New York
AT&T SERVICES: Douglas Files FCRA Suit in Illinois
ATG CREDIT: Faraci Asserts Breach of FDCPA in Illinois
AVECTUS HEALTHCARE: Mercy Health Appeals Decision in Raymond Suit

BDR INDUSTRIES: Marron Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages Due
BEAUTY BRANDS: Binakonsky Files Suit in Pennsylvania
BLOOM ENERGY: Bolouri Class Action Dismissed
BLOOM ENERGY: Consolidated Lincolnshire Police Fund Suit Stayed
BLOOM ENERGY: Continues to Defend Roberts Class Suit

BLOOM ENERGY: Faces Sanchez Class Suit in Santa Clara County
BRITISH AMERICAN: 1,773 Engle Progeny Cases Pending at Dec. 31
BRITISH AMERICAN: Appeal in ADESF Suit v. Philip Morris Pending
BRITISH AMERICAN: Faces Advertising & Promotional Related Suits
BRITISH AMERICAN: Growers' Class Claim Remains Shelved

BRITISH AMERICAN: Jones Suit v. American Tobacco Still Dormant
BRITISH AMERICAN: Knight Class Action vs. Imperial Continues
BRITISH AMERICAN: Quebec Suits Remain Stayed Until September 30
BRITISH AMERICAN: SFNTC Sued over Cigarette Labeling
BRITISH AMERICAN: Young's ETS Class Suit Still Pending

CARING WITH HONOR: Verser Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
CELSION CORP: O'Connor Shareholder Derivative & Class Suit Ongoing
CENTRUS ENERGY: Matthews Suit Over Offsite Contamination Ongoing
CENTRUS ENERGY: McGlone Suit over Offsite Contamination Ongoing
CENTRUS ENERGY: Pritchard Suit Over Offsite Contamination Ongoing

CHIEFTAIN COATING: Young & Bennett Seek to Certify FLSA Class
CHINACACHE INT'L: Continues to Defend Likas Shareholder Class Suit
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Promotional Sues Over Refusal to Pay Claims
CINTAS CORP: Defending Against Securities Action in Ohio
CINTAS CORP: ERISA-Related Class Action in Ohio Ongoing

CLEAR BLUE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Monreal Suit Alleges
CLIENT SERVICES: Stewart Sues in Wisconsin Over FDCPA Violation
CLOUDERA INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Calif.
CLOUDERA INC: Hortonworks Merger-Related Suit Ongoing
COAST PROFESSIONAL: Approval of Kaykov Class Action Deal Sought

COCRYSTAL PHARMA: Continues to Defend Pepe Class Suit
COMPUTER HAUS: Court Certifies Collective Action in "Jahagirdar"
CONAGRA BRANDS: Negrete Class Action Still Ongoing
CONAGRA BRANDS: Settlement in Briseno Class Suit Appealed
CONAGRA BRANDS: West Palm Beach Firefighters' Suit Ongoing

CONCENTRIX CORP: Helwig Files FCRA Suit in Ohio
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Gomez Class Certification Bid Stayed
CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Placeholder Class Cert Bid Filed in Voeks
DELL TECH: Bid to Dismiss Class V Consolidated Suit Still Pending
DELL TECH: Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System Suit Closed

DEUTSCHE BANK: Bid to Dismiss ICE LIBOR Antitrust Suit Pending
DEUTSCHE BANK: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Class Action in Israel
DEUTSCHE BANK: Global Settlement Reached in Contant Litigation
DEUTSCHE BANK: Israel Class Suit Over Interest Rates Ongoing
DEUTSCHE BANK: Metzler Case Settlement Wins Preliminary Approval

DEUTSCHE BANK: Still Defends LIBOR-Related Class Suit in Argentina
DEUTSCHE BANK: Suit by Indirect Participants of SSA Bonds Ongoing
DOLLAR TREE: ADA Related Class Suits Ongoing
DOLLAR TREE: Illinois Customer's Suit vs. Family Dollar Ongoing
DOLLAR TREE: Store Manager Suit vs. Family Dollar Concluded

DUN & BRADSTREET: Conditional Cert. of Collective Action Sought
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Miller Sues in S.D.N.Y. Over Violation of FDCPA
FRONTIER COMM: Court Denies Bid for Leave to Amend Class Suit
GEORGIA: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Filed in Fiorito Suit
GLOBAL CREDIT: Placeholder Class Cert Bid Filed in Zarczynski

GLOBAL TRAVEL: Breaches Own Cancellation Policy, Sides Suit Says
HEALTHEQUITY INC: Purchasers' Class Suit v. WageWorks Ongoing
HEALTHEQUITY INC: WageWorks May Still Pay Plaintiff Counsel Fees
HOMELAND SECURITY: Certification of Immigrants Class Sought
HORIZON PERSONNEL: Saldana Sues Over Wage and Hour Law Violation

HSS INC: Aguayo Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to N.D. California
ICONIX WATERWORKS: Magee Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
INTERSTATE HOME: Tucker Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
ISS FACILITY SERVICES: Appeals N.D. Cal. Ruling in Garcia Suit
JEFFERIES FINANCIAL: Class Suits in Minnesota, New Mexico Underway

JPMORGAN CHASE: Sha-Poppin Challenges Prioritization of PPP Loans
KANSAS: Supreme Court Appeal Filed in Hadley v. Zmuda Class Suit
KPC HEALTHCARE: Yanez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
LANCER INSURANCE: Camp 1382 LLC Files Suit in New York
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Continues to Defend Gathmann-Landini Suit

MARQUEZ CONSTRUCTION: Soto Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
MEET GROUP: Respler Securities Suit Challenges Sale to NCG-NuCom
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Manning Class Suit
MLK EXPRESS: Burns' Collective Action Complaint Dismissed
MORGAN STANLEY: MS&Co. Still Defends IPERS Antitrust Class Suit

MORGAN STANLEY: Settlement in GSE Bonds Suit Wins Initial Approval
NATURE'S BOUNTY: Falsely Advertises Osteo Bi-Flex, Whyble Alleges
NEUBASE THERAPEUTICS: Appeal in Lehman Suit v. Ohr Pharma Pending
NEUBASE THERAPEUTICS: Wheby Class Action vs Ohr Pharma Ongoing
NEW PENN FINANCIAL: Olszewski Files FDCPA Suit in Illinois

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Rynasko Seeks Refund for Tuition and Fees
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Appeals Decision in Baleja Suit to 9th Circuit
NUVO GROUP: Perez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Continues to Defend Stirling Class Suit
PARTNER COMMS: Appeal in Router-Adaptor Purchase Suit Dismissed

PARTNER COMMS: Appeal in Volume Rate of Data Packages Suit Tossed
PARTNER COMMS: Class Action Over Unlawful Charges Ongoing
PARTNER COMMS: Data Speed-Related Suit Still Ongoing
PARTNER COMMS: Jan. 2016 Claim for NIS 234 Million Ongoing
PARTNER COMMS: July 2014 Claim for NIS 300 Million Pending

PARTNER COMMS: Litigation Over Voicemail Service Charges Ongoing
PARTNER COMMS: Suit Over Free Content Filtering Services Ongoing
PHI GROUP: Quartuccio Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages & Overtime Wages
PHOENIX TREE: Faces Wandel Securities Class Suit in S.D. New York
PRESTRESSED CONTRACTORS: Edouassaint Suit Moved to S.D. Florida

SEATGEEK INC: Breaches Contract on Money-Back Refund, Trader Says
SERVISFIRST BANK: S&W Sues Over PPP Loan Discriminating Policies
SIGNET JEWELERS: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Due June 15
SIGNET JEWELERS: Settlement Agreement Entered in Consolidated Suit
SONIM TECH: Continues to Defend 4 Lawsuits Over IPO

SPECIALTY RESTAURANTS: Siefert Seeks OT Pay for Service Workers
SQUARETRADE INC: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Swinton Suit
STORM TIGHT: Certification of Weinstock FLSA Collective Sought
SUNDIAL GROWERS: Continues to Defend IPO Related Class Suit in NY
TECH DATA: Suits Challenging Tiger Midco Merger Dropped

TELERECOVERY CORP: Okon Alleges Violation under FDCPA in New York
TEXAS: Hall Files Suit Over Prisoner Civil Rights
TRAF GROUP: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for July 13
TRANSPORTATION INSURANCE: O’Brien Sales Files Suit in California
UNITED SERVICES: Allen Suit Moved to Texas First Court of Appeals

US DEALER SERVICES: Reynolds Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Calls
VERINT SYSTEMS: Bid to Amend Class Certification Motion Pending
ZION OIL: Lead Plaintiffs Drop Securities Litigation
ZUORA INC: Bid to Nix Consolidated Securities Class Suit Pending
ZYLA LIFE: Appeal from Dismissal of Securities Suit Still Pending

[^] WEBINAR: Best Practices in Qualifying the Class

                            *********

012 SMILE: Appeal in Excessive Charge Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the appeal
made in the class action related to excessive charge of tariffs
from occasional customers for each long distance call minute,
against 012 Smile and two other international long distance
operators, is pending.

On September 11, 2016, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as
a class action were filed against 012 Smile and two other
international long distance operators.

The claim alleges that the defendants charged excessive tariffs
from occasional customers for each long distance call minute,
contrary to the Telecommunications Law (Telecommunications and
Broadcasting), that allows a licensee to charge reasonable payment
for a telecommunication service that it provides.

The total amount claimed against 012 Smile if the lawsuit is
certified as a class action was not stated by the plaintiff.

In July 2019, the Court dismissed the motion and in October 2019,
an appeal was filed with the Supreme Court.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. ("Partner") is a leading
Israeli provider of telecommunications services (cellular,
fixed-line telephony, internet and television services). Partner's
ADSs are quoted on the NASDAQ Global Select Market(TM) and its
shares are traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.


012 SMILE: Appeal in Suit over Use of Router, Call Adaptor Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that an Israel
Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal in the class action suit
involving 012 Smile and the claim was reverted back to the District
Court.

On November 12, 2015, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as
a class action were filed against 012 Smile.

The claim alleges that 012 Smile required their customers to
purchase a router and/or a call adaptor and/or terminal equipment
as a condition for using its fixed-line telephony services, an
action which would not be in accordance with the provisions of its
licenses.

The total amount claimed against 012 Smile is estimated by the
plaintiff to be approximately NIS 64 million. In February 2019, the
Court approved the request to certify the claim as a class action
with certain changes.

In March 2019, the Company filed an appeal of this decision.

In February 2020, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal request
that was filed and the claim was reverted back to the District
Court.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. ("Partner") is a leading
Israeli provider of telecommunications services (cellular,
fixed-line telephony, internet and television services). Partner's
ADSs are quoted on the NASDAQ Global Select Market(TM) and its
shares are traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.


012 SMILE: Data Speed Suit Underway
-----------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that 012 Smile
continues to defend a lawsuit related to 012 Smile's plans that
does not support data speeds.

On April 21, 2016, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against 012 Smile. The claim alleges that
the infrastructure included in the 012 Smile's plans does not
support data speeds that the Company publishes to its customers.

The total amount claimed against the Company if the lawsuit is
certified as a class action was not stated by the plaintiff.

Partner Communications said, "The claim is still in its preliminary
stage of the motion to be certified as a class action."

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

Partner Communications Company Ltd. ("Partner") is a leading
Israeli provider of telecommunications services (cellular,
fixed-line telephony, internet and television services). Partner's
ADSs are quoted on the NASDAQ Global Select Market(TM) and its
shares are traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.


012 SMILE: Dismissal of Tariff Suit Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that an appeal
was filed with the Supreme Court in the class action suit initiated
against 012 Smile and another Internet Service Provider.

On August 8, 2012, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against 012 Smile and another Internet
Service Provider.

The claim alleges that the defendants breached certain provisions
of their licenses by not offering their services at a unified
tariff to the same type of customers.

The total amount claimed against 012 Smile, if the lawsuit is
certified as a class action, was not stated by the plaintiff.

In December 2019, the Court dismissed the motion and in January
2020, an appeal was filed with the Supreme Court.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. ("Partner") is a leading
Israeli provider of telecommunications services (cellular,
fixed-line telephony, internet and television services). Partner's
ADSs are quoted on the NASDAQ Global Select Market(TM) and its
shares are traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.


012 SMILE: Litigation over International Call Rates Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that 012 Smile
and Partner Land-Line continue to defend a putative class action
suit related to higher rates for international calls.

On August 6, 2018, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company and 012 Smile and at a
later date, following a revision to the motion, also against
Partner Land-Line.

The claim alleges that the respondents unlawfully charge its
customers different and higher rates for international calls that
are not included in their tariff plans, than those set forth in its
customer tariff chart on the 012 Smile website.

The plaintiff noted that it cannot estimate the total amount
claimed in the lawsuit, should the lawsuit be certified as a class
action.

The claim is still in its preliminary stage of the motion to be
certified as a class action.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. ("Partner") is a leading
Israeli provider of telecommunications services (cellular,
fixed-line telephony, internet and television services). Partner's
ADSs are quoted on the NASDAQ Global Select Market(TM) and its
shares are traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.



1LIFE HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Suit Over Membership Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
1Life Healthcare, Inc.  said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit related to its collection of Annual
Membership Fee.

In May 2018, two former members filed a class action complaint
against the Company in the Superior Court of California for the
County of San Francisco, or the Court, alleging that the Company
made certain misrepresentations resulting in them paying the Annual
Membership Fee, or AMF in violation of California's Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, California's False Advertising Law and California's
Unfair Competition Law, and seeking damages and injunctive relief.


In September 2018, the Company filed a motion to compel the
plaintiffs to individually arbitrate their claims, which motion was
granted as to one plaintiff and denied as to the other.

The Company is appealing the denial of its motion to compel
arbitration and filed its appellate brief in November 2019. The
plaintiff compelled to arbitrate filed an arbitration demand in
March 2020, and the parties expect to engage with the American
Arbitration Association to bring resolution to the claim.

1Life said, "In light of, among other things, the early stage of
the litigation, the Company is unable to make an estimate of the
amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from an
unfavorable outcome. Legal fees, net of amounts recoverable from
the Company's insurance provider, have been recorded as general and
administrative expenses in the consolidated statements of
operations. Additional attorney's fees in excess of those covered
will be expensed as incurred."

1Life Healthcare, Inc. provides software. The Company offers
healthcare application for billing, insurance, planning, and other
related services. 1Life Healthcare serves customers inn the United
States. The company is based in San Francisco, California.


ACE AMERICAN: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Sandbergen FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Mark Sandbergen filed an appeal from a court ruling
issued in his lawsuit styled Mark Sandbergen v. ACE American
Insurance Co., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-04567-SK, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to recover minimum and overtime wages, redress for failure to
provide meal periods and rest breaks, accurate itemized wage
statements and all wages due upon separation of employment pursuant
to the Business and Professions Code, the California Labor Code and
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

The appellate case is captioned as Mark Sandbergen v. ACE American
Insurance Co., et al., Case No. 20-15630, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant MARK SANDBERGEN, individually, on behalf of
others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, is
represented by:
        
          Laura L. Ho, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO
          300 Lakeside Drive
          Oakland, CA 94612
                
                    – and -

          Bryan Jeffrey Schwartz, Esq.
          Logan Todd Talbot, Esq.
          BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW
          180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1380
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (415) 277-7236

Defendants-Appellees, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE CO., DBA Chubb Group
of Insurance Companies, et al., are represented by:

          Apalla Chopra, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-6000

                    – and –

          Jonathan Hacker
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          1625 Eye Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006

                    – and –

          Susannah Howard, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 984-8700
          E-mail: showard@omm.com


ADMIN RECOVERY: Faces Iacuone FDCPA Suit Over Collection Letter
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARIE IACUONE, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. ADMIN RECOVERY, LLC, Case No. 0:20-cv-60836-RKA (S.D.
Fla., April 23, 2020), seeks injunctive relief and statutory
damages resulting from the Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and the Florida Consumer Collection
Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant mailed a collection
letter, dated January 16, 2020, to the Plaintiff in an attempt to
collect a consumer debt.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's Collection Letter
falsely states that the consumer must dispute the consumer debt in
writing within 30 days despite the clear wording of 15 U.S.C.
section 1692g(a)(3) which contains no such requirement that the
consumer must dispute the debt in writing. She adds that by falsely
claiming to have given her the information required by the FDCPA,
the Defendant mislead her and the Class into believing that the
Demand Letter contained the proper notice required by the FDCPA.

The consumer debt is a financial obligation the Plaintiff incurred
primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.

The Defendant is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954 907-1136
          Facsimile: 855 529-9540
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                  tom@jibraellaw.com


AETERNA ZENTARIS: Settlement Reached in Suit over Macrilen Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------
Aeterna Zentaris Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that a settlement has been
reached in the class action suit related to Macrilen(TM).

On March 9, 2020, the Company settled the previously disclosed
class-action lawsuit against it pending in the U.S. District Court
for New Jersey.

The settlement payment of $6,500 will be funded entirely by the
Company's insurers.

The class-action lawsuit alleged that the Company and certain of
its former officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 in connection with certain public statements between
August 30, 2011 and November 6, 2014, regarding the safety and
efficacy of Macrilen(TM) (macimorelin) and the prospects for the
approval of the Company's New Drug Application (NDA) for the
product by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

This settlement remains subject to execution of final settlement
documents and approval by the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey.

Aeterna Zentaris Inc., incorporated on October 12, 1990, is a
specialty biopharmaceutical company engaged in developing and
commercializing treatments in oncology, endocrinology and women's
health. The Company operates through the biopharmaceutical segment.
The Company is engaged in drug development activities and in the
promotion of products for others. The Company's principal product
candidates are Zoptrex (zoptarelin doxorubicin) and Macrilen
(macimorelin) in oncology and endocrinology. The company is based
in Summerville, South Carolina.


AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Buero Appeals D. Oregon Ruling to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff LINDSEY BUERO filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Lindsey Buero v. Amazon.com Services, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00974-MO, in the U.S. District Court for Oregon,
Portland.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was removed from the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon, County
of Multnomah (Case No. 19cv22979), to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Oregon on June 21, 2019. The clerk of court for the
District of Oregon assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00974-BR to the
proceeding and to the Hon. Michael W. Mosman.

Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc. provides e-commerce services. The
Company retails books, diamond jewelry, electronics, appliances,
apparels, and accessories. Amazon Fulfillment Services distributes
its products worldwide.

The appellate case is captioned as Lindsey Buero v. Amazon.com
Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-35319, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that transcript
shall be ordered on May 8, 2020.[BN]


AMBRY GENETICS: Faces Cercas Suit in California Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALMA FIDELA CERCAS, an individual and California resident, KAITLYN
NAKAGOSHI, an individual and Florida resident, JUDY ANNE GRAUSE, an
individual and Virginia resident, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. AMBRY GENETICS CORP., a Delaware
Corporation, Case No. 8:20-cv-00791-RSWL-KES (C.D. Cal., April 23,
2020), asserts claims against Ambry for negligence, negligence per
se, invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract, unjust
enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of confidence,
violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, and violation
of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act in connection to
a data breach.

The Plaintiffs contend that although the Data Breach occurred
between January 22, 2020, and January 24, 16 2020, and Ambry
reported the Data Breach to government authorities in March 2020.
The Plaintiffs note that Ambry waited three months before notifying
patients. They add that the Data Breach was a direct result of the
Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect
patients' Sensitive Information.

On April 15, 2020, Ambry announced a security incident involving
sensitive personally identifiable information (PII) and protected
health information (PHI) of its patients. The exposed Sensitive
Information included patients' names, dates of birth, health
insurance information, medical information, and for some patients,
Social Security Numbers, and other sensitive PII and PHI.

As a result of the Defendant's failure to implement and follow
reasonable security procedures, patients' Sensitive Information is
now in the hands of thieves, the Plaintiffs assert. The Plaintiffs
and Class Members have had to spend, and will continue to spend,
significant amounts of time and money in an effort to protect
themselves from the adverse ramifications of the Data Breach and
will forever be at a heightened risk of identity theft and fraud,
says the complaint.

Ambry is a provider of healthcare services throughout the United
States. Through its online services, Ambry offers a comprehensive
genetic testing menu of more than 300 tests for screening and
diagnosis for inherited and non-inherited diseases, such as cancer,
heart disease, neurodevelopmental disorders, and other medical
issues.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel S. Robinson, Esq.
          Wesley K. Polischuk, Esq.
          Michael W. Olson, Esq.
          ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC.
          19 Corporate Plaza Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 720-1288
          Facsimile: (949) 720-1292
          E-mail: drobinson@robinsonfirm.com
                  wpolischuk@robinsonfirm.com
                  molson@robinsonfirm.com

               - and -

          Jean S. Martin, Esq.
          Ryan J. McGee, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: 813-559-4908
          Facsimile: (813) 222-4795
          E-mail: jeanmartin@ForThePeople.com
                  rmcgee@ForThePeople.com

               - and -

          M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
          Leslie Guillon, Esq.
          CLAYEO C. ARNOLD,
          A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          865 Howe Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Telephone: (916) 777-7777
          Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
          E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com
                  lguillon@justice4you.com


ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: Earmarks $65MM to Cover Silicosis Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
AngloGold Ashanti Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company has
recorded a provision of $65 million to cover the estimated
settlement costs and related expenditure of the silicosis
litigation.

In August 2013, AngloGold Ashanti, along with several other mining
companies, was served with a consolidated class action application.
In May 2016, the High Court in Johannesburg ruled in favour of the
applicants and found that there were sufficient common issues to
certify two industry-wide classes: a Silicosis Class and a
Tuberculosis Class.

In May 2018, settlement of the consolidated class action litigation
was reached.

The settlement agreement in relation to this silicosis and
tuberculosis class action came into effect on 10 December 2019,
following the approval of the settlement by the High Court in
Johannesburg in July 2019.

As a result, a trust (Tshiamiso Trust) was established for a
minimum of 13 years responsible for making payments to eligible
beneficiaries.

The amount of monetary compensation will vary depending on the
nature and seriousness of the disease.

As of 31 December 2019, AngloGold Ashanti has recorded a provision
of $65 million to cover the estimated settlement costs and related
expenditure of the silicosis litigation.

AngloGold Ashanti Limited, a gold mining company with a globally
diverse, world-class portfolio of operations and projects, is
headquartered in Johannesburg, South Africa. AngloGold Ashanti is
the third largest gold mining company in the world, measured by
production.


ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: Suits Against AGAC in Columbia Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
AngloGold Ashanti Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that AngloGold Ashanti
Colombia S.A.'s (AGAC) continues to defend class action suits
related to Santa Maria-Montecristo and La Colosa projects.

Class action lawsuits are pending in relation to each of AngloGold
Ashanti Colombia S.A.'s (AGAC) Santa Maria-Montecristo and La
Colosa projects.

Each of the two lawsuits aims to stop exploration and mining in
certain restricted areas affected by the projects due to
environmental concerns.

In respect of the Santa Maria-Montecristo class action lawsuit, in
September 2011, the Administrative Court of Tolima granted one of
the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction suspending AGAC's mining
concession contracts in relation to this project. AGAC has
challenged this injunction, nevertheless, it remains in place
during the course of the court proceedings.

On 30 May 2019, the Administrative Court of Tolima ruled that a
technical study be prepared to define the places in which mining
activities could be performed in the Combeima canyon without posing
any threat to the water reservoirs of Ibague, the capital of the
Tolima department. AGAC's appeal of this ruling was admitted and is
currently pending before the Council of State of Colombia (the
highest court for administrative matters).

The order to prepare the technical study has been temporarily
suspended pending resolution by the Council of State.

If AGAC's appeal before the Council of State is not successful, the
company may have to perform a technical study in respect of the
Combeima canyon. If the results of the study are unfavourable,
certain development activities at the Santa María-Montecristo
project may be suspended.

The consolidated La Colosa class action lawsuit originally
consisted of four separate class actions. In relation to this
project, on 10 October 2016, Tolima's Administrative Court ordered
that a technical study be prepared by a panel of seven experts
(selected by the plaintiff, AGAC, universities, the Colombian
government and an NGO) to determine whether the La Colosa project
presents a "threat" to the environment during its exploration
phase.

On 4 December 2017, Ibague's Third Administrative Court ordered
that another technical study, similar to the one described in the
October 2016 order, be prepared for the La Colosa project. AGAC
appealed both orders.

On 6 September 2018, Tolima's Administrative Court consolidated all
class actions in relation to the La Colosa project into one single
class action lawsuit which is currently pending before the Council
of State.

The orders to prepare the technical studies have been temporarily
suspended pending resolution by the Council of State.

If AGAC's appeal before the Council of State is not successful, the
company may have to perform one or more technical studies in
relation to the La Colosa project. If the studies were to conclude
that a "threat" exists, certain development activities at the La
Colosa project may be suspended.

While the plaintiffs in these class actions have petitioned the
courts to cancel the La Colosa and/or Santa María-Montecristo
mining concession contracts, the company believes that the
judiciary system in Colombia does not have the authority to order
such cancellations.

Such power, by law, vests solely in the Colombian government which,
through the relevant Colombian mining authorities, has the
discretion to declare concessions void if a concession holder
breaches applicable environmental laws or regulations.

The Colombian government, as the authority granting the mining
concession contracts, is also a defendant in these class action
lawsuits together with AGAC.

AGAC continues to oppose, through a variety of integrated legal and
political strategies, the class action lawsuits that have been
filed against it.

AngloGold said, "However, if plaintiffs prevail and AGAC is unable
to perform its core concession contracts as a result of the
judicial decision, the company would be required to abandon the La
Colosa project and/or Santa Maria-Montecristo project."

AngloGold Ashanti Limited, a gold mining company with a globally
diverse, world-class portfolio of operations and projects, is
headquartered in Johannesburg, South Africa. AngloGold Ashanti is
the third largest gold mining company in the world, measured by
production.


ANIXTER INT'L: Faces 3 WESCO Merger Related Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Anixter International Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on March 31, 2020,
that the company faces three class action suits related to its
merger with WESCO International, Inc..

On January 10, 2020, Anixter International Inc., a Delaware
corporation, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the
"Merger Agreement"), with WESCO International, Inc., a Delaware
corporation ("WESCO"), and Warrior Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of WESCO ("Merger Sub"). On
the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger
Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into Anixter (the
"Merger"), with Anixter surviving and continuing as the surviving
corporation in the Merger and a wholly owned subsidiary of WESCO.

Following the announcement of the Merger, three putative class
action lawsuits (collectively, the "Stockholder Lawsuits") were
filed on behalf of purported stockholders of Anixter.

On February 11, 2020, the first putative lawsuit was filed by a
purported stockholder of Anixter in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Shiva Stein v.
Anixter International Inc. et al., Case 1:20-cv-00200, against
Anixter and the members of Anixter's board of directors.

On February 25, 2020, the second putative lawsuit was filed by a
purported stockholder of Anixter in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Michael Kent v.
Anixter International Inc. et al., Case 1:20-cv-00279, against
Anixter, the members of the Anixter Board, WESCO and Merger Sub.

On March 13, 2020, the third putative lawsuit was filed by a
purported stockholder of Anixter in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Robert
Bassie v. Anixter International Inc. et al., Case 1:20-cv-02272,
against Anixter and the members of the Anixter Board.

In general, the Stockholder Lawsuits assert claims against Anixter
and the members of the Anixter Board, alleging, among other things,
that the defendants failed to make adequate disclosures in the
Proxy Statement/Prospectus. Anixter believes that the allegations
in the Stockholder Lawsuits are without merit.

While Anixter believes that the disclosures set forth in the Proxy
Statement/Prospectus comply fully with applicable law, to moot
plaintiffs' disclosure claims, to avoid nuisance, potential expense
and delay, and to provide additional information to Anixter's
stockholders, Anixter and WESCO have determined to voluntarily
supplement the Proxy Statement/Prospectus with the below
disclosures.

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

Anixter International Inc. is a global distributor of network and
security, electrical and electronic, and utility power solutions.
The Company helps to build, connect, protect, and power valuable
assets and critical infrastructures, from enterprise networks to
industrial MRO supply to video surveillance applications to
electric power distribution. The company is based in Glenview,
Illinois.


APYX MEDICAL: Bid to Dismiss Pritchard Class Action Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
APYX Medical Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the court has denied
the company's motion to dismiss the class action suit initiated by
Kyle Pritchard.

On April 17, 2019, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida by plaintiff Kyle
Pritchard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated against the Company and Charles D. Goodwin, the Company's
President and Chief Executive Officer and a member of the Company's
Board of Directors, alleging certain violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

On July 16, 2019, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff for the
putative class and approved the lead plaintiff's selection of
counsel. On or about September 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint with the Court.

The Amended Complaint seeks class action status on behalf of all
persons and entities that acquired the Company's securities between
December 21, 2018 and April 1, 2019 and alleges violations by the
Company and Goodwin of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5 thereunder,
primarily related to certain public statements concerning the
Premarket Notification 510(k) submission made to the US Food and
Drug Administration for a new indication for the Company's
J-Plasma(R) technology for use in dermal resurfacing procedures.

The Amended Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, an award of interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, expert
fees and other costs, and equitable relief as the court may deem
just and proper.

On October 3, 2019, the Company and Goodwin filed a Motion to
Dismiss the Amended Complaint. Plaintiff’s opposition to the
motion to dismiss was served on November 4, 2019.

On March 11, 2020, the Court issued an order denying the Company's
motion to dismiss.  

The Company intends to vigorously defend its interests against the
allegations contained in the complaint.

APYX Medical Corporation is a medical technology company and the
developer of J-Plasma(R) (marketed and sold under the Renuvion(R)
Cosmetic Technology brand in the cosmetic surgery market), a
patented plasma-based surgical product for cutting, coagulation and
ablation of soft tissue. The company also leverages its expertise
through original equipment manufacturing (OEM) agreements with
other medical device manufacturers. The company is based in
Clearwater, Florida.


ARC INSPECTION: Court Certifies FLSA Class of X-Ray Technicians
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as NICK MALONE, JASON HOWARD,
and JEREMIAH KINWORTHY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ARC INSPECTION SERVICES, LLC, BRANDON GOBLE,
and SHANE WELLS, Case No. 7:19-cv-00296-DC-RC (W.D. Tex. Filed Dec.
22, 2019), the Hon. Judge Ronald C. Griffin entered an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "current and former x-ray technicians employed by Arc
      Inspection Services, LLC, who were paid by the hour, but
      were not paid 1.5x their regular hourly rate (including
      adjustments for non-discretionary bonuses) for hours
      worked over 40 in a workweek, at any point from 3 years
      prior to date of certification to the present";

   2. authorizing the notice for conditional certification;

   3. desseminating the notice and consent forms by first class
      U.S. mail, e-mail, and text messaging;

   4. scheduling requirements for the notice process at the
      request of the parties; and

   5. directing the Parties to submit a proposed scheduling
      order for the remaining proceedings in the case upon
      completion of the notice process outlined above. The
      parties shall submit the proposed scheduling order on or
      before August 14, 2020.

The Court further oders the following scheduling requirements for
the notice process at the request of the parties:

   -- 20 days from order approving notice to Potential Class
      Members:

          Arc is to provide to Plaintiffs' counsel in Excel
          (.xlsx) format the following information regarding all
          Putative Class Members: full name; last known
          addresses with city, state, and zip Code; last known
          e-mail addresses (non-company address if applicable);
          last known telephone numbers; beginning dates of
          employment; and ending dates of employment (if
          applicable).

   -- 20 days from order approving notice to Potential Class
      Members:

          Plaintiffs' counsel shall send a copy of the Court-
          approved Notice and Consent Form to the Putative Class
          Members by first class U.S. Mail and email.
          Plaintiffs' counsel may follow-up the mailed Notice
          and Consent Forms with contact by telephone of former
          employees or those Putative Class Members whose mailed
          or emailed contact information is not valid.

   -- 60 days from mailing of Notice and Consent Forms to
      Potential Class Members:

          The Putative Class Members shall have 60 days to
          return their signed Consent forms to Plaintiffs'
          counsel for filing with the Court.

   -- 20 days from mailing of Notice and Consent Forms to
      Potential Class Members:

          Plaintiffs' counsel is authorized to mail and email a
          second, identical copy of the Notice and Consent Form
          to the Putative Class Members reminding them of the
          deadline for the submission of the Consent forms.

Judge Griffin explains the Court's analysis need only address the
first stage of the Lusardi inquiry. The Plaintiffs must show that
"(1) there is a reasonable basis for crediting the assertion that
aggrieved individuals exist; (2) those aggrieved individuals are
similarly situated to the plaintiff in relevant respects given the
claims and defenses asserted; and (3) those individuals want to opt
in to the lawsuit." During the notice stage, the court makes its
decision "usually based only on the pleadings and any affidavits
which have been submitted." Courts "appear to require nothing more
than substantial allegations that the putative class members were
together the victims of a single decision, policy, or plan infected
by discrimination." Mooney, 54 F.3d at 1214 n.8. "FLSA collective
actions are generally favored because such actions reduce
litigation costs for the individual plaintiffs and create judicial
efficiency by resolving in one proceeding common issues of law and
fact arising from the same alleged activity." Tolentino, 716 F.
Supp. 2d at 646.

The Plaintiffs seek unpaid overtime wages plus liquidated damages,
attorney fees, and costs against Defendants under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.[CC]

ASSET RECOVERY: Quinn Files FDCPA Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asset Recovery
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Miguel Quinn, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Asset
Recovery Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01972
(E.D.N.Y., April 29, 2020).

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

Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC is a full service asset recovery
management company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com



AT&T SERVICES: Douglas Files FCRA Suit in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AT&T Services, Inc.
The case is styled as Catherine Douglas, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AT&T
Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02586 (N.D. Ill., April
29, 2020).

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

AT&T Services, Inc. provides telecommunication services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ATG CREDIT: Faraci Asserts Breach of FDCPA in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ATG Credit, LLC. The
case is styled as Roseann Faraci, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATG Credit, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-02621 (N.D. Ill., April 29, 2020).

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

ATG Credit, LLC is a debt collection agency located in Chicago,
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B Sanders, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Ste 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com


AVECTUS HEALTHCARE: Mercy Health Appeals Decision in Raymond Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Mercy Health filed an appeal from the District Court's
decision issued in the lawsuit entitled KEITH RAYMOND, et al. v.
AVECTUS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00559,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at
Cincinnati.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
arises out of the Defendants' common scheme of seeking compensation
from health insured patients in the State of Ohio in violation of
statutory and common law prohibitions. For example, Ohio Revised
Code section 1751.60 provides a hold harmless requirement whereby a
health provider "shall seek compensation for covered services
solely from the health insuring corporation and not, under any
circumstances, from the enrollees or subscribers, except for
approved co-payments and deductibles." Mercy Health operates
medical facilities providing medical care and treatment to patients
throughout Ohio, including hospitals, clinics and other treatment
facilities. The business practices and joint scheme of Mercy and
Avectus violated both common law and various statutes, including
R.C. section 1751.60.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: Mercy Health, Case No.
20-301, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit.[BN]

Defendant-Petitioner MERCY HEALTH is represented by:

          Kris Miller Dawley, Esq.
          ICE MILLER
          250 West Street, Suite 700
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 462-2700

Plaintiffs-Respondents KEITH RAYMOND and TIMOTHY STRUNK,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Charles David Ewing, Esq.
          EWING & WILLIS
          6009 Brownsboro Park Boulevard, Suite B
          Louisville, KY 40207
          Telephone: (502) 585-5800
          E-mail: mary.glaser@icemiller.com

                   – and –

          Gary Francis Franke, Esq.
          Michael Dillon O'Neill, Esq.
          GARY F. FRANKE CO., L.P.A.
          120 E. Fourth Street, Suite 1040
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 564-9222


BDR INDUSTRIES: Marron Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages Due
-------------------------------------------------------------
LORENA MARRON v. B.D.R. INDUSTRIES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 20STCV15616 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
April 23, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all
similarly-aggrieved employees seeking civil penalties under the
Private Attorney General Act, California Labor Code, relating to
the Defendants' failure to pay all wages due.

The Plaintiff contends that she and aggrieved employees were
employed by the Defendants and did not receive all wages due, were
not paid regular wage, were not paid overtime, were not provided
accurate wage statements, and were not able to take lawful meal and
rest breaks or received premium compensation in lieu thereof.

B.D.R. designs and manufactures electronic cable and harness
assemblies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          John A. Young, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: 562-590-5550
          Facsimile: 562-590-8400
          E-mail: kmahonev@mahonev-law.net
                  ivoung@mahonev-law.net


BEAUTY BRANDS: Binakonsky Files Suit in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beauty Brands Inc.
The case is styled as Rachel Binakonsky, on behalf of herself and
all other parties similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAV Beauty
Brands Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00638-MPK (W.D. Pa., April
29, 2020).

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

Beauty Brands Inc. is engaged in retail sale of cosmetics and
beauty products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Steffan T. Keeton, Esq.
   The Keeton Firm LLC
   100 S Commons, Ste 102
   Pittsburgh, PA 15212
   Tel: (443) 735-6750
   Email: efiling@keetonfirm.com



BLOOM ENERGY: Bolouri Class Action Dismissed
--------------------------------------------
Bloom Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the class action suit
initiated by Michael Bolouri has been dismissed.

In November 2019, Michael Bolouri filed a class action complaint in
the federal district court for the Northern District of California
against the company, certain members of its senior management,
certain of its directors and the underwriters in its initial public
offering, alleging violations under Section 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and violations under Sections
10b and 20a of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for alleged
misleading statements or omissions in our Form S-1 Registration
Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with the company's July 25, 2018 initial public offering
and continuing through September 16, 2019.

On December 11, 2019, a notice of voluntary dismissal was filed by
the plaintiff and the case has now been dismissed.

Bloom Energy Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells
solid-oxide fuel cell systems for on-site power generation. The
company was formerly known as Ion America Corp. and changed its
name to Bloom Energy Corporation in September 2006. Bloom Energy
Corporation was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in San Jose,
California.


BLOOM ENERGY: Consolidated Lincolnshire Police Fund Suit Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bloom Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the court has stayed
the consolidated Lincolnshire Police Pension Fund class action.

In March 2019, the Lincolnshire Police Pension Fund filed a class
action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Santa Clara, against the company, certain members of its
senior management, certain of its directors and the underwriters in
its initial public offering alleging violations under Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, for alleged
misleading statements or omissions in its Form S-1 Registration
Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with the company's July 25, 2018 initial public
offering.

Two related class action cases were subsequently filed in the Santa
Clara County Superior Court against the same defendants containing
the same allegations; Rodriquez vs Bloom Energy et al. was filed on
April 22, 2019 and Evans vs Bloom Energy et al. was filed on May 7,
2019. These cases have been consolidated.

Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed with the court
on September 12, 2019.

On October 4, 2019, defendants moved to stay the lawsuit pending
the federal district court action discussed below.

On December 7, 2019, the Superior Court issued an order staying the
action through resolution of the parallel federal litigation
mentioned below.

Bloom Energy said, "We believe the complaint to be without merit
and we intend to vigorously defend.

Bloom Energy Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells
solid-oxide fuel cell systems for on-site power generation. The
company was formerly known as Ion America Corp. and changed its
name to Bloom Energy Corporation in September 2006. Bloom Energy
Corporation was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in San Jose,
California.


BLOOM ENERGY: Continues to Defend Roberts Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Bloom Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit initiated by Elissa Roberts.

In May 2019, Elissa Roberts filed a class action complaint in the
federal district court for the Northern District of California
against the company, certain members of its senior management team,
and certain of its directors alleging violations under Section 11
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, for alleged
misleading statements or omissions in our Form S-1 Registration
Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with our July 25, 2018 initial public offering.

On September 3, 2019, James Hunt was appointed as lead plaintiff
and Levi & Korsinsky was appointed as plaintiff's counsel.

On November 4, 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding
the underwriters in our initial public offering, claims under
Sections 10b and 20a of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
extending the class period to September 16, 2019.

Bloom Energy said, "We believe the complaint to be without merit
and we intend to vigorously defend."

Bloom Energy Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells
solid-oxide fuel cell systems for on-site power generation. The
company was formerly known as Ion America Corp. and changed its
name to Bloom Energy Corporation in September 2006. Bloom Energy
Corporation was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in San Jose,
California.


BLOOM ENERGY: Faces Sanchez Class Suit in Santa Clara County
------------------------------------------------------------
Bloom Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company has been
named as a defendant in a class action suit initiated by Francisco
Sanchez.

In March 2020, Francisco Sanchez filed a class action complaint in
Santa Clara County Superior Court against the company alleging
certain wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code
and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and that the company
engaged in unfair business practices under the California Business
and Professions Code.

Bloom Energy said, "We are still investigating the allegations but
believe the complaint to be without merit and, as a result, we have
recorded no loss contingency related to this claim."

Bloom Energy Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells
solid-oxide fuel cell systems for on-site power generation. The
company was formerly known as Ion America Corp. and changed its
name to Bloom Energy Corporation in September 2006. Bloom Energy
Corporation was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in San Jose,
California.


BRITISH AMERICAN: 1,773 Engle Progeny Cases Pending at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
British American Tobacco p.l.c. said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that at 31 December
2019, there were approximately 1,773 Engle progeny cases pending in
which R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. ("RJRT"), Lorillard Tobacco
Company ("Lorillard Tobacco") and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc.
(formerly Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation) ("B&W") have been
named as defendants and served.

In July 1998, trial began in Engle v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a
then-certified class action filed in Circuit Court, Miami-Dade
County, Florida, against US cigarette manufacturers, including R.
J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. ("RJRT"), Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc.
(formerly Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation) ("B&W") and
Lorillard Tobacco Company ("Lorillard Tobacco").

The then-certified class consisted of Florida citizens and
residents, and their survivors, who suffered from smoking-related
diseases that first manifested between 5 May 1990, and 21 November
1996, and were caused by an addiction to cigarettes. In July 1999,
the jury in this Phase I found against RJRT, B&W, Lorillard Tobacco
and the other defendants on common issues relating to the
defendants' conduct, general causation, the addictiveness of
cigarettes, and entitlement to punitive damages.

In July 2000, the jury in Phase II awarded the class a total of
approximately US$145 billion (approximately £109.5 billion) in
punitive damages, apportioned US$36.3 billion (approximately £27.4
billion) to RJRT, US$17.6 billion (approximately £13.3 billion) to
B&W, and US$16.3 billion (approximately £12.3 billion) to
Lorillard Tobacco. The three class representatives in the Engle
class action were awarded US$13 million (approximately £10
million) in compensatory damages.

This decision was appealed and ultimately resulted in the Florida
Supreme Court in December 2006 decertifying the class and allowing
judgments entered for only two of the three Engle class
representatives to stand and setting aside the punitive damages
award.

The court preserved certain of the jury's Phase I findings,
including that cigarettes can cause certain diseases, nicotine is
addictive, and defendants placed defective cigarettes on the
market, breached duties of care, concealed health-related
information and conspired.

Putative Engle class members were permitted to file individual
lawsuits, deemed "Engle progeny cases", against the Engle
defendants, within one year of the Supreme Court’s decision
(subsequently extended to 11 January 2008).

During 2015, RJRT and Lorillard Tobacco, together with Philip
Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA"), settled virtually all of the Engle
progeny cases then pending against them in federal district court.
The total amount of the settlement was US$100 million
(approximately £75 million) divided as follows: RJRT US$42.5
million (approximately £32 million); PM USA US$42.5 million
(approximately £32 million); and Lorillard Tobacco US$15 million
(approximately £11 million).

The settlement covered more than 400 federal Engle progeny cases
but did not cover 12 federal progeny cases previously tried to
verdict and then pending on post-trial motions or appeal, and two
federal progeny cases filed by different lawyers from the ones who
negotiated the settlement for the plaintiffs.

As at 31 December 2019, there were approximately 1,773 Engle
progeny cases pending in which RJRT, B&W and/or Lorillard Tobacco
have been named as defendants and served. These cases include
claims by or on behalf of 2,228 plaintiffs.

In addition, as of 31 December 2019, RJRT was aware of nine
additional Engle progeny cases that have been filed but not served.
The number of pending cases fluctuates for a variety of reasons,
including voluntary and involuntary dismissals.

Voluntary dismissals include cases in which a plaintiff accepts an
‘offer of judgment' from RJRT, Lorillard Tobacco and/or RJRT's
affiliates and indemnitees. An offer of judgment, if rejected by
the plaintiff, preserves RJRT’s and Lorillard Tobacco's right to
recover attorneys' fees under Florida law in the event of a verdict
favourable to RJRT or Lorillard Tobacco, or affiliates of such
entities. Such offers are sometimes made through court-ordered
mediations.

95 trials occurred in Engle progeny cases in Florida state and
federal courts against RJRT, B&W and/or Lorillard Tobacco from 1
January 2017 through 31 December 2019, and additional state court
trials are scheduled for 2020.

British American Tobacco p.l.c. provides cigarettes and other
tobacco products worldwide. It manufactures vapor and tobacco
heating products; oral tobacco and nicotine products, such as snus,
tobacco-free nicotine pouches, and moist snuff; cigars; and
e-cigarettes.  The Company offers its products under the Dunhill,
Kent, Lucky Strike, Pall Mall, Rothmans, Newport, Camel, Natural
American Spirit, Vogue, Viceroy, Kool, Peter Stuyvesant, Craven A,
Benson & Hedges, John Player Gold Leaf, State Express 555, and
Shuang Xi brands.  The Company sells its products to retail
outlets. British American Tobacco p.l.c. was founded in 1902 and is
headquartered in London, the United Kingdom.


BRITISH AMERICAN: Appeal in ADESF Suit v. Philip Morris Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
British American Tobacco p.l.c. said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the appeal in the
class action suit initiated by the AssociaCao de Defesa da Saude do
Fumante ("ADESF") against Souza Cruz and Philip Morris in the Sao
Paulo Lower Civil Court, is pending

In 1995, the Associaçao de Defesa da Saude do Fumante ("ADESF")
class action was filed against Souza Cruz and Philip Morris in the
Sao Paulo Lower Civil Court alleging that the defendants are liable
to a class of smokers and former smokers for failing to warn of
cigarette addiction.

The case was stayed in 2004 pending the defendants' appeal from a
decision issued by the Lower Civil Court that held that the
defendants had not met their burden of proving that cigarette
smoking was not addictive or harmful to health.

On 12 November 2008, the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals overturned the
lower court's unfavourable decision of 2004, returning the case to
the lower court for production of evidence and a new judgment.

Following production of evidence, on 16 May 2011, the lower court
granted Souza Cruz's motion to dismiss the action in its entirety
on the merits. The plaintiffs' appeal to the Sao Paolo Court of
Appeals was unsuccessful. The plaintiffs then filed a Special
Appeal to the Superior Court of Justice, which was rejected under
procedural grounds on 20 February 2017.

The plaintiffs filed an appeal of the rejection in the Superior
Court of Justice on 15 March 2017.

British American Tobacco p.l.c. provides cigarettes and other
tobacco products worldwide. It manufactures vapor and tobacco
heating products; oral tobacco and nicotine products, such as snus,
tobacco-free nicotine pouches, and moist snuff; cigars; and
e-cigarettes.  The Company offers its products under the Dunhill,
Kent, Lucky Strike, Pall Mall, Rothmans, Newport, Camel, Natural
American Spirit, Vogue, Viceroy, Kool, Peter Stuyvesant, Craven A,
Benson & Hedges, John Player Gold Leaf, State Express 555, and
Shuang Xi brands.  The Company sells its products to retail
outlets. British American Tobacco p.l.c. was founded in 1902 and is
headquartered in London, the United Kingdom.


BRITISH AMERICAN: Faces Advertising & Promotional Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
British American Tobacco p.l.c. said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co. ("RJRT"), Lorillard Tobacco Company ("Lorillard
Tobacco") and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. (formerly Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corporation) ("B&W") have been named as
defendants in class suits related to Advertising and Promotional
materials.

At 31 December 2019, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. ("RJRT") Lorillard
Tobacco Company ("Lorillard Tobacco") Brown & Williamson Holdings,
Inc. (formerly Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation) ("B&W") were
named as defendants in two separate actions attempting to assert
claims on behalf of classes of persons allegedly injured or
financially impacted by their smoking, and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco
Company (SFNTC) was named in 17 separate cases relating to the use
of the words 'natural,' '100% additive-free,' or 'organic' in
Natural American Spirit advertising and promotional materials.

If the classes are or remain certified, separate trials may be
needed to assess individual plaintiffs' damages.

Among the pending class actions, 18 specified the amount of the
claim in the complaint, including 17 that alleged that the
plaintiffs were seeking in excess of US$5 million (approximately
£4 million) and one that alleged that the plaintiffs were seeking
less than US$75,000 (approximately £57,000) per class member plus
unspecified punitive damages.

British American Tobacco p.l.c. provides cigarettes and other
tobacco products worldwide. It manufactures vapor and tobacco
heating products; oral tobacco and nicotine products, such as snus,
tobacco-free nicotine pouches, and moist snuff; cigars; and
e-cigarettes.  The Company offers its products under the Dunhill,
Kent, Lucky Strike, Pall Mall, Rothmans, Newport, Camel, Natural
American Spirit, Vogue, Viceroy, Kool, Peter Stuyvesant, Craven A,
Benson & Hedges, John Player Gold Leaf, State Express 555, and
Shuang Xi brands.  The Company sells its products to retail
outlets. British American Tobacco p.l.c. was founded in 1902 and is
headquartered in London, the United Kingdom.


BRITISH AMERICAN: Growers' Class Claim Remains Shelved
------------------------------------------------------
British American Tobacco p.l.c. said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the claims in the
"Growers' Class Action" has been held in abeyance pending further
action from the plaintiffs.

In December 2009, Imperial was served with a proposed class action
filed by Ontario tobacco farmers and the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco
Growers' Marketing Board.

The plaintiffs allege that Imperial and the Canadian subsidiaries
of Philip Morris International and JTI failed to pay the agreed
domestic contract price to the growers used in products
manufactured for the export market and which were ultimately
smuggled back into Canada.

JTI has sought indemnification pursuant to the JTI Indemnities. The
plaintiffs seek damages in the amount of CAD$50 million
(approximately £29 million).

Various preliminary challenges have been heard, the last being a
motion for summary judgment on a limitation period. The motion was
dismissed and ultimately, leave to appeal to the Ontario Court of
Appeal was dismissed in November 2016.

In December 2017, the plaintiffs proposed that the action proceed
by way of individual actions as opposed to a class action. The
defendants did not consent.

British American said, "As at the date of the Stays, the claim was
in abeyance pending further action from the plaintiffs."

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

British American Tobacco p.l.c. provides cigarettes and other
tobacco products worldwide. It manufactures vapor and tobacco
heating products; oral tobacco and nicotine products, such as snus,
tobacco-free nicotine pouches, and moist snuff; cigars; and
e-cigarettes.  The Company offers its products under the Dunhill,
Kent, Lucky Strike, Pall Mall, Rothmans, Newport, Camel, Natural
American Spirit, Vogue, Viceroy, Kool, Peter Stuyvesant, Craven A,
Benson & Hedges, John Player Gold Leaf, State Express 555, and
Shuang Xi brands.  The Company sells its products to retail
outlets. British American Tobacco p.l.c. was founded in 1902 and is
headquartered in London, the United Kingdom.


BRITISH AMERICAN: Jones Suit v. American Tobacco Still Dormant
--------------------------------------------------------------
British American Tobacco p.l.c. said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that there is
"currently no activity" in the case styled Jones v. American
Tobacco Co., Inc.

Jones v. American Tobacco Co. is a putative class action filed in
December 1998 in the Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri.

The action was brought by a plaintiff on behalf of a putative class
of Missouri tobacco product users and purchasers against various
defendants, including R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. ("RJRT") Lorillard
Tobacco Company ("Lorillard Tobacco")
Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. (formerly Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Corporation) ("B&W"), alleging that the plaintiffs' use of
the defendants' tobacco products has caused them to become addicted
to nicotine, and seeking an unspecified amount of compensatory and
punitive damages.

There is currently no activity in this case.

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

British American Tobacco p.l.c. provides cigarettes and other
tobacco products worldwide. It manufactures vapor and tobacco
heating products; oral tobacco and nicotine products, such as snus,
tobacco-free nicotine pouches, and moist snuff; cigars; and
e-cigarettes.  The Company offers its products under the Dunhill,
Kent, Lucky Strike, Pall Mall, Rothmans, Newport, Camel, Natural
American Spirit, Vogue, Viceroy, Kool, Peter Stuyvesant, Craven A,
Benson & Hedges, John Player Gold Leaf, State Express 555, and
Shuang Xi brands.  The Company sells its products to retail
outlets. British American Tobacco p.l.c. was founded in 1902 and is
headquartered in London, the United Kingdom.


BRITISH AMERICAN: Knight Class Action vs. Imperial Continues
------------------------------------------------------------
British American Tobacco p.l.c. said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that he "Knight Class
Action" is ongoing in Canadian court.

The Supreme Court of British Columbia certified a class of all
consumers who purchased Imperial cigarettes in British Columbia
("Knight Class Action")  bearing 'light' or 'mild' descriptors
since 1974.

The plaintiff is seeking compensation for amounts spent on 'light
and mild' products and a disgorgement of profits from Imperial on
the basis that the marketing of light and mild cigarettes was
deceptive because it conveyed a false and misleading message that
those cigarettes are less harmful than regular cigarettes.

On appeal, the appellate court confirmed the certification of the
class, but limited any financial liability, if proven, to 1997
onward. Imperial's third-party claim against the federal government
was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The federal government is seeking a cost order of CAD$5 million
(approximately £3 million) from Imperial relating to its now
dismissed third-party claim. After being dormant for several years,
the plaintiff delivered a Notice of Intention to Proceed, and
Imperial delivered an application to dismiss the action for delay.


The application was heard on 23 June 2017 and was dismissed on 23
August 2017. Notice to class members of certification was provided
on 14 February 2018.

British American said, "As at the date of the Stays, the next steps
were expected to include discovery-related ones."

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

British American Tobacco p.l.c. provides cigarettes and other
tobacco products worldwide. It manufactures vapor and tobacco
heating products; oral tobacco and nicotine products, such as snus,
tobacco-free nicotine pouches, and moist snuff; cigars; and
e-cigarettes.  The Company offers its products under the Dunhill,
Kent, Lucky Strike, Pall Mall, Rothmans, Newport, Camel, Natural
American Spirit, Vogue, Viceroy, Kool, Peter Stuyvesant, Craven A,
Benson & Hedges, John Player Gold Leaf, State Express 555, and
Shuang Xi brands.  The Company sells its products to retail
outlets. British American Tobacco p.l.c. was founded in 1902 and is
headquartered in London, the United Kingdom.


BRITISH AMERICAN: Quebec Suits Remain Stayed Until September 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
British American Tobacco p.l.c. said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the stays in the
class actions suits in Quebec are currently in place until
September 30, 2020.

On 21 February 2005, the Quebec Superior Court granted
certification in two class actions against Imperial and two other
domestic manufacturers. The court certified two classes, with the
class definitions being revised in the judgment rendered 27 May
2015.

One class consists of residents of Quebec who (a) smoked before 20
November 1998 at least 12 pack years of cigarettes manufactured by
the Defendants; and (b) were diagnosed before 12 March 2012 with:
lung cancer, or cancer (squamous cell carcinoma) of the throat, or
emphysema. The group also includes the heirs of persons deceased
after 20 November 1998 who meet the criteria.

The second consists of residents of Quebec who, as of 30 September
1998, were addicted to nicotine contained in cigarettes and who in
addition meet the following three criteria: (a) they started
smoking before 30 September 1994 by smoking cigarettes manufactured
by the Defendants; (b) between 1 September and 30 September 1998
they smoked on average at least 15 cigarettes manufactured by the
Defendants on a daily basis; and (c) they still smoked an average
of at least 15 cigarettes manufactured by the Defendants as of 21
February 2005, or until their death if it occurred before that
date. The group also includes the heirs of members who meet the
criteria.

Pursuant to the judgment, the plaintiffs were awarded damages and
interest against Imperial and the Canadian subsidiaries of Philip
Morris International and JTI in the amount of CAD$15.6 billion
(approximately £9.1 billion), most of which was on a joint and
several basis of which Imperial's share was CAD$10.4 billion
(approximately £6.1 billion).

An appeal of the judgment was filed on 26 June 2015. The court also
awarded provisional execution pending appeal of CAD$1,131 million
(approximately £658 million), of which Imperial's share was
approximately CAD$742 million (approximately £431 million). This
order was subsequently overturned by the Court of Appeal.

Following the cancellation of the order for provisional execution,
the plaintiffs filed a motion against Imperial and one other
manufacturer seeking security in the amount of CAD $5 billion
(approximately £2.9 billion) to guarantee, in whole or in part,
the payment of costs of the appeal and the judgment.

On 27 October 2015, the Court of Appeal ordered the parties to post
security in the amount of CAD$984 million (approximately £573
million), of which Imperial's share was CAD$758 million
(approximately £436 million). The security was paid in seven equal
quarterly instalments of just over CAD$108 million (approximately
£63 million) between 31 December 2015 and 30 June 2017 – see
note 13. The appeal was heard in November 2016.

On 1 March 2019, the trial judgment was upheld by a unanimous
decision of the five-member panel of the Court of Appeal, with one
exception being an amendment to the original interest calculation
applied to certain portions of the judgment.

The interest adjustment has resulted in the reduction of the total
maximum award in the two cases to CAD $13.7 billion (approximately
£8 billion) as of 1 March 2019, with Imperial's share being
reduced to approximately CAD $9.2 billion (approximately £5.4
billion).

The Court of Appeal also upheld the payment of the initial deposits
into the defendants' solicitors' trusts account within 60 days,
totalling approximately CAD $1.13 billion (approximately £658
million).

Imperial's initial deposit is CAD $759 million (approximately £442
million). Imperial has already paid CAD $758 million (approximately
£436 million) into court as security for the judgment.

As a result of this judgment, the then immediate attempts by the
Quebec plaintiffs to obtain payment out of the CAD $758 million
(approximately £436 million) on deposit with the court, the fact
that JTI-MacDonald Corp (a co-defendant in the cases) filed for
creditor protection under the CCAA on 8 March 2019 and obtained a
court ordered stay of all tobacco litigation in Canada as against
all defendants (including the RJR Companies) until 4 April 2019,
and the need for a process to resolve all of the outstanding
litigation across the country, on 12 March 2019 Imperial filed for
protection under the CCAA.

In its application Imperial asked the Ontario Superior Court to
stay all pending or contemplated litigation against Imperial,
certain of its subsidiaries and all other Group companies that were
defendants in the Canadian tobacco litigation, including the UK
companies.

On 22 March 2019, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. also filed for
CCAA protection and obtained a stay of proceedings (together with
the other two stays, the "Stays"). The Stays are currently in place
until 30 September 2020.

While the Stays are in place, no steps are to be taken in
connection with the Canadian tobacco litigation with respect to any
of the defendants.

British American Tobacco p.l.c. provides cigarettes and other
tobacco products worldwide. It manufactures vapor and tobacco
heating products; oral tobacco and nicotine products, such as snus,
tobacco-free nicotine pouches, and moist snuff; cigars; and
e-cigarettes.  The Company offers its products under the Dunhill,
Kent, Lucky Strike, Pall Mall, Rothmans, Newport, Camel, Natural
American Spirit, Vogue, Viceroy, Kool, Peter Stuyvesant, Craven A,
Benson & Hedges, John Player Gold Leaf, State Express 555, and
Shuang Xi brands.  The Company sells its products to retail
outlets. British American Tobacco p.l.c. was founded in 1902 and is
headquartered in London, the United Kingdom.


BRITISH AMERICAN: SFNTC Sued over Cigarette Labeling
----------------------------------------------------
British American Tobacco p.l.c. said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Santa Fe Natural
Tobacco Company (SFNTC) is facing 17 putative class actions related
to use of descriptors such as 'natural', 'organic' and '100%
additive-free' in the marketing, labelling, advertising, and
promotion of SFNTC's Natural American Spirit brand cigarettes.

A total of 17 putative class actions have been filed in nine US
federal district courts against Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company
(SFNTC), a subsidiary of RAI, which cases generally allege, in
various combinations, violations of state deceptive and unfair
trade practice statutes, and claim state common law fraud,
negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment based on the use
of descriptors such as 'natural', 'organic' and '100%
additive-free' in the marketing, labelling, advertising, and
promotion of SFNTC's Natural American Spirit brand cigarettes.

In these actions, the plaintiffs allege that the use of these terms
suggests that Natural American Spirit brand cigarettes are less
harmful than other cigarettes and, for that reason, violated state
consumer protection statutes or amounted to fraud or a negligent or
intentional misrepresentation.

The actions seek various categories of recovery, including economic
damages, injunctive relief (including medical monitoring and
cessation programmes), interest, restitution, disgorgement, treble
and punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

In April 2016, in response to a motion by the various plaintiffs,
the US Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML")
consolidated these cases for pre-trial purposes before a federal
court in New Mexico. That court heard argument on defendants'
motion to dismiss the current consolidated complaint on 9 June
2017.

On 21 December 2017, the district court granted the motion in part,
dismissing a number of claims with prejudice, and denied it in
part. The district court's scheduling order provides that hearings
on motions for class certification and on motions challenging the
admissibility expert opinion testimony will begin on or after 24
August 2020.

British American Tobacco p.l.c. provides cigarettes and other
tobacco products worldwide. It manufactures vapor and tobacco
heating products; oral tobacco and nicotine products, such as snus,
tobacco-free nicotine pouches, and moist snuff; cigars; and
e-cigarettes.  The Company offers its products under the Dunhill,
Kent, Lucky Strike, Pall Mall, Rothmans, Newport, Camel, Natural
American Spirit, Vogue, Viceroy, Kool, Peter Stuyvesant, Craven A,
Benson & Hedges, John Player Gold Leaf, State Express 555, and
Shuang Xi brands.  The Company sells its products to retail
outlets. British American Tobacco p.l.c. was founded in 1902 and is
headquartered in London, the United Kingdom.


BRITISH AMERICAN: Young's ETS Class Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------
British American Tobacco p.l.c. said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the putative
Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) class action styled Young v.
American Tobacco Co., Inc. remains pending.

Young v. American Tobacco Co. is a case filed in November 1997 in
the Circuit Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana against various US
cigarette manufacturers, including R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
("RJRT") and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. (formerly Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corporation) ("B&W"), and parent companies of
such manufacturers.

This putative Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) class action was
brought on behalf of a putative class of Louisiana residents who,
though not themselves cigarette smokers, have been exposed to
second-hand smoke from cigarettes manufactured by the defendants,
and who allegedly suffered injury as a result of that exposure, and
seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages.

In March 2016, the court entered an order staying the case,
including all discovery, pending the completion of an ongoing
smoking cessation programme ordered by the court in a now-concluded
Louisiana state court certified class action, Scott v. American
Tobacco Co..

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

British American Tobacco p.l.c. provides cigarettes and other
tobacco products worldwide. It manufactures vapor and tobacco
heating products; oral tobacco and nicotine products, such as snus,
tobacco-free nicotine pouches, and moist snuff; cigars; and
e-cigarettes.  The Company offers its products under the Dunhill,
Kent, Lucky Strike, Pall Mall, Rothmans, Newport, Camel, Natural
American Spirit, Vogue, Viceroy, Kool, Peter Stuyvesant, Craven A,
Benson & Hedges, John Player Gold Leaf, State Express 555, and
Shuang Xi brands.  The Company sells its products to retail
outlets. British American Tobacco p.l.c. was founded in 1902 and is
headquartered in London, the United Kingdom.


CARING WITH HONOR: Verser Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Verser, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CARING WITH HONOR LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00649-NJ (E.D.
Wis., April 24, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws
seeking to recover unpaid overtime compensation, regular wages,
liquidated damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

According to the complaint, the Defendant operated (and continues
to operate) an unlawful compensation system that deprived and
failed to compensate the Plaintiff for all hours worked and work
performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for
each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt Certified Nursing Assistant providing non-medical
in-home care, services, and support to the Defendant's clients and
customers in southeastern Wisconsin.

The Defendant is a non-medical in-home care company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Phone: (262) 780-1953
          Fax: (262) 565-6469
          Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                 sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com


CELSION CORP: O'Connor Shareholder Derivative & Class Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Celsion Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a derivative and putative class action lawsuit in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, with the caption
O'Connor v. Braun et al., Docket No. MER-C-000068-19

On September 20, 2019, a purported stockholder of the Company filed
a derivative and putative class action lawsuit in the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, against the Company (as
both a class action defendant and nominal defendant), certain
officers and directors), with the caption O'Connor v. Braun et al.,
Docket No. MER-C-000068-19 (the "Shareholder Action").

The Shareholder Action alleges breaches of the defendants'
fiduciary based on allegations that the Defendants made or approved
improper statements when seeking shareholder approval of the 2018
Stock Incentive Plan.

The Shareholder Action seeks, among other things, any damages
sustained by the Company as a result of the defendants' alleged
wrongdoing, a declaratory judgment against all defendants
invalidating the 2018 Stock Incentive Plan and declaring any awards
made under the Plan invalid, rescinded, and subject to
disgorgement, an order disgorging the equity awards granted to the
individual defendants under the 2018 Stock Incentive Plan, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

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

Celsion Corporation, a development stage oncology drug company,
focuses on the development and commercialization of directed
chemotherapies, DNA-mediated immunotherapy, and RNA based therapies
for the treatment of cancer. Its lead product candidate is
ThermoDox, a liposomal encapsulation of doxorubicin that is in
Phase III clinical trial for treating primary liver cancer. The
company is also developing GEN-1, a DNA-based immunotherapeutic
product for the localized treatment of ovarian and brain cancers.
Celsion Corporation was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in
Lawrenceville, New Jersey.


CENTRUS ENERGY: Matthews Suit Over Offsite Contamination Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Centrus Energy Corp. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit initiated by James Matthews, Jennifer
Brownfield Clark, Joanne Ross, the Estate of A.R., and others
similarly situated, in the Common Pleas Court of Pike County, Ohio.


On November 27, 2019, the Company, Enrichment Corp. and six other
DOE contractors who have operated facilities at the Portsmouth GDP
site were named as defendants in a class action complaint filed by
James Matthews, Jennifer Brownfield Clark, Joanne Ross, the Estate
of A.R., and others similarly situated, in the Common Pleas Court
of Pike County, Ohio.

The complaint seeks injunctive relief, compensatory damages,
statutory damages, and any other relief allowed by law for alleged
off-site contamination allegedly resulting from activities on the
Portsmouth GDP site.

The Matthews Plaintiffs expressly contend that the ongoing and
continuous releases that injured the Plaintiffs and Class Members
are not "nuclear incidents" as that term is defined in the
Price-Anderson Act, but rather "freestanding state law claims
concerning traditional-style state regulation."

The Company believes that its operations at the Portsmouth GDP site
were fully in compliance with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
regulations.

Centrus said, "Further the Company believes that any such liability
should be covered by indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act.
The Company and Enrichment Corp. have provided notifications to DOE
required to invoke indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act and
other contractual provisions."

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

Centrus Energy Corp. supplies nuclear fuel and services for the
nuclear power industry in the United States, Japan, Belgium, and
internationally.  The Company operates in two segments,
Low-Enriched Uranium (LEU) and Contract Services. The Company was
formerly known as USEC Inc. and changed its name to Centrus Energy
Corp. in September 2014. Centrus Energy Corp. is headquartered in
Bethesda, Maryland.


CENTRUS ENERGY: McGlone Suit over Offsite Contamination Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Centrus Energy Corp. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit initiated by Ursula McGlone, Jason
McGlone, Julia Dunham, and K.D. and C.D., minor children by and
through their parent and natural guardian Julia Dunham.

On May 26, 2019, the Company, Enrichment Corp., and five other DOE
contractors who have operated facilities at the Portsmouth, Ohio,
Gaseous Diffusion Plant site (including, in the case of the
Company, the American Centrifuge Plant site located on the premises
(the "Portsmouth GDP" site) were named as defendants in a class
action complaint filed by Ursula McGlone, Jason McGlone, Julia
Dunham, and K.D. and C.D., minor children by and through their
parent and natural guardian Julia Dunham in the U.S. District Court
in the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.

The complaint seeks damages for alleged off-site contamination
allegedly resulting from activities on the Portsmouth GDP site.

The McGlone Plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class of (i) all
current or former residents within a seven-mile radius of the
Portsmouth GDP site and (ii) all students and their parents at the
Zahn's Corner Middle School from 1993-present.

The Company believes that its operations at the Portsmouth GDP site
were fully in compliance with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s
regulations.

Centrus said, "Further the Company believes that any such liability
should be covered by indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act.
The Company and Enrichment Corp. have provided notifications to DOE
required to invoke indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act and
other contractual provisions."

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

Centrus Energy Corp. supplies nuclear fuel and services for the
nuclear power industry in the United States, Japan, Belgium, and
internationally.  The Company operates in two segments,
Low-Enriched Uranium (LEU) and Contract Services. The Company was
formerly known as USEC Inc. and changed its name to Centrus Energy
Corp. in September 2014. Centrus Energy Corp. is headquartered in
Bethesda, Maryland.


CENTRUS ENERGY: Pritchard Suit Over Offsite Contamination Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Centrus Energy Corp. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit initiated by Ray Pritchard and Sharon
Melick.

On June 28, 2019, the Company, Enrichment Corp. and four other DOE
contractors who have operated facilities at the Portsmouth GDP site
were named as defendants in a class action complaint filed by Ray
Pritchard and Sharon Melick in the U.S. District Court in the
Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.

The complaint seeks damages for alleged off-site contamination
allegedly resulting from activities on the Portsmouth GDP site.

The Pritchard Plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class of all
current or former residents within a seven-mile radius of the
Portsmouth GDP site.

The Company believes that its operations at the Portsmouth GDP site
were fully in compliance with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
regulations.

Centrus said, "Further the Company believes that any such liability
should be covered by indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act.
The Company and Enrichment Corp. have provided notifications to DOE
required to invoke indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act and
other contractual provisions."

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

Centrus Energy Corp. supplies nuclear fuel and services for the
nuclear power industry in the United States, Japan, Belgium, and
internationally.  The Company operates in two segments,
Low-Enriched Uranium (LEU) and Contract Services. The Company was
formerly known as USEC Inc. and changed its name to Centrus Energy
Corp. in September 2014. Centrus Energy Corp. is headquartered in
Bethesda, Maryland.


CHIEFTAIN COATING: Young & Bennett Seek to Certify FLSA Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as COLLETTE YOUNG and HENRY
BENNETT, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
employees v. CHIEFTAIN COATING, LLC, BURKARD INDUSTRIES, INC. and
JOHN "JAY" BURKARD, jointly and severally, Case No.
2:20-cv-10520-DPH-RSW (E.D. Mich. Filed Feb. 28, 2020), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the proposed Fair Labor Standards
      Act Collective;

   2. appointing undersigned counsel as counsel for the proposed
      Collective;

   3. approving the Plaintiffs' proposed form of notice and
      authorizing dissemination of that notice to each member of
      the proposed Collective by mail and email;

   4. requiring the Defendants to identify and produce the
      names, phone numbers, last known addresses, and email
      addresses of all proposed Collective members in a
      computer-readable format within 14 days; and

   5. giving members of the proposed Collective 45 days from the
      date the notice is mailed to join this case if they so
      choose.

The Plaintiffs challenge the Defendants' willful violations of the
FLSA. More specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants
willfully violated the FLSA by knowingly suffering or permitting
Plaintiffs to perform unpaid work before, during, and after their
scheduled shifts, but failed to pay these employees the federally
mandated overtime compensation.

The Defendants offer metal finishing services and employed
approximately 150 hourly production employees at any given time in
order to serve their customers. Chieftain Coating merged with or
acquired Burkard Industries in or October 2019 and continues to
operate in the same or similar manner utilizing many of the same
management personnel and employees.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jesse L. Young, Esq.
          Thomas J. Cedoz, Esq.
          KREIS ENDERLE, P.C.
          8225 Moorsbridge
          P.O. Box. 4010
          Kalamazoo, MH 49003-4010
          Telephone: (269) 324-3000
          Facsimile: (269) 324-3010
          E-mail: jyoung@kehb.com
                  tcedoz@kehb.com

CHINACACHE INT'L: Continues to Defend Likas Shareholder Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
ChinaCache International Holdings Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the the
company continues to defend a shareholder class action suit
entitled,  William Likas v. ChinaCache International Holdings Ltd.
et al, Civil Action No. 2:2019-cv-06942.

The Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors have been named as defendants in a shareholder class
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California: William Likas v. ChinaCache International
Holdings Ltd. et al, Civil Action No. 2:2019-cv-06942 (C.D. Cal.)
(filed on August 9, 2019).

The action—purportedly brought on behalf of a class of persons
who allegedly suffered damages as a result of their trading
activities related to the Group's American Depositary Shares (ADSs)
from April 10, 2015 to May 17, 2019—alleges that certain of the
Group's public statements and filings contained materially false
and misleading statements or omissions in violation of U.S.
securities laws.

On October 2, 2019, the Central California District Court appointed
a group of two purported shareholders of the Company as the Lead
Plaintiff of the class. On November 13, 2019, the Central
California District Court entered an order to show cause, ordering
the Lead Plaintiff to explain why this action should not be
dismissed for lack of prosecution because the Lead Plaintiff had
not filed a proof of service regarding any defendant.

On November 20, 2019, the Lead Plaintiff submitted a response to
the Court's order to show cause and requested that the Court allow
the Lead Plaintiff to serve the defendants through alternative
means. On December 16, 2019, the lead plaintiff submitted a motion
for alternative service, requesting the Court allow the lead
plaintiff to serve two defendants, namely, the Company and Ms.
Fengye Gao, the Company's former Financial Controller, through
alternative means.

On January 29, 2020, the Court granted the lead plaintiff's motion
for alternative service. The lead plaintiff submitted proofs of
service for completing service on the Company and Ms. Fengye Gao on
February 13, 2020.

On February 27, 2020, the Court issued an order as requested by the
Company and lead plaintiff, which order sets the lead plaintiff's
deadline to file an amended complaint on April 17, 2020.

ChinaCache said, "The lawsuit is still pending, and management is
of the view that these proceedings are at a preliminary stage,
therefore it is impossible at this stage to properly evaluate the
outcome. Therefore, no provision has been made for this case."

ChinaCache International Holdings Ltd., an investment holding
company, provides content and application delivery services in the
People's Republic of China. The company offers a portfolio of
services and solutions to businesses, government agencies, and
other enterprises to enhance the reliability and scalability of
their online services and applications. The Company was founded in
1998 and is headquartered in Beijing, the People's Republic of
China.


CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Promotional Sues Over Refusal to Pay Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Promotional Headwear International, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY,
INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-02211-JAR-GEB (D. Kan., April 24, 2020), is
brought for declaratory judgment and breach of contract arising
from the Defendant's refusal to pay claims related to COVID-19 as
required by the property insurance agreements it sold to the
Plaintiff and other businesses.

As a result of COVID-19 and Stay at Home Orders, the Plaintiff says
it has been forced to greatly reduce its operations. The Plaintiff
purchased an all-risk commercial property insurance policy from the
Defendant to protect it in the event of property loss and business
interruption. COVID-19 and the resulting response by state and
local governments have caused physical loss of the Plaintiff's
property and have interrupted its business.

Yet, the Plaintiff contends, the Defendant has refused to honor its
promise to provide the protection that the Plaintiff purchased.
Moreover, the Plaintiff is not unique. The insurance industry
appears to be taking a uniform approach to the current pandemic:
deny coverage even when the policy they drafted and offered to
insureds, and the policy paid for by the insureds, does not contain
an exclusion for pandemic- or virus-related losses. The Plaintiff's
policy with the Defendant is one such policy and exemplifies the
broken promise from insurance companies across the country, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a wholesale distributor of headwear, bags, aprons,
towels, and other products, including custom promotional caps sold
to businesses across the globe for marketing purposes.

The Cincinnati Insurance Company, Inc., is an Ohio corporation,
with its principal place of business in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


CINTAS CORP: Defending Against Securities Action in Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------
Cintas Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended February 29, 2020 , that the Company and
three executive officers are defendants in a purported class
action, filed on December 12, 2019, pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio alleging violations of
federal securities laws.

The lawsuit asserts that the defendants made material misstatements
regarding the Company's margins, earnings guidance and regulatory
compliance that caused the Company's stock to trade at artificially
inflated prices between March 2017 and November 2019.

The defendants deny liability.

Cintas Corporation designs, manufactures, and implements corporate
identity uniform programs. The Company also provides entrance mats,
restroom supplies, promotional products, document management, fire
protection, and first aid and safety services. The company is based
in Cincinnati, Ohio.

CINTAS CORP: ERISA-Related Class Action in Ohio Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Cintas Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended February 29, 2020 , that the company
continues to defend a purported class action suit alleging
violations of The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA).

The Company, the Board of Directors, CEO and the Investment Policy
Committee are defendants in a purported class action, filed on
December 13, 2019, pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio alleging violations of The
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

The lawsuit asserts that the defendants improperly managed the
costs of the employee retirement plan, breached their fiduciary
duties in failing to investigate and select lower cost alternative
funds, and failed to monitor and control the employee retirement
plan's recordkeeping costs.

The defendants deny liability.

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

Cintas Corporation designs, manufactures, and implements corporate
identity uniform programs. The Company also provides entrance mats,
restroom supplies, promotional products, document management, fire
protection, and first aid and safety services. The company is based
in Cincinnati, Ohio.


CLEAR BLUE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Monreal Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAVIER MONREAL, JUAN MANUEL DENA PLASCENCIA and ALBERTO BARAJAS,
each as an Individual, and on behalf of the general public for all
those similarly situated v. CLEAR BLUE ENERGY CORP., a California
Corporation, DOES 1 through 200, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV15620
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 23, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants failed to pay wages and overtime wages, to pay
prevailing wages on public works, and to provide or otherwise
compensate for missed meal and rest breaks pursuant to the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiffs were employed on public works projects in California
by Clear Blue. Mr. Monreal was employed from September 10, 2018, to
April 3, 2020. Mr. Plascencia was employed from September 10, 2018,
to October 7, 2019. Mr. Barajas was employed from August 2018 to
February 2019.

Clear Blue performed electrical work in counties throughout
California, including lighting fixture removal and
installation.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


CLIENT SERVICES: Stewart Sues in Wisconsin Over FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Stewart, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CLIENT SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00652 (E.D.
Wis., April 24, 2020), arises from the illegal practices of the
Defendant, when attempting to collect an alleged debt from the
Plaintiff, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Defendant mailed or caused to be mailed a letter dated October
4, 2019, to the Plaintiff. The Letter alleged that the Plaintiff
had incurred and defaulted on a financial obligation owed to JP
Morgan Chase Bank USA, N.A. Chase Bank does not prepare and send
monthly periodic billing statements on charged-off credit card
accounts. Once the Debt was charged-off, its balance remained
static and unchanging. Once the Debt was charged-off, Chase Bank
did not add interest or other charges to the account.

According to the complaint, the Letter falsely implied to an
unsophisticated consumer that interest and other charges could
accrue on the charged-off Debt. Such false implication arises from
the totality of the Letter including, but not limited, to the
statement, "Please note that no interest will be added to your
account balance through the course of Client Services, Inc.
collection efforts concerning your account."

The Defendant' use of a form letter like the Letter, which falsely
implies the Debt could increase, competitively disadvantages debt
collectors, who collect static debts without obscuring the fact
those debts' balances are static, according to the complaint. The
Letter also does not clearly and unambiguously state the amount of
the Debt.

The Plaintiff is a natural person, who was a citizen of, and
resided in, the City of Antigo, Langlade County, Wisconsin.

The Defendant regularly engages in the collection of defaulted
consumer debts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          Katelyn B. Busby, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          3010 South Appleton Road
          Menasha, WI 54952
          Phone (973) 379-7500
          Email: Philip@SternThomasson.com
                 Andrew@SternThomasson.com
                 Francis@SternThomasson.com
                 Katelyn@SternThomasson.com


CLOUDERA INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cloudera, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the court in the class
action suit entitled, In re Cloudera, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 5:19-cv-3221-LHK, has vacated its prior order appointing
lead plaintiffs and lead counsel and reopened the lead plaintiff
process.

On June 7, 2019, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, entitled Christie v. Cloudera, Inc., et al., Case No.
5:19-cv-3221-LHK.

The complaint named as defendants Cloudera, its former Chief
Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer and a former officer
and director, asserting alleged class claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and
SEC Rule 10b-5.

Two substantially similar class action complaints, entitled
Zarantonello v. Cloudera, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-4007-LHK,
and Dvornic v. Cloudera, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-4310-LHK,
were subsequently filed against the same defendants in the same
court on July 12, 2019 and July 26, 2019, respectively.

The suits have been consolidated under the name, In re Cloudera,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:19-cv-3221-LHK. The court
subsequently appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, and a
consolidated amended complaint was filed on February 14, 2020.

The consolidated amended complaint asserts claims against the
Company and three individual defendants under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, based on allegedly false
and misleading statements between April 28, 2017 and June 5, 2019.


It also adds as defendants ten current or former directors or
officers of the Company and Intel Corporation and asserts claims
under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
on behalf of all persons who acquired Cloudera stock pursuant or
traceable to the S-4 registration statement filed in connection
with Cloudera's January 2019 merger with Hortonworks, and alleging
that the registration statement contained untrue statements of
material fact and omitted material facts.

The complaint seeks, among other things, an award of damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 18, 2020, the court vacated its prior order appointing
lead plaintiffs and lead counsel and reopened the lead plaintiff
process.

Cloudera believes that the allegations in the action are without
merit.

Cloudera, Inc. provides platform for machine learning and analytics
in the United States, Europe, and Asia. The company operates
through two segments, Subscription and Services. Cloudera, Inc. was
founded in 2008 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California.


CLOUDERA INC: Hortonworks Merger-Related Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Cloudera, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, In re Cloudera, Inc.
Securities Litigation, related to the company's merger agreement
with  Hortonworks, Inc.

In January 2019, the company completed its merger with Hortonworks,
Inc., a publicly-held company headquartered in Santa Clara,
California, and a provider of enterprise-grade, global data
management platforms, services and solutions.

On June 7, 2019, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, entitled
Lazard v. Cloudera, Inc., et al., Case No. 19CV348674.

The complaint named as defendants Cloudera, thirteen individuals
who are current or former directors or officers of the Company, and
Intel Corporation. The complaint alleged that the registration
statement contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted
material facts.

Two substantially similar suits, entitled Franchi v. Cloudera,
Inc., et al., Case No. 19CV348790, and Cannizzo v. Cloudera, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 19CV348974, were subsequently filed in the same
court on June 11, 2019 and June 14, 2019, respectively.

The suits have been consolidated under the name In re Cloudera,
Inc. Securities Litigation, and the consolidated amended complaint
purports to assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of all persons who acquired
Cloudera stock pursuant or traceable to the S-4 registration
statement filed in connection with Cloudera's January 2019 merger
with Hortonworks, and alleges that the registration statement
contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted material
facts.

Plaintiffs seek, among other things, an award of damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Cloudera believes that the allegations in the lawsuits are without
merit.

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

Cloudera, Inc. provides platform for machine learning and analytics
in the United States, Europe, and Asia. The company operates
through two segments, Subscription and Services. Cloudera, Inc. was
founded in 2008 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California.


COAST PROFESSIONAL: Approval of Kaykov Class Action Deal Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DAVID KAYKOV, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COAST
PROFESSIONAL, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-06442-KAM (E.D.N.Y.), the
Parties will move the Court for an order granting final approval of
the Parties' class settlement agreement, and for attorney's fees,
costs, and incentive award to the named Plaintiff.

Coast Professionalis a collection agency that focuses on the
collection of government and higher education debt.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Ave., Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Telephone: 732-695-3282
          Facsimile: 732-298-6256
          E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Bryan C. Shartle, Esq.
          Spencer M. Schulz, Esq.
          SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLC
          3850 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 200
          Metairie, LA 70002
          Telephone: 504-828-3700
          Facsimile: 504-828-3737
          E-mail: bshartle@sessions.legal
                  sschulz@sessions.legal

COCRYSTAL PHARMA: Continues to Defend Pepe Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Cocrystal Pharma, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action initiated by Anthony Pepe.

On September 20, 2018, Anthony Pepe, individually and on behalf of
a class, filed with the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey a complaint against the Company, certain
current and former executive officers and directors of the Company
and the other defendants named therein for violation of Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The class consists of the persons and entities who purchased the
Company's common stock during the period from September 23, 2013
through September 7, 2018.

Pepe also alleges violation of other sections of the Exchange Act
by the defendants named in the complaint other than the Company.

Pepe seeks damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs.

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

Cocrystal Pharma, Inc., a clinical stage biotechnology company,
engages in discovering and developing various novel antiviral
therapeutics that target the replication machinery of hepatitis
viruses, influenza viruses, and noroviruses. Cocrystal Pharma, Inc.
was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Tucker, Georgia.


COMPUTER HAUS: Court Certifies Collective Action in "Jahagirdar"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as SHAILESH JAHAGIRDAR on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. THE COMPUTER HAUS
NC, INC. d/b/a CITYMAC, a North Carolina Corporation, and TROY
CURRAN, an individual, Case No. No. 1:20-cv-0033-MOC (W.D.N.C.),
the Hon. Judge Max O. Cogburn Jr., entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify a
      collective action and facilitate notice, on behalf of:

      "all current and former employees of Defendants,
      nationwide, who work or have worked for Defendants as a
      non-exempt hourly employee, who were not paid minimum wage
      and/or overtime premium for all hours worked exceeding 40
      per week during the period of February 5, 2017, to the
      filing of this Complaint in this action";

   2. approving the Notice and Consent Form submitted by
      Plaintiff;

   3. directing the Defendants, within 21 days of entry of this
      Order, to provide Plaintiff's counsel (in computer-
      readable electronic format) the names, addresses, e-mail
      addresses, telephone numbers and dates of employment, of
      all persons who are, have been, or will be employed by
      Defendants as non-exempt hourly employees at any of
      Defendants' United States locations from February 5, 2017
      to the present;

   4. directing the Plaintiff to send the Notice by first class
      mail and e-mail to all potential members of the collective
      action informing them of their right to opt-in; and

   5. scheduling the opt-in period to commence seven days after
      the Defendants produce the requested information
      pertaining to the potential Plaintiffs.

The Court finds that the Plaintiff has met the lenient standard of
demonstrating that the Plaintiff and opt-in plaintiffs are
similarly situated. Therefore, the Court will grant Plaintiff's
motion at this early stage in the proceedings and order that notice
be sent to the class.

The Plaintiff alleges that CityMac has a policy and/or practice of
not paying non-exempt hourly workers minimum wages and/or overtime
wages earned for all hours worked.

The Defendants own and operate retail stores across the United
States including in North Carolina.[CC]

CONAGRA BRANDS: Negrete Class Action Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------
Conagra Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, Negrete v.
ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al.

The company is a party to matters challenging the Company's wage
and hour practices.

These matters include a number of class actions consolidated under
the caption Negrete v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al, pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, in
which the plaintiffs allege a pattern of violations of California
and/or federal law at several current and former Company
manufacturing facilities across the State of California.

Conagra said, "While we cannot predict with certainty the results
of this or any other legal proceeding, we do not expect this matter
to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
results of operations, or business."

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

Conagra Brands, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company in North America. The company operates through Grocery
& Snacks, Refrigerated & Frozen, International, and Foodservice
segments. The company was formerly known as ConAgra Foods, Inc. and
changed its name to Conagra Brands, Inc. in November 2016. Conagra
Brands, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois.


CONAGRA BRANDS: Settlement in Briseno Class Suit Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------
Conagra Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2020, that a class member in the
Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc. suit, has taken an appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the
court's decision approving the parties' settlement.

The company is a party to a number of putative class action
lawsuits challenging various product claims made in the Company's
product labeling.

These matters include Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc. in which it is
alleged that the labeling for Wesson(R) oils as 100% natural is
false and misleading because the oils contain genetically modified
plants and organisms.

In February 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California granted class certification to permit plaintiffs to
pursue state law claims. The Company appealed to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed class
certification in January 2017.

The Supreme Court of the United States declined to review the
decision and the case was remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings.

On April 4, 2019, the trial court granted preliminary approval of a
settlement in this matter.

In the second quarter of fiscal 2020, a single objecting class
member appealed the court's decision approving the settlement to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The settlement will not be final until the appeal has been
resolved.

Conagra Brands, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company in North America. The company operates through Grocery
& Snacks, Refrigerated & Frozen, International, and Foodservice
segments. The company was formerly known as ConAgra Foods, Inc. and
changed its name to Conagra Brands, Inc. in November 2016. Conagra
Brands, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois.


CONAGRA BRANDS: West Palm Beach Firefighters' Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Conagra Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, est Palm Beach
Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Conagra Brands, Inc., et al.

The Company, its directors, and several of its executive officers
are defendants in several class actions alleging violations of
federal securities laws.

The lawsuits assert that the Company's officers made material
misstatements and omissions that caused the market to have an
unrealistically positive assessment of the Company's financial
prospects in light of the acquisition of Pinnacle, thus causing the
Company's securities to be overvalued prior to the release of the
Company's consolidated financial results on December 20, 2018 for
the second quarter of fiscal year 2019.

The first of these lawsuits, captioned West Palm Beach
Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Conagra Brands, Inc., et al., with
which subsequent lawsuits alleging similar facts have been
consolidated, was filed on February 22, 2019 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

In addition, on May 9, 2019, a shareholder filed a derivative
action on behalf of the Company against the Company's directors
captioned Klein v. Arora, et al. in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois asserting harm to the Company due to
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and mismanagement in connection
with the Pinnacle acquisition.

On July 9, 2019 and September 20, 2019, and March 10, 2020, the
Company received three separate demands from stockholders under
Delaware law to inspect the Company's books and records related to
the Board of Directors' review of the Pinnacle business,
acquisition, and the Company's public statements related to them.

On July 22, 2019 and August 6, 2019, respectively, two additional
shareholder derivative lawsuits captioned Opperman v. Connolly, et
al. and Dahl v. Connolly, et al. were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois asserting similar facts
and claims as the Klein v. Arora, et al. matter.

On October 21, 2019, the Company received an additional demand from
a stockholder under Delaware law to appoint a special committee to
investigate the conduct of certain officers and directors in
connection with the Pinnacle acquisition and the Company's public
statements.

Conagra said, "We have put the Company's insurance carriers on
notice of each of these securities and shareholder matters. While
we cannot predict with certainty the results of these or any other
legal proceedings, we do not expect these matters to have a
material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of
operations, or business."

Conagra Brands, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company in North America. The company operates through Grocery
& Snacks, Refrigerated & Frozen, International, and Foodservice
segments. The company was formerly known as ConAgra Foods, Inc. and
changed its name to Conagra Brands, Inc. in November 2016. Conagra
Brands, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois.


CONCENTRIX CORP: Helwig Files FCRA Suit in Ohio
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Concentrix
Corporation. The case is styled as David Helwig, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Concentrix
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00920-CAB (N.D. Ohio,
April 29, 2020).

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

Concentrix Corporation is an American multinational corporation
that provides B2B IT services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Stephen M. Bosak, Esq.
   O'Toole McLaughlin Dooley & Pecora
   5455 Detroit Road
   Sheffield Village, OH 44054
   Tel: (440) 930-4001
   Fax: (440) 937-7208
   Email: sbosak@omdplaw.com

     - and -

   Matthew A. Dooley, Esq.
   O'Toole McLaughlin Dooley & Pecora
   5455 Detroit Road
   Sheffield Village, OH 44054
   Tel: (440) 930-4001
   Fax: (440) 934-7208
   Email: mdooley@omdplaw.com



CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Gomez Class Certification Bid Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as IRMA GOMEZ, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CONVERGENT
OUTSOURCING INC., Case No. 20-CV-0592 (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge
Lynn Adelman entered an order granting plaintiff's motions to stay
the class certification motion and for relief from the local
rules.

The plaintiff filed a class action complaint alleging violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Wisconsin Consumer
Act, and at the same time, filed what the court commonly refers to
as a "protective" motion for class certification. By this motion,
the plaintiff moved to certify the class described in the complaint
but also moved the court to stay further proceedings on that
motion.

In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011),
the court suggested that class‐action plaintiffs "move to certify
the class at the same time that they file their complaint." "The
pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to
buy off the named plaintiffs."

Convergent Outsourcing is a debt collection agency.[CC]

CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Placeholder Class Cert Bid Filed in Voeks
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as GEORGE VOEKS, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CREDIT MANAGEMENT
CONTROL, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00607-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in
order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action
defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from
proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to
"moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff
individual (but not classwide) relief.

The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's
attorneys as class counsel.

In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).

In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                 meldridge@ademilaw.com
                 jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                 bslatky@ademilaw.com



DELL TECH: Bid to Dismiss Class V Consolidated Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dell Technologies Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
filed in the class action suit entitled, In Re Dell Class V
Litigation (Consol. C.A. No. 2018-0816-JTL), is still pending.

Four purported stockholders brought putative class action
complaints arising out of the Class V transaction.

The actions were captioned Hallandale Beach Police and Fire
Retirement Plan v. Michael Dell et al. (Civil Action No.
2018-0816-JTL), Howard Karp v. Michael Dell et al. (Civil Action
No. 2019-0032-JTL), Miramar Police Officers' Retirement Plan v.
Michael Dell et al. (Civil Action No. 2019-0049-JTL), and
Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan v. Michael Dell et al. (Civil
Action No. 2019-0115-JTL).

The four actions were consolidated into In Re Dell Class V
Litigation (Consol. C.A. No. 2018-0816-JTL), which names as
defendants the Company's board of directors and certain
stockholders of the Company, including Michael S. Dell.

The plaintiffs generally allege that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the former holders of Class V Common Stock in
connection with the Class V transaction by allegedly causing the
Company to enter into a transaction that favored the interests of
the controlling stockholders at the expense of such former
stockholders.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in August 2019 making
substantially similar allegations to those described above. The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action in September 2019.
The plaintiffs replied to the motion to dismiss in November 2019,
and the defendants filed a reply in December 2019.

Dell said, "A hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on March
13, 2020, and we expect a decision within ninety days."

Dell Technologies Inc. provides computer products. The Company
offers laptops, desktops, tablets, workstations, servers, monitors,
printers, gateways, software, storage, and net working products.
Dell Technologies serves customers worldwide. Dell Technologies
Inc. was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Round Rock,
Texas.


DELL TECH: Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System Suit Closed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dell Technologies Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2020, that the class action suit
entitled, City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System v.
Dell Inc., et. al. (Case No. 1:14-cv-03644), has been closed.

On May 21, 2014, a securities class action seeking compensatory
damages was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned City of Pontiac General
Employees' Retirement System v. Dell Inc., et al. (Case No.
1:14-cv-03644).

The action names as defendants Dell Inc. and certain current and
former executive officers, and alleges that Dell made false and
misleading statements about Dell's financial results and future
prospects between February 21, 2012 and May 22, 2012, which
resulted in artificially inflated stock prices.

The case was transferred to the United States District Court for
the Western District of Texas under the same caption (Case No.
1:15-cv-00374), where the defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

On September 16, 2016, the Court denied the motion to dismiss. On
March 29, 2018, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, and certified a class consisting of all purchasers
of Dell common stock between February 22, 2012 and May 22, 2012.

The parties subsequently agreed to an immaterial settlement amount,
and notice of the settlement was mailed to stockholders in October
2019.

The Count approved the settlement on January 10, 2020 and payments
are currently being made thereunder.

The matter is now closed.

Dell Technologies Inc. provides computer products. The Company
offers laptops, desktops, tablets, workstations, servers, monitors,
printers, gateways, software, storage, and net working products.
Dell Technologies serves customers worldwide. Dell Technologies
Inc. was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Round Rock,
Texas.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Bid to Dismiss ICE LIBOR Antitrust Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion
seeking dismissal of the class action entitled, n re ICE LIBOR
Antitrust Litigation, remains pending.

In January and March 2019, plaintiffs filed three putative class
action complaints in the SDNY against several financial
institutions, alleging that the defendants, members of the panel of
banks that provided US dollar LIBOR submissions, the organization
that administers LIBOR, and their affiliates, conspired to suppress
US dollar LIBOR submissions from February 1, 2014 through the
present.

These actions were subsequently consolidated under In re ICE LIBOR
Antitrust Litigation, and on July 1, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated action is the
subject of fully briefed motions to dismiss, and oral argument was
heard on January 30, 2020.

This action is not part of the US dollar LIBOR MDL.

Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft provides investment, financial,
and related products and services to private individuals, corporate
entities, and institutional clients worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Private &
Commercial Bank (PCB), and Asset Management. Deutsche Bank
Aktiengesellschaft was founded in 1870 and is headquartered in
Frankfurt am Main, Germany.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Class Action in Israel
------------------------------------------------------------------
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company has
been named as a defendant in an amended and consolidated class
action filed in Israel.

Deutsche Bank has been named as a defendant in an amended and
consolidated class action filed in Israel.

This action asserts factual allegations similar to those made in
the consolidated action in the United States and seeks damages
pursuant to Israeli antitrust law as well as other causes of
action.

This action is in preliminary stages and Deutsche Bank has not yet
been formally served.

Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft provides investment, financial,
and related products and services to private individuals, corporate
entities, and institutional clients worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Private &
Commercial Bank (PCB), and Asset Management. Deutsche Bank
Aktiengesellschaft was founded in 1870 and is headquartered in
Frankfurt am Main, Germany.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Global Settlement Reached in Contant Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that plaintiffs in the
"Indirect Purchasers" action pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York ( Contant, et al . v. Bank of
America Corp., et al. ) informed the court of a global settlement
with all defendants remaining in that action, including Deutsche
Bank.

There are currently two U.S. actions pending against Deutsche Bank.
On February 25, 2020, plaintiffs in the "Indirect Purchasers"
action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York ( Contant, et al . v. Bank of America Corp., et al. )
informed the court of a global settlement with all defendants
remaining in that action, including Deutsche Bank.

Pending preliminary and final settlement approval orders approving
Deutsche Bank's settlement, plaintiffs will dismiss with prejudice
all claims alleged against Deutsche Bank in that action.

Filed on November 7, 2018, Allianz, et al. v. Bank of America
Corporation, et al. , was brought on an individual basis by a group
of asset managers who opted out of the settlement in a consolidated
action ( In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust
Litigation ).

Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on June 11, 2019.
Defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint is
pending. Discovery has commenced pending resolution of defendants'
motion to dismiss.

Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft provides investment, financial,
and related products and services to private individuals, corporate
entities, and institutional clients worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Private &
Commercial Bank (PCB), and Asset Management. Deutsche Bank
Aktiengesellschaft was founded in 1870 and is headquartered in
Frankfurt am Main, Germany.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Israel Class Suit Over Interest Rates Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Deutsche Bank is
contesting service and jurisdiction of the class action filed in
Israel regarding LIBOR, EURIBOR and TIBOR.

A class action regarding LIBOR, EURIBOR and TIBOR has been filed in
Israel seeking damages for losses incurred by Israeli individuals
and entities.

Deutsche Bank is contesting service and jurisdiction.

Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft provides investment, financial,
and related products and services to private individuals, corporate
entities, and institutional clients worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Private &
Commercial Bank (PCB), and Asset Management. Deutsche Bank
Aktiengesellschaft was founded in 1870 and is headquartered in
Frankfurt am Main, Germany.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Metzler Case Settlement Wins Preliminary Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, a trial court has
granted preliminary approval of the settlement in Metzler
Investment GmbH v. Credit Suisse Group AG.

On July 13, 2017, Deutsche Bank executed a settlement agreement in
the amount of US$ 80 million with plaintiffs to resolve a putative
class action pending as part of the US dollar LIBOR MDL asserting
claims based on alleged transactions in Eurodollar futures and
options traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange ( Metzler
Investment GmbH v. Credit Suisse Group AG ).

The settlement agreement was submitted to the court for preliminary
approval on October 11, 2017, and the court granted preliminary
approval on March 2, 2020.

The settlement amount is already fully reflected in existing
litigation provisions and no additional provisions have been taken
for this settlement.

The settlement agreement is subject to further review and approval
by the court.

Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft provides investment, financial,
and related products and services to private individuals, corporate
entities, and institutional clients worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Private &
Commercial Bank (PCB), and Asset Management. Deutsche Bank
Aktiengesellschaft was founded in 1870 and is headquartered in
Frankfurt am Main, Germany.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Still Defends LIBOR-Related Class Suit in Argentina
------------------------------------------------------------------
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company is
defending a class action related to LIBOR in Argentina.

A class action regarding LIBOR has been filed in Argentina seeking
damages for losses allegedly suffered by holders of Argentine bonds
that calculated interest rates based on LIBOR.

Deutsche Bank is defending this action.

Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft provides investment, financial,
and related products and services to private individuals, corporate
entities, and institutional clients worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Private &
Commercial Bank (PCB), and Asset Management. Deutsche Bank
Aktiengesellschaft was founded in 1870 and is headquartered in
Frankfurt am Main, Germany.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Suit by Indirect Participants of SSA Bonds Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action initiated by indirect market
participants of the secondary trading market for Sovereigns,
Supranationals and Agencies (SSA) bonds.

Deutsche Bank is a defendant in several putative class action
complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York by alleged direct and indirect market
participants claiming violations of antitrust law and common law
related to alleged manipulation of the secondary trading market for
Sovereigns, Supranationals and Agencies (SSA) bonds.

Deutsche Bank has reached an agreement to settle the actions by
direct market participants for the amount of US$ 48.5 million and
has recorded a provision in the same amount. The settlement is
subject to court approval.

The action filed on behalf of alleged indirect market participants
is in its early stages.

Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft provides investment, financial,
and related products and services to private individuals, corporate
entities, and institutional clients worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Private &
Commercial Bank (PCB), and Asset Management. Deutsche Bank
Aktiengesellschaft was founded in 1870 and is headquartered in
Frankfurt am Main, Germany.


DOLLAR TREE: ADA Related Class Suits Ongoing
--------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended February 1, 2020, that the company continues to
face purported nationwide and state class action suits related to
its violation with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),
initiated by a law firm.

Beginning in 2019, a law firm has filed lawsuits around the
country, including purported nationwide and state class actions,
alleging the Company violated the public accommodation requirements
of the Americans with Disabilities Act or its state law equivalent,
by systemically blocking the aisles with merchandise.

Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It
operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The
company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake,
Virginia.


DOLLAR TREE: Illinois Customer's Suit vs. Family Dollar Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended February 1, 2020, that Family Dollar continues to
defend against a class action suit in Illinois initiated by a
customer.

In January 2017, a customer filed a class action in federal court
in Illinois alleging the Company violated various state consumer
fraud laws as well as express and implied warranties by selling a
product that purported to contain aloe when it did not.

The requested class is limited to the state of Illinois.

The Company believes that it is fully indemnified by the entities
that supplied it with the product.

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

Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It
operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The
company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake,
Virginia.


DOLLAR TREE: Store Manager Suit vs. Family Dollar Concluded
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended February 1, 2020, that in 2018, a former store
manager and a former assistant store manager filed class actions in
California state court seeking to recover for working off the
clock, non-compliant rest and meal periods and related claims. The
case has been resolved.

Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It
operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The
company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake,
Virginia.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Conditional Cert. of Collective Action Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JEANOLEE SIDBURY, and all
others similarly situated v. DUN & BRADSTREET EMERGING BUSINESSES
CORP., and DUN & BRADSTREET CREDIBILITY CORP., Case No. C.A. No.:
1:19-cv-865-RP (W.D. Tex., Filed Sept. 4, 2019), the Plaintiff asks
the Court for an order:

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

      "all Inside Sales Representatives employed by Defendant
      Dun & Bradstreet Emerging Businesses Corp., Dun &
      Bradstreet Credibility Corp., Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. or
      Avention, Inc. in the job titles of: Account Manager - EB,
      Credit Advisor (Existing) - EB, Credit Advisor (NCA) - EB,
      Sr Account Manager - EB, Acquisition Sales Representative,
      Hoovers - Account Manager (Premier), Hoovers - Acquisition
      Rep Chat, Hoovers - Acquisition Rep Webforms, Inside Sales
      Relationship Manager I, Inside Sales Relationship Manager
      II, Inside Sales Specialists- S&MS National Accounts,
      Small Biz RM Corp Accts, Small Biz- Tele RM I Corp Accts,
      Small Biz-S&MS New Biz Specialist Corp Accts, Small
      Business - NCA Rep Emerging, Small Business - NCA Rep EB,
      Small Business - NCA Representative or Small Biz - Prime
      RM Corp Accts who rejected the settlement of their
      overtime claims in the case of Matise v. Dun & Bradstreet
      Case No. 1:18-cv-00725-LY, in the Western District, Austin
      Division";

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

   3. approving the issuance of notice and consent to join forms
      to be sent to the putative class members.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants incorrectly calculated
overtime payments made to her and all other "inside sales
representatives" by not including certain incentive-based payments
such as commissions when it calculated the regular rate of pay for
overtime purposes.

Dun & Bradstreet was a privately held company headquartered in
Malibu, California, USA until it was purchased by Dun & Bradstreet
in a $320 million deal that closed in May 2015.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
          ROSS SCALISE LAW GROUP
          1104 San Antonio Street
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 474-7677
          Facsimile: (512) 474-5306

DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Miller Sues in S.D.N.Y. Over Violation of FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Recovery
Solutions, LLC, et al. The case is captioned as Glenn Miller, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Dynamic
Recovery Solutions, LLC and John Doe 1-25, Case No.
1:20-cv-03219-AT (S.D.N.Y., April 23, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Analisa Torres.

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

Dynamic Recovery is a third party collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Karl Jones, Esq.
          JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
          One Grand Central Place
          60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (646) 459-7971
          Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com


FRONTIER COMM: Court Denies Bid for Leave to Amend Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Frontier Communications Corporation said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut denied plaintiffs'
motion for leave to amend.

On April 30, 2018, an amended consolidated class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut on behalf of certain purported stockholders against
Frontier, certain of its current and former directors and officers
and the underwriters of certain Frontier securities offerings.

The complaint was brought on behalf of all persons who (1) acquired
Frontier common stock between February 6, 2015 and February 28,
2018, inclusive, and/or (2) acquired Frontier common stock or
Mandatory Convertible Preferred Stock either in or traceable to
Frontier's offerings of common and preferred stock conducted on or
about June 2, 2015 and June 8, 2015.

The complaint asserted, among other things, violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule
10b-5 thereunder, Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Sections 11
and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection
with certain disclosures relating to the CTF Acquisition.

The complaint sought, among other things, damages and equitable and
injunctive relief.

On March 8, 2019, the District Court granted in its entirety
Frontier's motion to dismiss the complaint. The District Court
dismissed with prejudice a number of claims and with respect to
certain other claims that were not dismissed with prejudice,
Plaintiffs were permitted to seek the court's permission to refile.


On May 10, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend along
with a proposed amended complaint that is narrower in scope than
the dismissed complaint. On March 24, 2020, the court denied
plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend, finding that they had not
pled a viable claim. Plaintiffs may seek an appeal of the order
dismissing the case.  

Frontier said, "We continue to dispute the allegations and intend
to vigorously defend against such claims."

Frontier Communications Corporation provides communications
services to consumer, commercial, and wholesale customers in the
United States. It offers broadband, video, voice, and other
services and products through a combination of fiber and copper
based networks to consumer customers. The company was formerly
known as Citizens Communications Company and changed its name to
Frontier Communications Corporation in July 2008. Frontier
Communications Corporation was founded in 1927 and is based in
Norwalk, Connecticut.


GEORGIA: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Filed in Fiorito Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus has been filed in the class
action lawsuit styled as Michael Fiorito and The Estate of Robyn
Grubbs, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated,
Petitioners v. Warden William Woods of USP Atlanta, Michael
Carvajal, Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, David Brewer,
Acting Senior Deputy FBOP; Official Capacities, Respondents, Case
No. 1:20-cv-01859-JPB-JSA (N.D. Ga., April 29, 2020).

The Defendants are government representatives of Atlanta.

The Petitioner appears PRO SE.

GLOBAL CREDIT: Placeholder Class Cert Bid Filed in Zarczynski
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ANN ZARCZYNSKI, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. GLOBAL CREDIT &
COLLECTION CORP., Case No. 2:20-cv-00608-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in
order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action
defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from
proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to
"moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff
individual (but not classwide) relief.

The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's
attorneys as class counsel.

In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).

In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                 meldridge@ademilaw.com
                 jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                 bslatky@ademilaw.com


GLOBAL TRAVEL: Breaches Own Cancellation Policy, Sides Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Sides, for herself and her daughter, Kendal Sides; Erin
Claunch and Jackie Claunch, for themselves and their daughter
Kaelyn Claunch; Tracy Smith, for herself and her son Colin Smith;
Jennifer Laurel Wersland, for herself and for her son Kade
Wersland; Julie Swenson, for herself and her daughter Kate Swenson;
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. GLOBAL
TRAVEL ALLIANCE, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00053-SPW-TJC (D. Mont.,
April 24, 2020), is brought against the Defendant, who has sought
to misuse and breach its own contractual cancellation policy as a
means to profit from the COVID-19 pandemic by keeping the
hard-earned money of parents and students for cancelled student
class trips and to leverage students and parents into accepting
less desirable and uncertain alternatives.

According to the complaint, Global Travel tours are sold to Class
Members pursuant to a written contract of adhesion ("the 2019-2020
Adhesion Contract") that was drafted solely by Global Travel and
presented to all Class Members on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. The
2019-2020 Adhesion Contract includes a "General Booking Conditions
and Release Agreement" which contains a clause stating that Global
Travel "shall have the right, at any time in its discretion and
without liability or cost, to cancel any trip or portion of a trip,
or make an alteration in itinerary, or accommodation, in the event
of any trip being rendered unsafe." The 2019-2020 Adhesion Contract
separately contains a liquidated damages clause

On March 18, 2020, Global Travel unilaterally canceled and
"postponed" all scheduled trips. Global Alliance used its
liquidated damages clause to attempt to leverage Class Members into
accepting vouchers for a trip that Global Alliance canceled, giving
Class Members the untenable choice of accepting a voucher or losing
a significant portion of the funds they paid for the trip on the
bogus basis that Global Travel's cancelation constituted
cancelation by the students and their families, the Plaintiffs
allege.

The Plaintiffs contend that Global Travel makes a profit on the
sale of the travel package to each Class Member, but actually
increased its profit as a result of its own cancelation of the
trips it had sold to the Plaintiffs and other Class Members and its
refusal to grant full refunds to the students and their families.
Both the liquidated damage clause and the TPP travel insurance
provisions related to cancellation of the trip by the Class Member
for personal reasons, and did not apply to a cancelation of the
trip by Global Travel.
While the unsafe trip clause in the 2019-2020 Adhesion Contract
allowed Global Travel to unilaterally cancel the trip if it
determined the trip was unsafe, and to do so purportedly "without
liability or cost," such provision did not allow Global Travel to
keep its customers' money when it provided no trip in return, the
Plaintiffs assert. When Global Travel canceled the trip, the
Plaintiffs say they requested that Global Travel refund their
money, but Global Travel refused to do so.

The Plaintiffs all paid or contributed to paying for the costs of
their trips.

Global Travel is a tour company that specializes in selling
educational travel packages to students in Montana and across the
country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Morrison, Esq.
          MORRISON, SHERWOOD, WILSON & DEOLA, P.L.L.P.
          401 North Last Chance Gulch
          P.O. Box 557
          Helena, MT 59601
          Phone: (406) 442-3261
          Email: john@mswdlaw.com

               - and -

          John Heenan, Esq.
          Joe Cook, Esq.
          HEENAN & COOK
          1631 Zimmerman Trail
          Billings, MT 59102
          Phone: (406) 839-9091
          Email: john@lawmontana.com
                 joe@lawmontana.com


HEALTHEQUITY INC: Purchasers' Class Suit v. WageWorks Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
HealthEquity, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2020, that WageWorks, Inc. continues
to defend a consolidated class action suit initiated by its common
stock purchasers.

On August 30, 2019, HealthEquity, Inc. closed the acquisition of
WageWorks, Inc. ("WageWorks"), pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), for $51.35 per share in cash, or
approximately $2.0 billion to WageWorks stockholders (the
"Acquisition").

On March 9, 2018, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (the
"Securities Class Action").

On May 16, 2019, a consolidated amended complaint was filed by the
lead plaintiffs asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, against WageWorks,
its former Chief Executive Officer and its former Chief Financial
Officer on behalf of purchasers of WageWorks common stock between
May 6, 2016 and March 1, 2018.

The complaint also alleges claims under the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, arising from WageWorks' June 19, 2017 common stock
offering against those same defendants, as well as the members of
its board of directors at the time of that offering.

HealthEquity, Inc. is an American health care company that is
designated as a non-bank health savings trustee by the IRS.[2] This
designation allows HealthEquity to be the custodian of health
savings accounts regardless of which financial institution the
funds are deposited with. The company is based in Draper, Utah.


HEALTHEQUITY INC: WageWorks May Still Pay Plaintiff Counsel Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
HealthEquity, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2020, that class suits against
WageWorks, Inc. have been voluntarily dismissed but WageWorks may
still be required to pay attorneys fees to the plaintiffs'
lawyers.

On August 30, 2019, HealthEquity, Inc. closed the acquisition of
WageWorks, Inc. ("WageWorks"), pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), for $51.35 per share in cash, or
approximately $2.0 billion to WageWorks stockholders (the
"Acquisition").

Beginning on July 30, 2019, putative class action suits were filed
in the U.S. District Court Courts for the Southern District of New
York, the District of Delaware, and the Northern District of
California asserting claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, against WageWorks and
the former members of its board of directors.

The complaints generally allege disclosure violations in the proxy
statement issued by WageWorks in connection with the stockholder
vote on the proposed merger with the Company.

After WageWorks issued certain supplemental disclosures, these
actions were voluntarily dismissed, but WageWorks may still be
required to pay attorneys fees to the plaintiffs' lawyers.

WageWorks previously entered into indemnification agreements with
its former directors and officers and, pursuant to these
indemnification agreements, is covering the defense of its former
directors and officers.

HealthEquity, Inc. is an American health care company that is
designated as a non-bank health savings trustee by the IRS.[2] This
designation allows HealthEquity to be the custodian of health
savings accounts regardless of which financial institution the
funds are deposited with. The company is based in Draper, Utah.


HOMELAND SECURITY: Certification of Immigrants Class Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as KELVIN HERNANDEZ ROMAN,
MIGUEL AGUILAR ESTRADA, AND BEATRIZ ANDREA FORERO CHAVEZ on behalf
of themselves and all other similarly situated v. CHAD F. WOLF,
Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; MATTHEW T.
ALBENCE, Deputy Director and Senior Official Performing the Duties
of the Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; DAVID
MARIN, Director of the Los Angeles Field Office, Enforcement and
Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and
JAMES JANECKA, Warden, Adelanto ICE Processing Center, Case No.
5:20-cv-00768 (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order provisionally certifying a Proposed Class for purposes of the
preliminary injunctive relief:

   "all immigrants incarcerated at the Adelanto Immigration and
   Customs Enforcement Processing Center."

The United States Department of Homeland Security is a cabinet
department of the U.S. federal government with responsibilities in
public security, roughly comparable to the interior or home
ministries of other countries. The U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement is a federal law enforcement agency under the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, principally responsible for
immigration and customs enforcement, with additional
responsibilities in countering transnational crime.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Samir Deger-Den, Esq.
          William M. Friedman, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, D.C. 20004-1304
          Telephone: 202 637 2200
          Facsimile: 202.637.2201
          E-mail: samir.deger-sen@lw.com
                  william.friedman@lw.com

               - and -

          Amanda Barnett, Esq.
          Jessie Cammack, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
          Telephone: 213 485 1234
          Facsimile: 213 891 8763
          E-mail amanda.barnett@lw.com
                  jessie.cammack@lw.com

               - and -

          Ahilan Arulanantham, Esq.
          Michael Kaufman, Esq.
          Jessica Karp Bansal, Esq.
          Michelle (Minju) Cho, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
          1313 West 8th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 977-9500
          E-mail: aarulanantham@aclusocal.org
                  mkaufman@aclusocal.org
                  jbansal@aclusocal.org
                  mcho@aclusocal.org

HORIZON PERSONNEL: Saldana Sues Over Wage and Hour Law Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Saldana, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HORIZON PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1 through
20, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV15716 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
April 24, 2020), alleges that the Defendants have engaged in a
systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under the California
Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have increased their
profits by violating state wage and hour laws by, among other
things: failing to pay all wages (including minimum wages and
overtime wages); failing to provide lawful meal periods or
compensation in lieu thereof; failing to authorize or permit lawful
rest breaks or provide compensation in lieu thereof; failing to
provide accurate itemized wage statements; failing to pay all wages
due upon separation of employment. The Plaintiff seeks to recover,
among other things, unpaid wages and benefits, interest, attorneys'
fees, costs and expenses, and penalties pursuant to Labor Code.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee at Special Dispatch business locations in California.

The Defendants are in the business of providing staffing
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kashif Haque, Esq.
          Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
          9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Phone: (949) 379-6250
          Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
          Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com


HSS INC: Aguayo Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ARTURO MEJIA AGUAYO, as
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HSS
INC., a Colorado corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. 20CV001107 (Filed March 18, 2020), was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of
Monterey to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on April 23, 2020.

The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:20-cv-02827
to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff's complaint asserts claims for failure to provide
rest and meal periods and waiting time penalties under California
Labor Code Private Attorney General Act.

HSS specializes in medical intelligence software for coding,
reimbursement, and profiling of healthcare services.[BN]

Defendant HSS Inc. is represented by:

          Matthew M. Sonne, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993
          Telephone: 714 513 5100
          Facsimile: 714 513 5130
          E-mail: msonne@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Bryanne J. Lewis, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422
          Telephone: 213 620 1780
          Facsimile: 213 620 1398
          E-mail: blewis@sheppardmullin.com


ICONIX WATERWORKS: Magee Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL MAGEE, individually,
and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. ICONIX WATERWORKS
(US) INC., a corporation, GREG PUCCI, an individual, and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, Case No. 34-2020-00276640-CU-OE-GDS (Filed Dec. 6,
2019), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Sacramento, to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California on April 23, 2020.

The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-at-00406 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs' complaint asserts claims for relief against the
Defendants. The suit alleges that the Defendants violated the
California Labor Code by failing to provide rest periods, failing
to provide meal periods, failing to pay minimum wages, and failing
to pay overtime wages.

Iconix offers water and wastewater products and services.[BN]

Defendant Iconix is represented by:

          Craig P. Bronstein, Esq.
          Natasha K. Buchanan, Esq.
          LANAK & HANNA, P.C.
          625 The City Drive South, Suite 190
          Orange, CA 92868
          Telephone: (714) 620-2350
          Facsimile: (714) 703-1610
          E-mail: cpbronstein@lanak-hanna.com
                  nkbuchanan@lanak-hanna.com


INTERSTATE HOME: Tucker Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
William Tucker, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. INTERSTATE HOME LOAN CENTER, INC., TERENCE CULLEN, ALEX
NIVEN, KENNETH TUMSUDEN, JEANNE WICKES, and ELLEN ZUCKERMAN, Case
No. 2:20-cv-01906 (E.D.N.Y., April 24, 2020), is brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law to recover
unpaid earned overtime compensation and for other relief.

The Plaintiff alleges that he worked 60.5 hours each week but the
Defendants only paid him commissions when a loan that he worked on
closed and funded. He contends that the Defendants failed to make
and maintain true and accurate records of all the time he worked.

The Defendants knew or should have known that the Plaintiff worked
in excess of 40 hours during each week of their employment, says
the complaint. The Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff time
and-a-half their regular rates of pay for time worked in excess of
40 hours each week.

William Tucker was employed by the Defendants as a loan officer.

Interstate Home Loans Center, Inc., is a New York corporation with
locations in various regions throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neil H. Greenberg, Esq.
          Justin M. Reilly, Esq.
          Melanie J. Lazarus, Esq.
          NEIL H. GREENBERG & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          4242 Merrick Road
          Massapequa, NY 11758
          Phone: 516.228.5100
          Pax: 516.228.5106
          Email: nhglaw@nhglaw.com
                 justin@nhglaw.com
                 melani@nhglaw.com

               - and –

          Erik H. Langeland, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF ERIK H. LANGELAND, PC
          733 Third Avenue, 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 354-6270
          Fax: (212) 898-9086
          Email: elangeland@langelandlaw.com

               - and –

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          Haley R. Jenkins, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 233-1550
          Fax: (312) 233-1560
          Email: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                 rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                 hjenkins@stephanzouras.com


ISS FACILITY SERVICES: Appeals N.D. Cal. Ruling in Garcia Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant ISS Facility Services, Inc., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit titled Claudia Garcia v. ISS Facility
Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-07807-RS, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiff's Complaint asserts nine causes of action for: (1)
failure to provide meal periods, (2) failure to authorize and
permit rest periods, (3) failure to pay minimum wages, (4)failure
to pay overtime wages, (5) failure to pay all wages due to
discharged and quitting employees, (6) failure to maintain required
records, (7) failure to furnish accurate itemized wage
statements,(8) failure to indemnify employees for necessary
expenditures incurred in discharge of duties, and (9) unfair and
unlawful business practices.

The appellate case is captioned as Claudia Garcia v. ISS Facility
Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-15633, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee, CLAUDIA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900

Defendants-Appellants, ISS FACILITY SERVICES, INC., a Delaware
corporation, et al., are represented by:

          John Longyear Barber, Esq.
          Raul L. Martinez, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          633 W. 5th Street, Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 250-1800
          Email: john.barber@lewisbrisbois.com
                 raul.martinez@lewisbrisbois.com

                          – and –

          Drake Mirsch, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1400
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (949) 633-5600
          Email: drake.mirsch@lewisbrisbois.com


JEFFERIES FINANCIAL: Class Suits in Minnesota, New Mexico Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferies Financial Group Inc.  said in its Form 10-K/A report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26,
2020, for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend class action lawsuits in the U.S. District
Court, Minnesota District, and in the U.S. District Court, New
Mexico District.

The Company is a defendant in two class action lawsuits in the
United States District Court, Minnesota District alleging that it
violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Packers and Stockyards Act,
the Commodity Exchange Act, and various state laws (the "Antitrust
Cases").

The Antitrust Cases are entitled In re Cattle Antitrust Litigation,
which was filed originally on April 23, 2019, and Peterson et al.
v. JBS USA Food Company Holdings, et al., which was filed
originally on April 26, 2019.

The plaintiffs in the Antitrust Cases seek treble damages and other
relief under the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Packers & Stockyards
Act, the Commodities Exchange Act and attorneys' fees.

The Company is also a defendant in two class action lawsuits filed
on January 7, 2020, alleging that it misrepresented the origin of
its products in violation of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act
(the "Labelling Cases").

The Labelling Cases are entitled Thornton v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et
al., filed in the New Mexico Second Judicial District Court,
Bernalillo County, and Lucero v. Tyson Foods, et al., filed in the
New Mexico Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Sandoval County. The
Labelling Cases were subsequently removed to the United States
District Court, New Mexico District.

The plaintiffs in the Labelling Cases seek treble damages and other
relief and attorneys' fees.

Jefferies said, "NBP believes it has meritorious defenses to the
claims in the Antitrust Cases and the Labelling Cases and intends
to defend these cases vigorously. There can be no assurances,
however, as to the outcome of these matters or the impact on the
Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations
and cash flows."

Jefferies Financial Group Inc. is a global diversified financial
services company focusing on investment banking and capital
markets, asset management and direct investing. The Company offers
a full range of investment banking, equities, fixed income, asset
and wealth management products and services. The company is based
in New York, New York.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Sha-Poppin Challenges Prioritization of PPP Loans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sha-Poppin Gourmet Popcorn LLC, an Illinois limited liability
company, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., an Ohio corporation, and,
RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, Louisiana limited liability company, RCSH
OPERATIONS, INC., a California corporation (together d/b/a Ruth's
Chris Steak House), and PHUNWARE INC., a Delaware corporation,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Case
No. 1:20-cv-02523 (N.D. Ill., April 24, 2020), is brought to obtain
redress from the Defendants' efforts to cheat the Plaintiff and
countless small businesses out of their right to apply for and
receive federal stimulus funding under the Paycheck Protection
Program in a moment of national crisis.

The Congress' plan to aid small businesses was enacted into law on
March 27, 2020. In its initial form, the Small Business
Administration's ("SBA") Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP")
authorized up to $349 billion in forgivable loans to small
businesses to cover payroll and other expenses. This money was
meant to provide a critical and immediate life raft to businesses,
which have been shut down pursuant to their state's "stay at home"
order, or have been effectively shuttered due to a dramatic
drop-off in business.

Small businesses and sole proprietorships were to be able to apply
through SBA-approved lenders as soon as the application window
opened, get in line, and wait their turn to be approved. Chase,
however, saw an opportunity to help its established and
better-heeled clients by helping them break a rule ingrained in
virtually all Americans since pre-school: no line-cutting, the
Plaintiff alleges.

Due to Chase's prioritizing of its favored customers over the
Plaintiff, the Plaintiff says it was impeded in applying for a PPP
loan through Chase, at one point implicitly encouraged to seek a
loan elsewhere, and ultimately, received a far smaller loan than it
would have otherwise received if Chase had allowed it to apply on
April 3, 2020 (as it tried to do). As a result, the Plaintiff
asserts it is now on the brink as it desperately tries to keep its
employees on.

According to the complaint, despite knowing its intentional
stalling tactics would inevitably leave many businesses'
applications unprocessed, untimely submitted, or gratuitously
delayed as time was quickly running out, Chase concealed its
practices from the Plaintiff. It did so knowingly, out of a
combination of elite favoritism and, to be sure, at least some
additional profit. As a direct result of Chase's and the Defendant
Class' acts and omissions, the Plaintiff and countless small
businesses have lost out on their ability to apply for PPP loans,
or received far smaller loans than they otherwise would have.

Sha-Poppin is a limited liability company formed under the laws of
the State of Illinois.

Chase is a multi-trillion dollar banking entity.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Christopher L. Dore, Esq.
          Ari J Scharg, Esq.
          Daniel J. Schneider, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Phone: 312.589.6370
          Fax: 312.589.6378
          Email: jedelson@edelson.com
                 brichman@edelson.com
                 cdore@edelson.com
                 ascharg@edelson.com
                 dschneider@edelson.com


KANSAS: Supreme Court Appeal Filed in Hadley v. Zmuda Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs James Hadley, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in their lawsuit titled JAMES HADLEY, JOHN EDWARD TETERS,
MONICA BURCH, TIFFANY TROTTER, KARENA WILSON, ABRAHAM ORR, DAVID
BROOKS, SASHADA MAKTHEPHARAK THROUGH HIS NEXT FRIEND KAYLA NGUYEN,
ON THEIR OWN AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS
v. JEFFREY ZMUDA, ET AL.

The case type is stated as Habeas Origin Action.

Jeffrey Zmuda is the Secretary of the Kansas Department of
Corrections.

The appellate case is captioned as JAMES HADLEY, JOHN EDWARD
TETERS, MONICA BURCH, TIFFANY TROTTER, KARENA WILSON, ABRAHAM ORR,
DAVID BROOKS, SASHADA MAKTHEPHARAK THROUGH HIS NEXT FRIEND KAYLA
NGUYEN; ON THEIR OWN AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED
PERSONS; PETITIONERS v. JEFFREY ZMUDA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS, Case
No. 122760, in the Kansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals.[BN]


KPC HEALTHCARE: Yanez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as FEDERICO HERNANDEZ YANEZ, as
an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KPC
HEALTHCARE, INC., a Nevada Corporation; ANAHEIM GLOBAL MEDICAL
CENTER, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
Case No. 30-2020-01135687-CU-OE-CXC (Filed Feb. 28, 2020), was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
April 23, 2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:20-cv-00792 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff's complaint alleges claims for civil penalties under
the Private Attorneys General Act, California Labor Code. The
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay all overtime
wages. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants utilized a
timekeeping system that allegedly resulted in him not being
compensated for all hours worked, whether by rounding,
time-shaving, or otherwise. He worked over 8 hours per workday
and/or 40 hours per week but did not receive overtime compensation
equal to one and one half times his regular rate.

The Defendants provide health care services.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          David E. Amaya, Esq.
          Jason A. Fischbein, Esq.
          Brittany M. Wunderlich, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (858) 597-9600
          Facsimile: (858) 597-9601
          E-Mail: damaya@fisherphillips.com
                  jfischbein@fisherphillips.com
                  bwunderlich@fisherphillips.com


LANCER INSURANCE: Camp 1382 LLC Files Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lancer Insurance
Company. The case is styled as Camp 1382 LLC doing business as:
Campagnola Restaurant, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Lancer Insurance Company, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-03336-RA (S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2020).

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

The firm specializes in commercial auto insurance for niche
markets, writing coverage for clients such as bus companies,
limousine drivers, long-haul truckers, and rental car fleets. Its
main Lancer Insurance division provides transportation coverage
nationwide. The company also operates smaller subsidiaries that
cater to customers in and outside of the commercial auto arena. Its
D.C. White unit targets small and midsized auto businesses in New
York and New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   James E. Cecchi, Esq.
   Carella, Byrne, Cechi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C.
   5 Becker Farm Road
   Roseland, NJ 07068
   Tel: (973) 994-1700
   Fax: (973) 994-1744
   Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com



LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Continues to Defend Gathmann-Landini Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
lululemon athletica inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended February 2, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Rebecca Gathmann-Landini et
al v. lululemon USA inc.

On October 9, 2015, certain current and former hourly employees of
the Company filed a class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of
New York entitled Rebecca Gathmann-Landini et al v. lululemon USA
inc.

On December 2, 2015, the case was moved to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company violated various New York
labor codes by failing to pay all earned wages, including overtime
compensation.

The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.

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

lululemon athletica inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs,
distributes, and retails athletic apparel and accessories for
women, men, and female youth. It operates through two segments,
Company-Operated Stores and Direct to Consumer. lululemon athletica
inc. was founded in 1998 and is based in Vancouver, Canada.


MARQUEZ CONSTRUCTION: Soto Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Soto, Victor Lujan, Mario Sanchez and Ricardo Sanchez, Each
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
MARQUEZ CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE, LLC, TALIS INDUSTRIES, LLC, and
JOSE MARQUEZ, Case No. 7:20-cv-00101 (W.D. Tex., April 24, 2020),
is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, for declaratory
judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment
interest, and costs, including a reasonable attorney's fees, as a
result of the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiffs lawful
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 per week.

The Plaintiffs and other Rig Welders regularly worked over forty
hours per week. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs an
overtime premium of one and one-half times their regular rate of
pay for all hours worked over 40 per week, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as Rig Welders.

The Defendants operate a construction and maintenance business in
Ector County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MEET GROUP: Respler Securities Suit Challenges Sale to NCG-NuCom
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yael Respler, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. THE MEET GROUP, INC., JEAN CLIFTON, GEOFFREY COOK,
CHRISTOPHER FRALIC, SPENCER RHODES, KEITH RICHMAN, BEDI AJAY SINGH,
and JASON WHITT, Case No. 3:20-cv-02841 (N.D. Cal., April 24,
2020), accuses the Defendants of violating the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule
14a-9 in connection with the proposed acquisition of the Company by
NCG-NuCom Group SE.

The lawsuit is brought against The Meet Group, Inc. and the members
of Meet Group's Board of Directors seeking to enjoin the vote on a
proposed transaction, pursuant to which Meet Group will be acquired
by NCG-NUCOM GROUP SE, a European stock corporation jointly held by
ProSiebenSat.1 Media SE and General Atlantic Cooperatif U.A.,
through NuCom's platform company Parship Group, GmbH, Parship's
wholly owned subsidiary eHarmony Holding, Inc. and Holly Merger
Sub, Inc.

On March 5, 2020, Meet Group and the Buyer Parties issued a joint
press release announcing that they had entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger dated March 5, 2020, to sell Meet Group to the
Buyer Parties. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each holder
of Meet Group common stock will receive $6.30 in cash for each
share of Meet Group common stock they own. The Proposed Transaction
is valued at approximately $500 million.

On April 22, 2020, Meet Group filed a Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy
Statement with the SEC. The Proxy Statement, which recommends that
Meet Group stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction,
omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other
things: (i) the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation
analyses that support the fairness opinion provided by the
Company's financial advisor, BofA Securities, Inc.; and (ii) BofA
Securities' and Company insiders' potential conflicts of interest,
according to the complaint. The Defendants authorized the issuance
of the false and misleading Proxy Statement in violation of the
Exchange Act.

Unless remedied, Meet Group's public stockholders will be
irreparably harmed because the Proxy Statement's material
misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a
sufficiently informed voting or appraisal decision on the Proposed
Transaction, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a continuous stockholder of Meet Group. The
Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Proposed
Transaction unless and until such Exchange Act violations are
cured.

Meet Group leverages a powerful live video platform, empowering its
global community to forge meaningful connections.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Phone: 310/208-2800
          Facsimile: 310/209-2348
          Email: jelkins@weisslawllp.com


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Manning Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended February 27, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by Chris
Manning.

On June 13, 2019, current Micron employee Chris Manning filed a
putative class action lawsuit on behalf of Micron employees subject
to the Idaho Wage Claim Act who earned a performance-based bonus
after the conclusion of fiscal year 2018 whose performance rating
was calculated based upon a mandatory percentage distribution range
of performance ratings.

On behalf of himself and the putative class, Manning asserts claims
for violation of the Idaho Wage Claim Act, breach of contract,
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and fraud.

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

Micron Technology, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and
markets dynamic random access memory chips (DRAMs), static random
access memory chips (SRAMs), flash memory, semiconductor
components, and memory modules. The company is based in Boise,
Idaho.


MLK EXPRESS: Burns' Collective Action Complaint Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as LINDA BURNS, on behalf of
herself and all similarly situated individuals v. MLK EXPRESS
SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00625-TJC-MRM (M.D. Fla.), the
Court entered an order:

   1. granting the motion to intervene by interested party
      Gregory Gibbs for limited purpose of objecting to report
      and recommendation;

   2. dismissing the Collective Action Complaint without
      prejudice under the first-filed rule.

   3. directing Plaintiff Linda Burns and opt-in claimant Andrea
      Helm to file a notice on or before May 5, 2020, informing
      the Court if they will proceed with their individual
      claims here or opt into Gibbs v. MLK Express Services, LLC
      et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-434-SPC-MRM, and directing Burns
      and Helm to file on or before May 28, 2020, an amended
      complaint on their individual claims here or consents to
      join in Gibbs.

   4. denying the Motion for conditional certification and
      motion for settlement approval;

   5. mooting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
      Judge; and

   6. directing the Clerk to file a copy of this order in Gibbs
      v. MLK Express Services, LLC et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-434-
      SPC-MRM.

The Court said, "The primary purpose of the first-filed rule is to
conserve judicial resources and avoid conflicting rulings. In this
circumstance the first-filed District Hon Judge Sheri Polster
Chappell participated in the hearing and joins in the Order entered
here."

The case seeks unpaid overtime wages brought under the Fair Labor
Standard Act.[CC]

MORGAN STANLEY: MS&Co. Still Defends IPERS Antitrust Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Select L.P. said in its Form
10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
on March 26, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019,
that MS&Co. continues to defend a purported antitrust class action
suit entitled, Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System et al. v.
Bank of America Corporation et al.  

MS&Co. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley.  MS&Co. is a
Delaware limited liability company with its main business office
located at 1585 Broadway, New York, New York 10036. Among other
registrations and memberships, MS&Co. is registered as a futures
commission merchant and is a member of the National Futures
Association.

In August of 2017, MS&Co. was named as a defendant in a purported
antitrust class action in the United States District Court for the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
styled Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System et al. v. Bank of
America Corporation et al. Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that
MS&Co., together with a number of other financial institution
defendants, violated U.S. antitrust laws and New York state law in
connection with their alleged efforts to prevent the development of
electronic exchange-based platforms for securities lending. The
class action complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class of
borrowers and lenders who entered into stock loan transactions with
the defendants.

The class action complaint seeks, among other relief, certification
of the class of plaintiffs and treble damages.

On September 27, 2018, the court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss the class action complaint.

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Select L.P. (the
"Partnership") is a Delaware limited partnership organized in 1991
to engage primarily in the speculative trading of futures
contracts, options on futures and forward contracts, and forward
contracts on physical commodities and other commodity interests,
including, but not limited to, foreign currencies, financial
instruments, metals, energy and agricultural products
(collectively, "Futures Interests"). The company is based in New
York, New York.


MORGAN STANLEY: Settlement in GSE Bonds Suit Wins Initial Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Select L.P. said in its Form
10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
on March 26, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019,
that the trial court overseeing the consolidated class action suit
entitled, In re GSE Bonds Antitrust Litigation, has granted
preliminary approval of that settlement.

MS&Co. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley.  MS&Co. is a
Delaware limited liability company with its main business office
located at 1585 Broadway, New York, New York 10036. Among other
registrations and memberships, MS&Co. is registered as a futures
commission merchant and is a member of the National Futures
Association.

Beginning on March 25, 2019, MS&Co. was named as a defendant in a
series of putative class action complaints filed in the Southern
District of NY, the first of which was styled Alaska Electrical
Pension Fund v. BofA Secs., Inc., et al.

Each complaint alleged a conspiracy to fix prices and restrain
competition in the market for unsecured bonds issued by the
following Government-Sponsored Enterprises: the Federal National
Mortgage Associate; the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation; the
Federal Farm Credit Banks Funding Corporation; and the Federal Home
Loan Banks.

The purported class period for each suit is from January 1, 2012 to
June 1, 2018. Each complaint raised a claim under Section 1 of the
Sherman Act and sought, among other things, injunctive relief and
treble compensatory damages.

On May 23, 2019, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class
action complaint styled In re GSE Bonds Antitrust Litigation, with
a purported class period from January 1, 2009 to January 1, 2016.
On June 13, 2019, the defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint.

On August 29, 2019, the court denied MS&Co.'s motion to dismiss.

On December 15, 2019, MS&Co. and certain other defendants entered
into a stipulation of settlement to resolve the action as against
each of them in its entirety. On February 3, 2020, the court
granted preliminary approval of that settlement.

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Select L.P. (the
"Partnership") is a Delaware limited partnership organized in 1991
to engage primarily in the speculative trading of futures
contracts, options on futures and forward contracts, and forward
contracts on physical commodities and other commodity interests,
including, but not limited to, foreign currencies, financial
instruments, metals, energy and agricultural products
(collectively, "Futures Interests"). The company is based in New
York, New York.


NATURE'S BOUNTY: Falsely Advertises Osteo Bi-Flex, Whyble Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Whyble, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE NATURE'S BOUNTY CO., Case No. 7:20-cv-03257
(S.D.N.Y., April 24, 2020), arises out of the Defendant's false and
misleading advertising of its glucosamine joint health products,
Osteo Bi-Flex.

The Defendant advertises that Osteo Bi-Flex provides "JOINT
HEALTH," and assists with joint pain, flexibility and mobility
because it provides "improved joint comfort," increases "range of
motion," "strengthens joints," "supports flexibility," and
"supports mobility." The Company's advertising claims, however, are
false, misleading, and reasonably likely to deceive a reasonable
consumer, the Plaintiff alleges.

Despite the Defendant's representations, the ingredients in Osteo
Bi-Flex have been extensively studied in large, well-conducted and
published studies involving persons with and without diagnosed
arthritis and have been shown ineffective at supporting or
benefiting joint health, including the signs and symptoms of
osteoarthritis. The Plaintiff contends that Osteo Bi-Flex does not
play any special or unique role in the synthesis or repair of
cartilage molecules beyond any other food product.

The Plaintiff seeks to halt the Defendant's dissemination of this
false and misleading advertising message, to correct the false and
misleading perception it has created in the minds of consumers, and
to obtain redress for those who have purchased Defendant's Osteo
Bi-Flex products at issue, in violation of New York General
Business Law.

Plaintiff Whyble purchased the Osteo Bi-Flex Triple Strength
product on several occasions at the Rite Aid pharmacy.

The Defendant distributes, markets, and sells a glucosamine-based
dietary supplement which it advertises for the treatment of
osteoarthritis and the symptoms associated with
osteoarthritis.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Esq.
          Aleksandr J Yarmolinets, Esq.
          Craig W. Straub, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619/338-1100
          Fax: 619/338-1101
          Email: tblood@bholaw.com
                 toreardon@bholaw.com
                 cstraub@bholaw.com
                 ayarmolinets@bholaw.com

               - and -

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619/762-1910
          Fax: 619/756-6991
          Email: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com


NEUBASE THERAPEUTICS: Appeal in Lehman Suit v. Ohr Pharma Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2020, that the appeal in the
class action headed by George Lehman against Ohr Pharmaceutical is
pending.

On February 14, 2018, plaintiff Jeevesh Khanna, commenced an action
in the Southern District of New York, against Ohr and several
current and former officers and directors of Ohr, alleging that
they violated federal securities laws between June 24, 2014 and
January 4, 2018.

On August 7, 2018, the lead plaintiffs, now George Lehman and
Insured Benefit Plans, Inc., filed an amended complaint, stating
the class period to be April 8, 2014 through January 4, 2018.

The plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in their
complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, they seek
to maintain the action as a class action and to recover damages on
behalf of themselves and other persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired Ohr common stock during the putative class period and
purportedly suffered financial harm as a result.

The Company and the individuals dispute these claims and intend to
defend the matter vigorously.

On September 17, 2018, Ohr filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On September 20, 2019, the Court entered an order granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss.

On October 23, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of
that order dismissing the action and other related orders by the
Court, and the plaintiffs filed their appellate brief with respect
to such matters with the Court on February 5, 2020.

Further briefing on the appeal is currently scheduled for the
summer of 2020.

NeuBase said, "This litigation could result in substantial costs
and a diversion of management’s resources and attention, which
could harm the Company’s business and the value of its common
stock."

NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc., a biotechnology company, engages in the
development of various antisense therapies to address genetic
diseases in the United States. The company offers gene silencing
therapies, including the proprietary PATrOL platform, a
peptide-nucleic acid antisense oligonucleotide for genetic diseases
caused by mutant proteins, including the Huntington's disease and
myotonic dystrophy, as well as various other genetic disorders.
NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. is headquartered in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.

On July 12, 2019, NeuBase completed the merger deal with Ohr
Pharmaceutical.


NEUBASE THERAPEUTICS: Wheby Class Action vs Ohr Pharma Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2020, that Ohr Pharmaceutical,
Inc. continues to defend a class action entitled, Wheby v. Ohr
Pharmaceutical, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00541-UNA.

On March 20, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for District of Delaware naming as
defendants Ohr and its board of directors, Legacy NeuBase, and
Merger Sub, captioned Wheby v. Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00541-UNA.

The plaintiffs in the Wheby Action allege that the preliminary
joint proxy/prospectus statement filed by Ohr with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2019 contained false and
misleading statements and omitted material information in violation
of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and further that the
individual defendants are liable for those alleged misstatements
and omissions under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The complaint in the Wheby Action has not been served on, nor was
service waived by, any of the named defendants in that action.

The action seeks, among other things, to rescind the Ohr
Acquisition or an award of damages, and an award of attorneys' and
experts' fees and expenses. The defendants dispute the claims
raised in the Wheby Action.

NeuBase said, "Management believes that the likelihood of an
adverse decision from the sole remaining action is unlikely;
however, the litigation could result in substantial costs and a
diversion of management’s resources and attention, which could
harm the Company's business and the value of the Company's common
stock."

NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc., a biotechnology company, engages in the
development of various antisense therapies to address genetic
diseases in the United States. The company offers gene silencing
therapies, including the proprietary PATrOL platform, a
peptide-nucleic acid antisense oligonucleotide for genetic diseases
caused by mutant proteins, including the Huntington's disease and
myotonic dystrophy, as well as various other genetic disorders.
NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. is headquartered in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.

On July 12, 2019, NeuBase completed the merger deal with Ohr
Pharmaceutical.


NEW PENN FINANCIAL: Olszewski Files FDCPA Suit in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Penn Financial,
LLC. The case is styled as Mark Olszewski, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. New Penn
Financial, LLC doing business as: Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02614 (N.D. Ill., April 29, 2020).

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

Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing is a residential mortgage servicing
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Rynasko Seeks Refund for Tuition and Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Rynasko, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-03250 (S.D.N.Y.,
April 24, 2020), seeks to recover refund for the tuition and fees
paid to the Defendant for the Spring 2020 academic semester.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all people, who paid tuition
and fees for the Spring 2020 academic semester at NYU, and who,
because of the Defendant's response to the Novel Coronavirus
Disease 2019 ("COVID-19") pandemic, lost the benefit of the
education for which they paid, and/or the services or which their
fees were paid, without having their tuition and fees refunded to
them.

On March 9, 2020, NYU, through a news release, announced that
because of the global COVID-19 pandemic, all in-person classes
would be suspended beginning March 11, 2020. The announcement
informed students that beginning March 11, 2020, classes would
instead be held remotely through online formats. Online classes
were to continue through March 27, 2020. On March 16, 2020, NYU
announced that it would be closing residence halls and holding
classes remotely through the end of the semester Students were
required to be out of the residence halls by March 22, but
preferably within 48 hours. Students were directed home for the
remainder of the semester.

As a result of the closure of the Defendant's facilities, the
Defendant has not delivered the educational services, facilities,
access and/or opportunities that the Plaintiff contracted and paid
for, according to the complaint. The online learning options being
offered to NYU students are subpar in practically every aspect,
from the lack of facilities, materials, and access to faculty.
Students have been deprived of the opportunity for collaborative
learning and in-person dialogue, feedback, and critique. The remote
learning options are in no way the equivalent of the in-person
education that she and the putative class members contracted and
paid for, the Plaintiff contends.

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

Ms. Rynasko is the parent of NYU undergraduate student Emily
Rynasko, and paid her daughter's tuition for the Spring 2020
semester.

NYU is the largest private university in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Appeals Decision in Baleja Suit to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Northrop Grumman Corporation filed an appeal from a court
ruling issued in the lawsuit styled John Baleja v. Northrop Grumman
Corporation, et al., Case No. 5:17-cv-00235-JGB-SP, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Riverside.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
was supposed to receive a monthly benefit of $1,066.80 under his
Single Life Annuity effective December 15, 2015. However, he
received a Pension Calculation Statement dated January 25, 2016,
indicating that he was to receive only $595.46, a 44.2% reduction
in his monthly pension benefit and was not accompanied by an
explanation.

The appellate case is captioned as John Baleja v. Northrop Grumman
Corporation, et al., Case No. 20-80066, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents, JOHN BALEJA, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, et al., are represented by:

          Dana Erin Berkowitz, Esq.
          Elizabeth Rogers Brannen, Esq.
          Kenneth J. Halpern, Esq.
          Victor O'Connell, Esq.
          John R. Stokes, Esq.
          Peter K. Stris, Esq.
          STRIS & MAHER LLP
          777 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3850
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 995-6803
          Email: dana.berkowitz@strismaher.com
                 elizabeth.brannen@strismaher.com
                 ken.halpern@strismaher.com
                 victor.oconnell@strismaher.com
                 john.stokes@strismaher.com
                 peter.stris@strismaher.com

                        – and –

          Shaun Martin, Esq.
          UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO
          5998 Alcala Park
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 260-4600
          Email: smartin@sandiego.edu

Defendants-Petitioners, NORTHROP GRUMMAN SPACE AND MISSION SYSTEMS
CORP. SALARIED PENSION PLAN, et al., are represented by:

          Mark Yun Chen, Esq.
          Mitchell Aaron Kamin, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-4643
          Telephone: (424) 332-4774


NUVO GROUP: Perez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robinson Perez, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated v. NUVO GROUP ENTERPRISES, INC., SPOTLESS 12415 CORP.,
SPOTLESS 12415 CARWASH CORP., QUICK LUBE 12415 CAR CORP., QUICK
LUBE 12415 CORP., and JOHN DOE #1, Case No. 1:20-cv-01901
(E.D.N.Y., April 24, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid wages and
unpaid overtime wages based upon the Defendants' violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff wages for all hours worked
and overtime wages for all overtime hours worked, according to the
complaint. Despite the Plaintiff regularly working more than 40
hours per week, the Defendants did not compensate the Plaintiff at
the lawful overtime rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay for the hours they worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

The Plaintiff was employed as a full-time non-exempt hourly
car-wash/oil change employee of the Defendants.

The Defendants operate a carwash company that provides carwashes,
detailing, oil changes and similar automotive services to the
public.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Harrison, Esq.
          HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES
          110 State Highway 35, 2nd Floor
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Phone: (718) 799-9111
          Fax: (718) 799-9171
          Email: dharrison@nynjemploymentlaw.com


OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Continues to Defend Stirling Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Ollie's Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25,
2020, for the fiscal year ended February 1, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a shareholder class action suit entitled,
Robert Stirling et al. v. Ollie's Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc. et
al., Civ. No. 1:19-cv-08647-JPO.

On September 17, 2019, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
captioned Robert Stirling et al. v. Ollie's Bargain Outlet
Holdings, Inc. et al., Civ. No. 1:19-cv-08647-JPO was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company, Mark Butler (then serving as the Company's
Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors),
Jay Stasz (the Company's Chief Financial Officer), and John Swygert
(then serving as the Company’s Chief Operational Officer).

The complaint alleges that, in public statements between June 6,
2019, and August 28, 2019, the defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
information about the Company's earnings, projections, supply
chain, and inventory.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.


On December 5, 2019, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs Bernard L.
Maloney and Nathan Severe to act on behalf of the putative class of
Ollie’s stockholders.

On February 20, 2020, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint extending the class period to March 26, 2019 through
August 28, 2019, alleging substantially similar claims as the
initial complaint, and seeking the same relief.

On March 6, 2020, the court ordered that Michael L. Bangs, Executor
of the Estate of Mark L. Butler be substituted as party for Mark
Butler.

Ollie's Bargain said, "We believe the case to be without merit."

Ollie's Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc. is a highly differentiated
and fast-growing, extreme value retailer of brand name merchandise
at drastically reduced prices. Known for its assortment of products
offered as "Good Stuff Cheap," the company offers customers a broad
selection of brand name products, including housewares, food, books
and stationery, bed and bath, flooring, toys and hardware. The
company is based in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.


PARTNER COMMS: Appeal in Router-Adaptor Purchase Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the Supreme
Court dismissed the appeal request in the class action suit related
to router and/or a call adaptor and/or terminal equipment purchase
requirement and the claim was reverted back to the District Court.

On November 12, 2015, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as
a class action were filed against the Company.

The claim alleges that Partner required their customers to purchase
a router and/or a call adaptor and/or terminal equipment as a
condition for using its fixed-line telephony services, an action
which would not be in accordance with the provisions of its
licenses.

The total amount claimed against Partner is estimated by the
plaintiff to be approximately NIS 116 million.

In February 2019, the Court approved the request to certify the
claim as a class action with certain changes.

In March 2019, the Company filed an appeal of this decision.

In February 2020, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal request
that was filed and the claim was reverted back to the District
Court.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. ("Partner") is a leading
Israeli provider of telecommunications services (cellular,
fixed-line telephony, internet and television services). Partner's
ADSs are quoted on the NASDAQ Global Select Market(TM) and its
shares are traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.


PARTNER COMMS: Appeal in Volume Rate of Data Packages Suit Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the Supreme
Court has dismissed the appeal in made in the class action related
to the volume rate of data packages.

On November 1, 2016, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company.

The claim alleges that the Company sends text messages regarding
the volume rate of data packages, which unlawfully include
advertisement content, intended to encourage purchasing another
data package.

The total amount claimed against the Company if the lawsuit is
certified as a class action was not stated by the plaintiff.

In September 2018, the Court dismissed the claim and in November
2018, the plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in March 2020.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. ("Partner") is a leading
Israeli provider of telecommunications services (cellular,
fixed-line telephony, internet and television services). Partner's
ADSs are quoted on the NASDAQ Global Select Market(TM) and its
shares are traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.


PARTNER COMMS: Class Action Over Unlawful Charges Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit related to the
company's unlawful charges.

On August 18, 2019, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company.

The claim alleges that the Company unlawfully charges customers
that terminate their engagement with the Company, for speakers
and/or tablets and/or other accessories they received from the
Company as gifts while they were subscribers of the Company, and at
a full and excessive price.

The total amount claimed against the respondents if the lawsuit is
recognized as a class action, was not stated by the applicants.

The claim is still in its preliminary stage of the motion to be
certified as a class action.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. ("Partner") is a leading
Israeli provider of telecommunications services (cellular,
fixed-line telephony, internet and television services). Partner's
ADSs are quoted on the NASDAQ Global Select Market(TM) and its
shares are traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.


PARTNER COMMS: Data Speed-Related Suit Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a lawsuit alleging that the company's plan does
not support data speeds that the company publishes to its
customers.

On September 24, 2017, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as
a class action were filed against the Company and Partner
Land-Line.

The claim alleges that the infrastructure included in the Company's
plan does not support data speeds that the Company publishes to its
customers.

The plaintiff noted that it cannot estimate the total amount
claimed in the lawsuit, should the lawsuit be certified as a class
action.

The claim is still in its preliminary stage of the motion to be
certified as a class action.

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

Partner Communications Company Ltd. ("Partner") is a leading
Israeli provider of telecommunications services (cellular,
fixed-line telephony, internet and television services). Partner's
ADSs are quoted on the NASDAQ Global Select Market(TM) and its
shares are traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.


PARTNER COMMS: Jan. 2016 Claim for NIS 234 Million Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action initiated on January 4,
2016 with a claim of NIS 234 million.

On January 4, 2016, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company.

The claim alleges that Partner charges its customers the full price
of telecommunication packages that are intended for use abroad
despite the fact that the packages are not fully utilized and does
not allow customers to transfer the balance to the next trip abroad
or to receive a credit for the balance.

The total amount claimed against Partner is estimated by the
plaintiff to be approximately NIS 234 million.

The claim is still in its preliminary stage of the motion to be
certified as a class action.

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

Partner Communications Company Ltd. ("Partner") is a leading
Israeli provider of telecommunications services (cellular,
fixed-line telephony, internet and television services). Partner's
ADSs are quoted on the NASDAQ Global Select Market(TM) and its
shares are traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.


PARTNER COMMS: July 2014 Claim for NIS 300 Million Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that a claim
dated July 15, 2014, against the company is still in its
preliminary stage.

On July 15, 2014, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company and against additional
cellular operators and content providers.

The claim alleges that the cellular operators, including the
Company, breached legal provisions and provisions of their licenses
and thereby created a platform that led to the customers’ damages
alleged in the claim.

The total amount claimed against all of the defendants is estimated
by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS 300 million.

The claim is still in its preliminary stage of the motion to be
certified as a class action.

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

Partner Communications Company Ltd. ("Partner") is a leading
Israeli provider of telecommunications services (cellular,
fixed-line telephony, internet and television services). Partner's
ADSs are quoted on the NASDAQ Global Select Market(TM) and its
shares are traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.


PARTNER COMMS: Litigation Over Voicemail Service Charges Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit related to voicemail
service charges.

On July 4, 2019, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company and two additional
cellular operators.

The claim alleges that the Company charges its customers for
voicemail service without receiving their prior express consent for
this service and for its charge and without a contractual right.
The total amount claimed against the respondents if the lawsuit is
recognized as a class action, was not stated by the applicants. The
claim is still in its preliminary stage of the motion to be
certified as a class action.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. ("Partner") is a leading
Israeli provider of telecommunications services (cellular,
fixed-line telephony, internet and television services). Partner's
ADSs are quoted on the NASDAQ Global Select Market(TM) and its
shares are traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.



PARTNER COMMS: Suit Over Free Content Filtering Services Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit related to free
content filtering services.

On April 11, 2019, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company and additional
telecommunication service companies.

The claim alleges that the Company, as well as the other
respondents, breached their obligations under the law and their
license and does not inform its customers as required regarding a
free content filtering service and prioritizes a paid service over
a free service and the filtering service does not meet the legal
requirements and those of the license and is ineffective.  

The total amount claimed against the respondents if the lawsuit is
recognized as a class action, was not stated by the applicants. The
claim is still in its preliminary stage of the motion to be
certified as a class action.

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

Partner Communications Company Ltd. ("Partner") is a leading
Israeli provider of telecommunications services (cellular,
fixed-line telephony, internet and television services). Partner's
ADSs are quoted on the NASDAQ Global Select Market(TM) and its
shares are traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.


PHI GROUP: Quartuccio Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Quartuccio, Tom Pollitt, Dave Shanahan, Sean Toomey, William
Matthiessen, Alan Crawford, Julio Cesar Hernandez, Juan Aranda,
Blanca Valente, Erika Claros, Leticia Mendoza, Sara Roman, Evencia
Segura and Reyna Aguilar, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. THE P.H.I. GROUP, INC. dba EDOC
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., MICHAEL P FRANK, THOMAS P MEITZLER and BRIAN
BENDING, Case No. 1:20-cv-02519 (N.D. Ill., April 24, 2020), seeks
to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

The Defendants failed to pay dozens of their low wage workers tens
of thousands of dollars in wages and accrued benefits earned while
working for eDoc, according to the complaint. The Defendants
transferred many of eDoc's core assets to a third party, LCP
Printing Impressions. This was done so that the Defendants could
secure new positions for themselves and certain family members at
LCP Printing Impressions. Unfortunately, the Defendants failed to
pay dozens of their workers for the hard work they performed. This
has left the Plaintiffs struggling to pay their rent, bills, and
make basic ends meet. The Defendants also failed to pay the
Plaintiffs for the thousands of dollars owed in accrued paid time
off, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are each individuals, who worked for the Defendants
in the state of Illinois.

dDoc is a printer making advertisement flyers for large national
retailers, such as Dairy Queen, IKEA, and Baird and Warner.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David J. Fish, Esq.
          John Kunze, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Phone: (630) 355-7590
          Email: docketing@fishlawfirm.com

               - and -

          John C. Ireland, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND
          636 Spruce Street
          South Elgin, IL 60177
          Phone: 630-464-9675
          Facsimile 630-206-0889
          Email: attorneyireland@gmail.com


PHOENIX TREE: Faces Wandel Securities Class Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Wandel, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. PHOENIX TREE HOLDINGS LIMITED, JING GAO,
DEREK BOYANG SHEN, YAN CUI, WENBIAO LI, ERHAI LIU, XIAN CHEN,
WILLIAM WANG, GANG JI, EDWIN FUNG, JIANPING YE, JASON ZHENG ZHANG,
CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC,
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, TIGER BROKERS (NZ) LIMITED, US TIGER
SECURITIES, INC., COGENCY GLOBAL INC., and RICHARD ARTHUR, Case No.
1:20-cv-03259 (S.D.N.Y., April 24, 2020), seeks to pursue remedies
under the Securities Act of 1933 against Phoenix, certain of its
officers and directors, the IPO underwriters, and others.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all purchasers of American
Depositary Shares of Phoenix ("ADS") pursuant and/or traceable to
prospectuses and registration statements, as amended (together,
"Offering Materials"), issued in connection with the Company's
January 22, 2020 initial public offering.

The case seeks to hold the Defendants accountable in strict
liability and negligence for preparing the defective Offering
Materials in connection with the IPO. The Plaintiff contends that
the Offering Materials omitted or otherwise misrepresented the
nature and level of renter complaints the Company had received
before and as of the IPO, as well as demand in the Chinese
residential rental market, and the Company's exposure to
significant adverse developments, resulting from the onset of the
coronavirus in China--particularly in Wuhan--at the time of the
IPO.

At the time of the IPO, Phoenix generated revenue primarily from
rents and service fees. As of September 30, 2019, it operated in 13
cities in China, including Wuhan, where a portion of its 5,000-plus
employees worked. Unbeknownst to ADS purchasers, however, Phoenix
was uniquely exposed to fallout from the worsening coronavirus
pandemic, especially in Wuhan; and the Company faced serious
complaints from renters as of the IPO, both due to the coronavirus
and even before its onset, which implicated the Company's
reputation and threatened to adversely affect its business,
according to the complaint.

The Plaintiff contends that the Offering Materials did not disclose
these critical facts. Yet after the IPO, reports emerged indicating
that Phoenix was experiencing ongoing problems due to the
coronavirus, which was causing financial and other harm to tenants.
On March 25, 2020, when Phoenix announced its unaudited financial
results for the fourth quarter and fiscal year ended December 31,
2019, it told investors that it expected the coronavirus to
adversely affect its financial performance for the nearly completed
first quarter of 2020. Information regarding ongoing renter
complaints also reached the market after the IPO, adversely
affecting the Company.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts, the Offering Materials omitted
and misrepresented material information, which misled the Plaintiff
and other members of the proposed Class (about the current and
future prospects of the Company and the risks associated with
purchasing the ADS. As a result, The Plaintiff and other Class
members bought the ADS without knowledge of material facts
regarding Phoenix and were damaged thereby. The action seeks to
recover damages for these purchasers. The value of the ADS has
declined substantially subsequent and due to the Defendants'
violations.

The Plaintiff purchased the ADS pursuant and/or traceable to the
Registration Statement.

Phoenix is a Cayman Islands holding company that leases and manages
apartments in China, which it rents to tenants under the Danke
Apartment and Dream Apartment brands.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Ralph Stone, Esq.
          JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
          1700 Broadway, 41st Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212/292-5690
          Fax: 212/292-5680
          Email: ralphs@johnsonfistel.com


PRESTRESSED CONTRACTORS: Edouassaint Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JEAN EDOUASSAINT, on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated v. PRESTRESSED
CONTRACTORS, INC. and MICHAEL CONROY, Case No. 5020CA000463XXXX-MB
(Filed Jan. 13, 2020), was removed from the Florida Circuit Court
in and for Palm Beach County to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on April 23, 2020.

The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
9:20-cv-80687-RAR to the proceeding.

The action arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act for alleged
unpaid overtime wages.

Prestressed is a general contractor based in Palm Beach Gardens,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cathleen Scott, Esq.
          SCOTT WAGNER & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          Jupiter Gardens
          250 South Central Boulevard, Suite 104-A
          Jupiter, FL 33458
          Telephone: (561) 653-0008
          Facsimile: (561) 653-0020
          E-mail: CScott@scottwagnerlaw.com
                  mail@scottwagnerlaw.com


SEATGEEK INC: Breaches Contract on Money-Back Refund, Trader Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William Trader, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. SEATGEEK, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
1:20-cv-03248 (S.D.N.Y., April 24, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant for breach of contract; breach of implied contract;
violation of statutory consumer protection law; conversion; unjust
enrichment; negligent misrepresentation; and breach of express
warranty.

The longstanding SeatGeek Buyer Guarantee promised that if a
SeatGeek buyer purchased tickets to any event through SeatGeek, and
the event was cancelled and not rescheduled, the user would receive
a full, money-back refund for their purchase. To avoid financial
losses, and potential future losses, due to the Covid-19 crisis,
the Defendant has unilaterally and unconscionably changed their
longstanding policy to instead leave their customers holding the
bag, according to the complaint.

The Plaintiff contends that he and the class were deprived of the
benefit of the Defendant's longstanding SeatGeek Buyer Guarantee
when, in response to apparent liabilities it would incur stemming
from the COVID-19 pandemic, the Defendant sought to retroactively
discontinue the essential function of the SeatGeek Buyer Guarantee
a full cash refund. The Defendant has quietly sought to force its
buyers to endure the financial losses that its own guarantee
created for it in the entirely foreseeable scenario that world
occurrences would cause the simultaneous cancellation of numerous
public events, says the complaint.

William Trader is an individual and a citizen of Illinois.

SeatGeek is a secondary ticket marketplace that connects ticket
sellers with buyers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven D. Liddle, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq.
          LIDDLE & DUBIN, P.C.
          975 E. Jefferson Avenue
          Detroit, MI 48207
          Phone: 313-392-0015
          Fax: 313-392-0025
          Email: sliddle@ldclassaction.com
                 ncoulson@ldclassaction.com


SERVISFIRST BANK: S&W Sues Over PPP Loan Discriminating Policies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sport & Wheat CPA PA, a Florida corporation, individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated businesses and individuals
v. SERVISFIRST BANK INC., SYNOVUS TRUST COMPANY, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION and DOES 1-100 inclusive, Case No.
3:20-cv-05425-TKW-HTC (N.D. Fla., April 26, 2020), challenges the
Defendants' alleged discriminating policies with regard to Paycheck
Protection Program loan applications.

The lawsuit seeks, inter alia, (i) a declaration from the Court
that PPP Lenders must pay PPP Agents the reasonable and customary
fees for their services from the fees paid to the applicable PPP
Lender for a PPP loan, (ii) an injunction enjoining PPP Lenders
from discriminating against PPP loan applications which involve the
services of a PPP Agent, including, without limitation, advising
Bank Customers and PPP Agents that PPP Agents may charge Bank
Customers for preparing documents but just not for preparing and
filing the actual 2-page PPP loan application and from refusing to
accept PPP Loan Applications signed by, or otherwise referring to,
a PPP Agent, and (iii) an award of damages to S&W and all members
of the Class for the reasonable and customary fees they are
entitled to for assisting PPP Lenders' Bank Customers to
successfully apply for a PPP loan which PPP Lenders have refused to
pay (but not in excess of the PPP Agent Fees Cap), together with
the costs of suit, interest and reasonable attorneys' fees and any
other relief the Court finds is just and proper.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress enacted the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the "CARES
Act"). Among other programs, the CARES Act established the PPP
which provides emergency "loans" to small businesses. Under the
CARES Act, the United States Small Business Administration ("SBA")
administers the Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP").

Notwithstanding the clear Congressional intent of the PPP,
Defendants ServisFirst and Synovus, and, other PPP Lenders, have
adopted policies whereby they are refusing to pay fees to PPP
Agents for their services assisting Bank Customers in obtaining PPP
loans, according to the complaint. As a result of these PPP
Lenders' policies, thousands of CPAs and other authorized PPP
Agents--including S&W--are not being compensated for their work.

The Plaintiff alleges that these PPP Lenders' policies are unjust
and un-American and are unfairly discriminating against the smaller
of the small business concerns contrary to Congressional intent
because, such concerns are less financially sophisticated, are less
likely to employ in-house accountants or lawyers and therefore
would be more likely to need the services of a PPP Agent to
successfully apply for and obtain a PPP loan.

S&W is a CPA firm that provides accounting and tax services to the
local community. On March of 2020, S&W became aware that the CARES
Act and in particular the PPP, had been signed into law.

The Defendants provide banking services to individuals and
businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John S. Wirt, Esq.
          WIRT & WIRT, P.A.
          5 Calhoun Ave., Suite 306
          Destin, FL 32541
          Phone: 847-323-4082
          Fax: 314-431-6920
          Email: jwirt@wirtlawfirm.com


SIGNET JEWELERS: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Due June 15
------------------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended February 1, 2020, that petition for a writ of
certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court related to a class action
appeal is due on June 15, 2020.

On March 2008, a group of private plaintiffs (the "Claimants")
filed a class action lawsuit for an unspecified amount against SJI,
a subsidiary of Signet, in the US District Court for the Southern
District of New York alleging that US store-level employment
practices are discriminatory as to compensation and promotional
activities with respect to gender.

In June 2008, the District Court referred the matter to private
arbitration where the Claimants sought to proceed on a class-wide
basis.

The Claimants filed a motion for class certification and SJI
opposed the motion. On February 2, 2015, the arbitrator issued a
Class Determination Award in which she certified for a class-wide
hearing Claimants' disparate impact declaratory and injunctive
relief class claim under Title VII, with a class period of July 22,
2004 through date of trial for the Claimants' compensation claims
and December 7, 2004 through date of trial for Claimants' promotion
claims.

The arbitrator otherwise denied Claimants' motion to certify a
disparate treatment class alleged under Title VII, denied a
disparate impact monetary damages class alleged under Title VII,
and denied an opt-out monetary damages class under the Equal Pay
Act.

On February 9, 2015, Claimants filed an Emergency Motion To
Restrict Communications With The Certified Class And For Corrective
Notice. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants' emergency motion on
February 17, 2015, and a hearing was held on February 18, 2015.
Claimants' motion was granted in part and denied in part in an
order issued on March 16, 2015. Claimants filed a Motion for
Reconsideration Regarding Title VII Claims for Disparate Treatment
in Compensation on February 11, 2015, which SJI opposed. April 27,
2015, the arbitrator issued an order denying the Claimants' Motion.


SJI filed with the US District Court for the Southern District of
New York a Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator's Class Certification
Award on March 3, 2015, which Claimants opposed. On November 16,
2015, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted SJI's Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator’s Class
Certification Award in part and denied it in part.

On December 3, 2015, SJI filed with the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit SJI's Notice of Appeal of the
District Court's November 16, 2015 Opinion and Order.

On November 25, 2015, SJI filed a Motion to Stay the AAA
Proceedings while SJI appeals the decision of the US District Court
for the Southern District of New York to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, which Claimants opposed. The
arbitrator issued an order denying SJI's Motion to Stay on February
22, 2016. SJI filed its Brief and Special Appendix with the Second
Circuit on March 16, 2016. The matter was fully briefed, and oral
argument was heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit on November 2, 2016. On April 6, 2015, Claimants filed in
the AAA Claimants' Motion for Clarification or in the Alternative
Motion for Stay of the Effect of the Class Certification Award as
to the Individual Intentional Discrimination Claims, which SJI
opposed. On June 15, 2015, the arbitrator granted the Claimants'
motion.

On March 6, 2017, Claimants filed Claimants' Motion for Conditional
Certification of Claimants' Equal Pay Act Claims and Authorization
of Notice, which SJI opposed The arbitrator heard oral argument on
Claimants' Motion on December 18, 2015 and, on February 29, 2016,
issued an Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification
Award and Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations
Period, conditionally certifying Claimants' Equal Pay Act claims as
a collective action, and tolling the statute of limitations on EPA
claims to October 16, 2003 to ninety days after notice issues to
the putative members of the collective action.

SJI filed in the AAA a Motion To Stay Arbitration Pending The
District Court's Consideration Of Respondent's Motion To Vacate
Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional
Certification Award And Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of
EPA Limitations Period on March 10, 2016.

SJI filed in the AAA a Renewed Motion To Stay Arbitration Pending
The District Court's Resolution Of Sterling's Motion To Vacate
Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional
Certification Award And Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of
EPA Limitations Period on March 31, 2016, which Claimants opposed.


On April 5, 2016, the arbitrator denied SJI's Motion. On March 23,
2016 SJI filed with the US District Court for the Southern District
of New York a Motion To Vacate The Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act
Collective Action Conditional Certification Award And Order Re
Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period, which
Claimants opposed. SJI's Motion was denied on May 22, 2016.

On May 31, 2016, SJI filed a Notice Of Appeal of Judge Rakoff's
opinion and order to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which
Claimant's opposed. On June 1, 2017, the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals dismissed SJI's appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
Claimants filed a Motion For Amended Class Determination Award on
November 18, 2015, and on March 31, 2016 the arbitrator entered an
order amending the Title VII class certification award to preclude
class members from requesting exclusion from the injunctive and
declaratory relief class certified in the arbitration.

The arbitrator issued a Bifurcated Case Management Plan on April 5,
2016 and ordered into effect the parties' Stipulation Regarding
Notice Of Equal Pay Act Collective Action And Related Notice
Administrative Procedures on April 7, 2016. SJI filed in the AAA a
Motion For Protective Order on May 2, 2016, which Claimants
opposed. The matter was fully briefed, and oral argument was heard
on July 22, 2016. The motion was granted in part on January 27,
2017.

Notice to EPA collective action members was issued on May 3, 2016,
and the opt-in period for these notice recipients closed on August
1, 2016.

Approximately, 10,314 current and former employees submitted
consent forms to opt in to the collective action; however, some
have withdrawn their consents. The number of valid consents is
disputed and yet to be determined. SJI believes the number of valid
consents to be approximately 9,124.

On July 24, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit issued its unanimous Summary Order that held that the
absent class members "never consented" to the Arbitrator
determining the permissibility of class arbitration under the
agreements, and remanded the matter to the District Court to
determine whether the Arbitrator exceeded her authority by
certifying the Title VII class that contained absent class members
who had not opted in the litigation.

On August 7, 2017, SJI filed its Renewed Motion to Vacate the Class
Determination Award relative to absent class members with the
District Court. The matter was fully briefed, and an oral argument
was heard on October 16, 2017. On November 10, 2017, SJI filed in
the arbitration motions for summary judgment, and for
decertification, of Claimants' Equal Pay Act and Title VII
promotions claims. On January 30, 2018, oral argument on SJI's
motions was heard.

On January 26, 2018, SJI filed in the arbitration a Motion to
Vacate The Equal Pay Act Collective Action Award And Tolling Order
asserting that the Arbitrator exceeded her authority by
conditionally certifying the Equal Pay Act claim and allowing the
absent claimants to opt-in the litigation.

On March 12, 2018, the Arbitrator denied SJI's Motion to Vacate The
Equal Pay Act Collective Action Award and Tolling Order. SJI still
has a pending motion seeking decertification of the EPA Collective
Action before the Arbitrator. On March 19, 2018, the Arbitrator
issued an Order partially granting SJI's Motion to Amend the
Arbitrator's November 2, 2017, Bifurcated Seventh Amended Case
Management Plan resulting in a continuance of the May 14, 2018
trial date. A new trial date has not been set.

On January 15, 2018, District Court granted SJI's August 17, 2017
Renewed Motion to Vacate the Class Determination Award finding that
the Arbitrator exceeded her authority by binding non-parties
(absent class members) to the Title VII claim.

The District Court further held that the RESOLVE Agreement does not
permit class action procedures, thereby, reducing the Claimants in
the Title VII matter from 70,000 to potentially 254.

Claimants dispute that the number of claimants in the Title VII is
254. On January 18, 2018, the Claimants filed a Notice of Appeal
with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The
appeal was fully briefed and oral argument before the Second
Circuit occurred on May 7, 2018.

On May 17, 2019, SJI submitted a Rule 28(j) letter to the Second
Circuit addressing the effects of the Supreme Court’s ruling in
Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, No. 17-988 (S. Ct. Apr. 24, 2019), on
the pending appeal. The Second Circuit then issued an order
directing the parties to submit additional arguments on that issue,
which were submitted. On November 18, 2019 the Second Circuit
issued an order reversing and remanding the District Court's
January 15, 2018 Order that vacated the Arbitrator's Class
Determination Award certifying for declaratory and injunctive
relief a Title VII pay and promotions class of female retail sales
employees.

The Second Circuit held that the District Court erred when it
concluded that the Arbitrator exceeded her authority in purporting
to bind absent class members to the Class Determination Award.

The Second Circuit remanded the case to the District Court to
decide the narrower question of whether the Arbitrator erred in
certifying an opt-out, as opposed to a mandatory, class for
declaratory and injunctive relief.

On December 2, 2019, SJI filed a petition for a hearing en banc
with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On
January 15, 2020, SJI filed a Rule 28(j) letter in the Second
Circuit. On that same day the Second Circuit denied the petition
for rehearing en banc.

On January 21, 2020, Sterling filed its motion for stay of mandate
with the Second Circuit pending the filing of a petition for writ
of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. On January 22, 2020, the
Second Circuit granted Sterling's motion for stay of mandate. The
petition for a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court is
due on June 15, 2020.

SJI denies the allegations of the Claimants and has been defending
the case vigorously. At this point, no outcome or possible loss or
range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation is able to be
estimated.

Signet Jewelers Limited engages in the retail sale of diamond
jewelry, watches, and other products. Signet Jewelers Limited was
founded in 1950 and is based in Hamilton, Bermuda.



SIGNET JEWELERS: Settlement Agreement Entered in Consolidated Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended February 1, 2020, that the company and all of the
other defendant parties to a consolidated securities action have
entered into a settlement agreement with the lead plaintiff.

In August 2016, two alleged Company shareholders each filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York against the Company and its
then-current Chief Executive Officer and current Chief Financial
Officer (Nos. 16-cv-6728 and 16-cv-6861, the "S.D.N.Y. cases").

On September 16, 2016, the Court consolidated the S.D.N.Y. cases
under case number 16-cv-6728. On April 3, 2017, the plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint, purportedly on behalf of persons
that acquired the Company's securities on or between August 29,
2013, and February 27, 2017, naming as defendants the Company, its
then-current and former Chief Executive Officers, and its current
and former Chief Financial Officers.

The second amended complaint alleged that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by,
among other things, misrepresenting the Company's business and
earnings by (i) failing to disclose that the Company was allegedly
having issues ensuring the safety of customers' jewelry while in
the Company's custody for repairs, which allegedly damaged customer
confidence; (ii) making misleading statements about the Company's
credit portfolio; and (iii) failing to disclose reports of sexual
harassment allegations that were raised by claimants in an ongoing
pay and promotion gender discrimination class arbitration (the
"Arbitration").

The second amended complaint alleged that the Company's share price
was artificially inflated as a result of the alleged
misrepresentations and sought unspecified compensatory damages and
costs and expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees.

In March 2017, two other alleged Company shareholders each filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas against the Company and its
then-current and former Chief Executive Officers (Nos. 17-cv-875
and 17-cv-923, the "N.D. Tex. cases").

Those complaints were nearly identical to each other and alleged
that the defendants' statements concerning the Arbitration violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The N.D. Tex. cases were subsequently transferred to the Southern
District of New York and consolidated with the S.D.N.Y. cases (the
"Consolidated Action").

On July 27, 2017, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel in the Consolidated Action. On August 3, 2017,
the Court ordered the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Action to
file a third amended complaint by September 29, 2017. On September
29, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed a third amended complaint that
covered a putative class period of August 29, 2013, through May 24,
2017, and that asserted substantially similar claims to the second
amended complaint, except that it omitted the claim based on
defendants' alleged misstatements concerning the security of
customers' jewelry while in the Company's custody for repairs. The
defendants moved to dismiss the third amended complaint on December
1, 2017.

On December 4, 2017, the Court entered an order permitting the lead
plaintiff to amend its complaint as of right by December 22, 2017,
and providing that the lead plaintiff would not be given any
further opportunity to amend its complaint to address the issues
raised in the defendants' motion to dismiss.

On December 15, 2017, another alleged Company shareholder filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York against the Company and its
current Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer (No.
17-cv-9853). This complaint alleged that the defendants made
misleading statements regarding the Company's credit portfolio
between August 24, 2017, and November 21, 2017, in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and sought unspecified compensatory damages and costs and expenses,
including attorneys' and experts' fees. On January 7, 2018, this
case was consolidated into the Consolidated Action.

On December 22, 2017, the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Action
filed its fourth amended complaint, which asserted substantially
the same claims as its third amended complaint for an expanded
class period of August 28, 2013, through December 1, 2017. On
January 26, 2017, the defendants moved to dismiss the fourth
amended complaint. This motion was fully briefed as of March 9,
2018.

On March 20, 2018, the Court granted the lead plaintiff leave to
file a fifth amended complaint. On March 22, 2018, the lead
plaintiff in the Consolidated Action filed its fifth amended
complaint which asserts substantially the same claims as its fourth
amended complaint for an expanded class period of August 29, 2013,
through March 13, 2018. The prior motion to dismiss was denied as
moot. On March 30, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the fifth
amended complaint. On November 26, 2018, the Court denied the
defendants' motion to dismiss.

On March 15, 2019, the lead plaintiff moved for appointment of a
class representative and class counsel and for certification of a
class period of August 29, 2013, through March 13, 2018. On July
10, 2019, the Court granted the motion and certified a class of all
persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Signet
common stock from August 29, 2013 to May 25, 2017. The Court also
appointed a class representative and class counsel.

On May 9, 2019, the defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings
with respect to certain alleged misstatements. On June 11, 2019,
the Court denied the defendants' motion for judgment on the
pleadings. The defendants moved for reconsideration on June 18,
2019. The Court denied that motion on June 20, 2019.

On July 24, 2019, the defendants filed with the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit a petition for permission to
appeal the District Court's class certification decision. On
November 19, 2019, the Court of Appeals granted that petition. On
November 20, 2019, the parties jointly moved to stay proceedings in
the District Court while the appeal is pending. On November 21,
2019, the District Court granted that motion.

On January 16, 2020, the lead plaintiff and defendants filed a
joint stipulation in the Court of Appeals withdrawing the appeal
without costs or attorneys' fees and providing that the defendants
may reinstate the appeal by filing written notice by August 28,
2020. The Court of Appeals granted the stipulation on January 16,
2020.

On March 16, 2020, the Company, all of the other defendant parties
to the Consolidated Action, and the lead plaintiff entered into a
settlement agreement in the Consolidated Action.

The settlement of $240 million provides for the dismissal of the
Consolidated Action with prejudice.

As a result of the settlement, the Company recorded a charge of
$33.2 million during the fourth quarter of Fiscal 2020 in other
operating income (loss), which includes administration costs of
$0.6 million and is recorded net of expected recoveries from the
Company's insurance carriers of $207.4 million.

As of February 1, 2020, the liability related to settlement and
administration fees is recorded in other current liabilities, and
the expected insurance recoveries are recorded in other current
assets in the consolidated balance sheet.

The Company currently expects to contribute approximately $35
million of the $240 million settlement payment, of which
approximately $2.5 million relates to the estimated impact of
foreign exchange translation in the first half of Fiscal 2021 which
will be recognized upon funding of the settlement.

The settlement is subject to court approval at a hearing after
notice to the class.

Signet Jewelers Limited engages in the retail sale of diamond
jewelry, watches, and other products. Signet Jewelers Limited was
founded in 1950 and is based in Hamilton, Bermuda.


SONIM TECH: Continues to Defend 4 Lawsuits Over IPO
----------------------------------------------------
Sonim Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend four putative class action complaints in California
related to its initial public offering ("IPO").

On September 20, 2019, a purported Sonim stockholder who allegedly
purchased stock registered in Sonim's initial public offering
("IPO") filed a putative class action complaint in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, captioned
Pearson v. Sonim Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 19CIV05564,
on behalf of himself and others who purchased shares of Sonim
registered in the IPO (the "Pearson Action").  

On October 4 and 16, 2019, two additional purported class action
complaints substantially similar to the Pearson Action were filed
on behalf of different plaintiffs yet the same putative class of
Sonim stockholders, in the same court as the Pearson Action.  

On October 7, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.  

All four complaints allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933
by Sonim and certain of its current and former officers and
directors for, among other things, alleged false or misleading
statements and omissions in the registration statement issued in
connection with the IPO, relating primarily to an alleged failure
to disclose software defects in Sonim's phones and alleged
misstatements about performance characteristics of Sonim's phones.


Sonim intends to defend these matters vigorously.  

Sonim said, "An adverse outcome in any of these matters, however,
could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial
condition, results of operations, or cash flows for a particular
period."  

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

Sonim Technologies, Inc. provides ruggedized mobile phones and
accessories for task workers. It offers ruggedized mobile phones,
such as Sonim XP8, Sonim XP5s, and Sonim XP3 based on the Android
platform that are capable of attaching to public and private
wireless networks; industrial-grade accessories, including remote
speaker microphones, multi-bay charging accessories, and in-vehicle
hands-free voice communications solutions; and cloud-based software
and application services. Sonim Technologies, Inc. sells its mobile
phones and accessories primarily to wireless carriers in the United
States and Canada. The company was formerly known as NaviSpin.com,
Inc. and changed its name to Sonim Technologies, Inc. in December
2001. Sonim Technologies, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is
headquartered in San Mateo, California.


SPECIALTY RESTAURANTS: Siefert Seeks OT Pay for Service Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY SIEFERT, Individually and on Behalf of Class Members v.
SPECIALTY RESTAURANTS CORP., Case No. 8:20-cv-00790-PA-DFM (C.D.
Cal., April 23, 2020), alleges that Specialty violated the New York
Labor Law by failing to pay overtime wages and improperly retaining
service fees from service workers.

The case implicates the Defendant's longstanding policies and
practices of failing to properly compensate all non-exempt service
workers for service charge payments remitted to them as wages, and
for work performed during unpaid meal periods.  As a result, the
Plaintiff and similarly situated workers were denied payment for
all hours worked, including gratuity payments, regular wages owed,
and overtime wages, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff brings this class and collective action against the
Defendant on behalf of all its current and former non-exempt hourly
service workers, including individuals, who have worked for the
Defendant in New York as servers, waiters, bartenders, bussers, and
other non-managerial service workers paid on an hourly basis, and
subject to Defendant's service fee policies and practices.

Specialty operates more than 20 restaurants in United States. The
Company offers catering and banquets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq.
          Ori Edelstein, Esq.
          Kristabel Sandoval, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE
          COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                  oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
                  ksandoval@schneiderwallace.com


SQUARETRADE INC: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Swinton Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DAVID M. SWINTON, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. SQUARETRADE, INC.,
Case No.  4:18-cv-00144-SMR-SBJ (S.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge
Stephanie M. Rose entered an order:

   1. approving the parties' Settlement Agreement;

   2. directing the Parties to consummate, carry out, or
      complete the provisions of the Settlement Agreement in
      accordance with its terms, as modified by any Orders of
      the Court.;

   3. certifying the Settlement Class under Federal Rule of
      Civil Procedure 23:

      "all persons or entities in the United States or its
      territories who, during the period from April 20, 2012
      through October 8, 2018, purchased a SquareTrade
      Protection Plan on Amazon, but excluding the undersigned
      and her immediate family, any entities in which Defendant
      has a controlling interest or which have a controlling
      interest in Defendant, and the officers, directors,
      employees, affiliates, and attorneys for Defendant";

   4. appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and
      appointing Harley Erbe and Steven Wandro as Lead Class
      Counsel; and

   5. dismissing the Action as to Defendant on the merits with
      prejudice and without costs.

The Settlement Agreement contemplates that up to 15% of the
Settlement Refunds will be paid to lead class counsel as part of
their award of attorney's fees in this matter. Thus, Settlement
Refunds will be the respective purchase price of each Class
Member's Covered Product, less up to 15% thereof. The Defendant's
original settlement proposal would have offered a $5 coupon to
Class Members, but the Defendant agreed during settlement
negotiations to increase the face value of the coupon to $10. The
Settlement Coupon applies only to flat-rate, one-or two-year mobile
phone Protection Plans that are generally not available to the
public.

The case is a class action lawsuit related to sales practices of
SquareTrade. the Defendant and Plaintiff David Swinton reached a
tentative settlement for which Plaintiff sought preliminary
approval in August 2018.

SquareTrade is an extended warranty service provider for consumer
electronics and appliances headquartered in San Francisco's SoMa
district.[CC]

STORM TIGHT: Certification of Weinstock FLSA Collective Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as VERED WEINSTOCK v. STORM
TIGHT WINDOWS INC., a Florida corporation, LEE BROWN, individually,
and KATHY BROWN, individually, Case No. 0:20-cv-60256-RS (S.D. Fla.
Filed Feb. 6, 2020), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an
order:

   1. granting conditional certification of the action as a
      collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act for
      the following class:

      "all individuals who 1) worked for Storm Tight Windows as
      a non-exempt hourly office employee in Deerfield Beach,
      Florida between February 6, 2017 and the present; and 2)
      worked over 40 hours in any work week; and 3) did not
      receive full overtime pay due to Defendants' unlawful
      time-adjustments";

   2. appointing the Plaintiff as the Representative of the
      Class with authority to negotiate and appear at settlement
      conferences and mediations on behalf of the class;

   3. appointing the law firm of USA Employment Lawyers --
      Jordan Richards PLLC as counsel for the Class;

   4. expediting discovery production from the Defendants,
      within 10 calendar days of the Court's Order granting this
      Motion, of a complete list, electronically in an Excel
      spreadsheet, of each and every office employee listed
      alphabetically from "A" to "Z" -- including their last
      known home address, cellular telephone number, e-mail
      addresses, and the last four digits of social security
      numbers, a separate field corresponding with each name --
      who was ever employed as a Production Coordinator,
      Permitting Coordinator, or Receptionist in Deerfield
      Beach, Florida by Defendants at any time between February
      6, 2017, and the present;

   5. permitting Plaintiff's counsel to send Court-Approved
      Notice to all such persons about their rights to opt-in to
      this collective action by filing a Consent to Join
      Lawsuit; and

   6. granting the putative class 90 days to submit the Consents
      to Join to Plaintiffs' Counsel from the date of the Order
      granting conditional certification.

The complaint asserts claims against the Defendants for overtime
violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants provide impact-resistant windows and
impact-resistant doors.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          Jake Blumstein, Esq.
          Melissa Scott, Esq.
          USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS -
          JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
          805 E. Broward Blvd. Suite 301
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 871-0050
          E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  jake@jordanrichardspllc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kenneth L. Minerley, Esq.
          jackson pellingra, Esq.
          MINERLEY FEIN, P.A.
          1200 N. Federal Highway, Suite 420
          Boca Raton, FL, 33432
          E-mail: ken@minerleyfein.com
                  jackson@minerleyfein.com
                  fileclerk@minerleyfein.com
                  litigation@minerleyfein.com

SUNDIAL GROWERS: Continues to Defend IPO Related Class Suit in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sundial Growers Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend two consolidated class action suits in New York related to
its initial public offering (IPO).

The Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors, as well as the underwriters of its initial public
offering (IPO), were named as defendants in several putative
shareholder class action lawsuits filed between September 9, 2019
and November 1, 2019.

The cases have been consolidated in two separate actions depending
on the court in which they were first filed, one in the Supreme
Court of New York, New York County, captioned In re Sundial Growers
Inc. Securities Litigation Index No. 655178/2019, and the other in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, captioned In re Sundial Growers Inc. Securities Litigation,
Master Case No. 1:19-cv-08913-ALC.

The complaints in each of the two consolidated actions asserts
claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933.

They generally allege that the Company made material misstatements
and omissions in the prospectus and registration statement in
connection with the Company's IPO.

In this regard, the complaints allege that the offering documents
did not disclose systemic quality control issues at the Company and
the return or rejection of cannabis and termination of the supply
agreement by one of the Company's customers.

Sundial said, "We can provide no assurance as to the outcome of
these proceedings or any other litigation matter in which we are a
party. In particular, securities class action lawsuits are
typically costly to defend, and divert the attention of management
and other resources from operations and, accordingly, even if
resolved in our favor, could have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity
and may force us to reduce or cease operations or seek relief under
the applicable bankruptcy or insolvency laws."

Sundial Growers Inc. operates as a pharmaceutical company. The
Company produces and grows a range of cannabis strains. Sundial
Growers serves customers in Canada. The company is based in
Calgary, AB, Canada.


TECH DATA: Suits Challenging Tiger Midco Merger Dropped
-------------------------------------------------------
Tech Data Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2020, that plaintiffs in the
litigation related to the merger transaction with Tiger Midco, LLC
have been voluntarily dismissed their individual claims with
prejudice.

Tech Data Corporation previously announced its entry into that
certain Agreement and Plan of Merger with Tiger Midco, LLC
("Parent") and Tiger Merger Sub Co. ("Merger Sub"), dated as of
November 12, 2019, as amended on November 27, 2019 by Amendment No.
1 to the Agreement and Plan of Merger.

The Merger Agreement provides, among other things and subject to
the terms and conditions set forth therein, that Merger Sub will be
merged with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company
continuing as the surviving corporation and as a wholly owned
subsidiary of Parent.

As disclosed in the Company's definitive proxy statement related to
the Merger dated January 10, 2020 (the "Merger Proxy Statement"),
as supplemented by the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K dated
February 4, 2020 (the "Supplemental Disclosure 8-K"), five lawsuits
related to the Merger were filed between December 19, 2019 and
January 27, 2020 comprised of one purported class action complaint
brought on behalf of a putative class of the Company's shareholders
and four individual shareholder complaints (collectively, the
"Merger Litigations").

The Merger Litigations alleged, among other things, that the
Company's disclosures set forth in the Merger Proxy Statement
contained material omissions. As described in the Supplemental
Disclosure 8-K, while the Company believes that the Merger
Litigations are without merit and no supplemental disclosure was
required under applicable law, in order to moot the plaintiffs'
unmeritorious disclosure claims in the Merger Litigations, to avoid
the risk of the Merger Litigations delaying or adversely affecting
the Merger, and to minimize the costs, risks and uncertainties
inherent in litigation, without admitting any liability or
wrongdoing, the Company determined to voluntarily supplement the
Merger Proxy Statement as described in the Supplemental Disclosure
8-K.

Following the filing of the Supplemental Disclosure 8-K, the
plaintiffs in all of the Merger Litigations voluntarily dismissed
their individual claims with prejudice.

Tech Data Corporation distributes information technology products,
as well as offers logistics management and other value-added
services worldwide. The Company is based in Clearwater, Florida.


TELERECOVERY CORP: Okon Alleges Violation under FDCPA in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Telerecovery
Corporation. The case is styled as Michaella Okon, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Telerecovery Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01967
(E.D.N.Y., April 29, 2020).

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

Telerecovery Corporation is a collection agency located in Kenner,
Louisiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
   Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
   735 Central Avenue
   Woodmere, NY 11598
   Tel: (516) 668-6945
   Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com



TEXAS: Hall Files Suit Over Prisoner Civil Rights
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Texas Correctional
Office of Offenders with Medical/ Mental Impairments. The case is
styled as Reginald Eugene Hall, Class Action Representative on
Behalf of All Similarly Situated Inmates Confined in the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice - Correctional Institutional
Division- (94) Prison Units, Plaintiff v. David G. Gutierrez, BPP
Chairman, Cynthia D. Tilley, Senior Warden of TDCJ Scott Unit,
Bryan Collier, TDCJ Executive Report, Texas Correctional Office of
Offenders with Medical/ Mental Impairments and Texas Correctional
Managed Health Care Committee Member(s), Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-00136 (S.D. Tex., April 29, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Prisoner: Civil
Rights filed pursuant to the Prisoner Civil Rights.

The Defendants are government representatives of Texas.

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.




TRAF GROUP: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for July 13
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DAVID MCMILLIN, on behalf of
himself and those similarly situated v. THE TRAF GROUP, INC. D/B/A
CREDIT AMERICA, Case No. 3:18-cv-01734-DEA, the Hon. Judge Douglas
E. Arpert entered an order:

   1. approving notice to be sent to proposed settlement class;

   2. appointing interim counsel; and

   3. scheduling a settlement fairness hearing for July 13, 2020.

The Settlement Agreement defines the Settlement Class as:

   "all natural persons with a New Jersey address to whom
   Defendant sent an initial collection letter during the period
   February 6, 2017 through and including January 29, 2018,
   which letter was sent in an attempt to collect a debt
   incurred primarily for personal, family or household
   purposes."

The Court has considered the benefits that the settlement will
confer on the Settlement Class, which is the equal distribution to
the Settlement Class of $4,030.00 to be paid by Defendant. This
amount constitutes more than the maximum that could have been
achieved at trial under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA). Members of the Settlement Class will automatically be
directly mailed a check with no "claims made" process. Funds from
any uncashed checks shall be provided as a cy pres award to the
"Civil Justice Clinic" at Rutgers School of Law-Newark, Center for
Law and Justice. Thus, the entirety of the $4030.00 will be
distributed. Under the settlement, the amount of attorneys' fees
was not negotiated until after the Parties reached a settlement in
principal. The Parties ultimately reached an agreement whereby
Defendant would pay Class Counsel the amount of $20,000 for all
attorney's fees and costs, subject to Court approval.

In the class action complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that Defendant
violated the FDCPA by sending collection letters to the Plaintiff
and other consumers that misrepresented its identity as a debt
collector, failed to include the notices and disclosures required
by the FDCPA and demanded amounts not actually owed.

Traf Group was founded in 1985. The company's line of business
includes collection and adjustment services on claims and other
insurance related issues.[CC]

TRANSPORTATION INSURANCE: O’Brien Sales Files Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transportation
Insurance Company. The case is styled as O'Brien Sales and
Marketing, Inc., on behalf of itself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Transportation Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No.
4:20-cv-02951-KAW (N.D. Cal., April 29, 2020).

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

Transportation Insurance Company provides comprehensive coverage
for goods in transit for engineering and transportation companies
managing cargo.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joshua Geoffrey Konecky, Esq.
   Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP
   2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
   Emeryville, CA 94608
   Tel: (415) 421-7100
   Fax: (415) 421-7105
   Email: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com

     - and -

   Matthew Sinclair Weiler, Esq.
   Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky et al
   2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
   Emeryville
   Emeryville, CA 94608
   Tel: (510) 740-2930
   Email: mweiler@schneiderwallace.com

     - and -

   Todd Michael Schneider, Esq.
   Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP
   2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
   Emeryville, CA 94608
   Tel: (415) 421-7100
   Fax: (415) 421-7105
   Email: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com



UNITED SERVICES: Allen Suit Moved to Texas First Court of Appeals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The appellate case styled Stephanie Allen, Mark Allen, as
Individuals, and Absolute Life Wellness Center, Inc. as Texas
Professional Services Corporation, on behalf of themselves and for
all other similarly situated v. United Services Automobile
Association; USAA Casualty Insurance Company; USAA General
Indemnity Company; Garrison Property And Casualty Insurance
Company; and USAA County Mutual Insurance, was transferred on April
9, 2020, to the Texas First Court of Appeals.

The Clerk of the First Court of Appeals assigned Case No.
01-20-00305-CV to the proceeding.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Mark Allen, et al., are represented by:

          Paul Colley, Esq.
          Jarrett Stone, Esq.
          COLLEY FIRM P.C.
          7500 Rialto Blvd., Suite 1-225
          Austin, TX 78735
          Telephone: (512) 477-2001
          Facsimile: (512) 477-3335

Defendants-Appellees USAA Casualty Insurance Company, et al., are
represented by:

          Patrick M. Kemp, Esq.
          SEGAL MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY, LTD.
          100 Congress Avenue, Suite 800
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: 512.370.1235
          Facsimile: 512.476.78
          E-mail: pkemp@smsm.com


US DEALER SERVICES: Reynolds Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gabrielle Reynolds, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. US DEALER SERVICES INC. d/b/a US DEALER
SERVICES, Case No. 2:20-cv-03748 (C.D. Cal., April 24, 2020), is
brought for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available
legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of
the Defendant in negligently contacting the Plaintiff's cellular
telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
thereby, invading the Plaintiff's privacy.

Through the unsolicited calls, the Defendant contacted the
Plaintiff on the Plaintiff's cellular telephone regarding an
unsolicited service via an "automatic telephone dialing system"
("ATDS"), which is prohibited by the TCPA, according to the
complaint. The Plaintiff did not provide the Defendant or its
agents prior express consent to receive calls, including
unsolicited calls, to her cellular telephone; therefore, the
unsolicited calls violated the TCPA. The Defendant is and was aware
that it is placing unsolicited robocalls to the Plaintiff and other
consumers without their prior express consent. The Plaintiff was
damaged by the Defendant's calls.

The Plaintiff's domicile is in Jacksonville, Florida.

The Defendant is a California Profit Corporation and citizen of the
state of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
          EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
          425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 954-524-2820
          Facsimile: 954-524-2822
          Email: seth@epllc.com


VERINT SYSTEMS: Bid to Amend Class Certification Motion Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Verint Systems Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2020, that the motion to amend the
class certification motion in a Tel Aviv suit against the company's
subsidiary, Verint Systems Limited, is pending.

In March 2009, one of the company's former employees, Ms. Orit
Deutsch, commenced legal actions in Israel against the Company's
primary Israeli subsidiary, Verint Systems Limited ("VSL") (Case
Number 4186/09) and against the company's affiliate Comverse
Technology, Inc. (CTI)(Case Number 1335/09).

Also in March 2009, a former employee of Comverse Limited (CTI's
primary Israeli subsidiary at the time), Ms. Roni Katriel,
commenced similar legal actions in Israel against Comverse Limited
(Case Number 3444/09).

In these actions, the plaintiffs generally sought to certify class
action suits against the defendants on behalf of current and former
employees of VSL and Comverse Limited who had been granted stock
options in Verint and/or CTI and who were allegedly damaged as a
result of a suspension on option exercises during an extended
filing delay period that is discussed in the Company's and CTI's
historical public filings.

On June 7, 2012, the Tel Aviv District Court, where the cases had
been filed or transferred, allowed the plaintiffs to consolidate
and amend their complaints against the three defendants: VSL, CTI,
and Comverse Limited.

On October 31, 2012, CTI distributed of all of the outstanding
shares of common stock of Comverse, Inc., its principal operating
subsidiary and parent company of Comverse Limited, to CTI's
shareholders (the "Comverse Share Distribution"). In the period
leading up to the Comverse Share Distribution, CTI either sold or
transferred substantially all of its business operations and assets
(other than its equity ownership interests in Verint and in its
then-subsidiary, Comverse, Inc.) to Comverse, Inc. or to
unaffiliated third parties.

As the result of these transactions, Comverse, Inc. became an
independent company and ceased to be affiliated with CTI, and CTI
ceased to have any material assets other than its equity interests
in Verint. Prior to the completion of the Comverse Share
Distribution, the plaintiffs sought to compel CTI to set aside up
to $150.0 million in assets to secure any future judgment, but the
District Court did not rule on this motion. In February 2017,
Mavenir Inc. became successor-in-interest to Comverse, Inc.

On February 4, 2013, Verint acquired the remaining CTI shell
company in a merger transaction (the "CTI Merger"). As a result of
the CTI Merger, Verint assumed certain rights and liabilities of
CTI, including any liability of CTI arising out of the foregoing
legal actions. However, under the terms of a Distribution Agreement
entered into in connection with the Comverse Share Distribution,
the company, as successor to CTI, are entitled to indemnification
from Comverse, Inc. (now Mavenir) for any losses we may suffer in
our capacity as successor to CTI related to the foregoing legal
actions.

Following an unsuccessful mediation process, on August 28, 2016,
the District Court (i) denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify the
suit as a class action with respect to all claims relating to
Verint stock options and (ii) approved the plaintiffs' motion to
certify the suit as a class action with respect to claims of
current or former employees of Comverse Limited (now part of
Mavenir) or of VSL who held unexercised CTI stock options at the
time CTI suspended option exercises.

The court also ruled that the merits of the case would be evaluated
under New York law.

As a result of this ruling (which excluded claims related to Verint
stock options from the case), one of the original plaintiffs in the
case, Ms. Deutsch, was replaced by a new representative plaintiff,
Mr. David Vaaknin. CTI appealed portions of the District Court's
ruling to the Israeli Supreme Court.

On August 8, 2017, the Israeli Supreme Court partially allowed
CTI's appeal and ordered the case to be returned to the District
Court to determine whether a cause of action exists under New York
law based on the parties' expert opinions.

Following a second unsuccessful round of mediation in mid to late
2018, the proceedings resumed. The plaintiffs have filed a motion
to amend the class certification motion and CTI has filed a
corresponding motion to dismiss and a response. These motions are
now before the court following a third unsuccessful round of
mediation in mid-2019.

Verint Systems Inc. provides actionable intelligence solutions
worldwide. Verint Systems Inc. was founded in 1994 and is
headquartered in Melville, New York.


ZION OIL: Lead Plaintiffs Drop Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------
Zion Oil & Gas, Inc. (Nasdaq: ZN) said April 1, 2020, that the lead
plaintiffs in the securities class action lawsuit filed against
Zion on August 9, 2018, have voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit.

"Just as the consolidated derivative suit in Federal district court
in Delaware was dismissed last November, the securities class
action suit previously filed against Zion, Victor Carrillo, and
Mike Croswell, in the Northern District of Texas has now been
dismissed," stated Zion's President, Bill Avery. "Zion is thankful
that these lawsuits have been dismissed so that we can focus on
moving ahead with our oil exploration in Israel without
distraction."

CLASS ACTION SUIT DISMISSED

On March 3, 2020, Brantley Starr, United States District Judge for
the Northern District of Texas, signed an Order dismissing the
class action lawsuit without prejudice to its refiling by March 31,
2020. On March 30, 2020, however, the plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed with prejudice (cannot be refiled) the class action suit
against Zion, Carrillo, and Croswell.

DERIVATIVE SUIT PREVIOUSLY DISMISSED

As mentioned in Zion's December 30, 2020, update, on November 26,
2019, Richard G. Andrews, United States District Judge for the
District of Delaware, signed an Order dismissing the consolidated
derivative suit filed against certain current and former directors
of Zion as well as Zion as a nominal defendant. The Plaintiffs'
deadline to appeal the Order was December 26, 2019, and Plaintiffs
did not appeal making dismissal final.

There is now no litigation pending against Zion.

                           *     *     *

Zion Oil & Gas, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that following the
commencement of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
investigation, on August 9, 2018, a putative class action (the
"class action") Complaint was filed against Zion, Victor G.
Carrillo, the Company's Chief Executive Officer at such time, and
Michael B. Croswell Jr., the Company's Chief Financial Officer
(collectively, the "Defendants") in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas.

On November 16, 2018, the Court entered an Order in the class
action appointing lead plaintiffs and approving lead counsel and on
January 22, 2019, an Amended Complaint was filed. On February 1,
2019, a Corrected Amended Class Action Complaint was filed.

The suit alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
SEC and Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against all
defendants and alleges violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Section 15 of the Securities Act against the individual
defendants.

The alleged class period is from February 13, 2018 through November
20, 2018. On March 13, 2019, a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Corrected Amended Complaint was filed on behalf of Zion, Victor
Carrillo and Michael B. Croswell, Jr., pleading numerous grounds in
support of their Motion to Dismiss.

On April 29, 2019 Plaintiffs filed a Response to Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss, and on May 29, 2019 Defendants filed a Reply to
Plaintiffs' Response. On March 4, 2020, the Court granted
Defendants' Motion and dismissed all claims granting Plaintiffs
leave to amend. Lead Plaintiffs were required to file an amended
complaint by April 1, 2020.

Zion Oil & Gas, Inc. operates as an oil and gas exploration company
in Israel. It holds a petroleum exploration license onshore Israel,
the Megiddo-Jezreel License that covers an area of approximately
99,000 acres. The company was founded in 2000 and is headquartered
in Dallas, Texas.


ZUORA INC: Bid to Nix Consolidated Securities Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zuora, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
filed in the consolidated securities class action suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, is pending.


In June 2019, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California naming
the Company and certain of its officers as defendants.

The complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of stockholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between
April 12, 2018 and May 30, 2019.

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements about the Company's business, operations and prospects
in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act), and seeks unspecified
compensatory damages, fees and costs.

In September 2019, the district court appointed the lead plaintiff
and lead counsel.

In November 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint asserting the same claims.

Defendants' motion to dismiss is pending.

The Company believes the plaintiff's allegations are without merit
and intends to defend vigorously against the claims.

Zuora said, "Given the procedural posture and the nature of this
lawsuit, including that the proceedings are in the early stages,
the Company is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or
range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter."

Zuora, Inc. is a leading cloud-based subscription management
platform. The company provides software that enables companies
across multiple industries and geographies to launch, manage or
transform to a subscription business model. Architected
specifically for dynamic, recurring subscription business models,
the company's cloud-based software functions as an intelligent
subscription management hub that automates and orchestrates the
entire subscription order-to-revenue process, including billing and
revenue recognition. The company is based in San Mateo,
California.


ZYLA LIFE: Appeal from Dismissal of Securities Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zyla Life Sciences said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the parties are awaiting
the Court's decision on the plaintiffs' appeal in the the
consolidated class action suit headed by Egalet Investor Group.

On January 27, 2017 and February 10, 2017, respectively, two
putative securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that named as
defendants Egalet Corporation and former officers Robert S. Radie,
Stanley J. Musial and Jeffrey M. Dayno (the "Officer Defendants"
and together with Egalet Corporation, the "Defendants").

These two complaints, captioned Mineff v. Egalet Corp. et al., No.
2:17-cv-00390-MMB and Klein v. Egalet Corp. et al., No.
2:17-cv-00617-MMB, assert securities fraud claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of
putative classes of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
Egalet Corporation securities between December 15, 2015 and January
9, 2017 and seek damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and other
expenses.  

On May 1, 2017, the Court entered an order consolidating the two
cases (the "Securities Class Action Litigation") before it,
appointing the Egalet Investor Group (consisting of Joseph
Spizzirri, Abdul Rahiman and Kyle Kobold) as lead plaintiff and
approving their selection of lead and liaison counsel.  

On July 3, 2017, the plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended
complaint, which named the same Defendants and also asserted claims
for purported violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. Plaintiffs brought their claims individually and on
behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares of Egalet between November 4, 2015 and
January 9, 2017 inclusive.  

The consolidated amended complaint based its claims on allegedly
false and/or misleading statements and/or failures to disclose
information about the likelihood that ARYMO ER would be approved
for intranasal abuse-deterrent labeling.  

The Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint
on September 1, 2017, the plaintiffs filed their opposition on
October 31, 2017, and the Defendants filed their reply on December
8, 2017.  The Court heard oral arguments on the Motion to Dismiss
on February 20, 2018 and entered an order pursuant to which the
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint on March 6, 2018.  

The Defendants responded on March 20, 2018 and the plaintiffs filed
their reply on March 27, 2018. The Court heard oral arguments on
the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint
on July 12, 2018.  On August 2, 2018, the Court granted the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the Securities Class
Action Litigation with prejudice.  

On August 31, 2018, plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal with
the United States Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit. On
November 7, 2018, the Defendants filed a notice of suggestion of
bankruptcy and unopposed motion to stay the appeal as to the
Officer Defendants (the appeal was automatically stayed as to the
Company upon the Chapter 11 filing).  

On February 6, 2019, the Officer Defendants filed a Notice of
Lifting of Automatic Stay of Proceedings and Discharge of
Subordinated Claims, as plaintiffs' claim against the Company was
extinguished as part of the bankruptcy, which restarted the
appellate process.  

On April 22, 2019, plaintiffs filed their brief with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Defendants filed
their brief on May 22, 2019 and Plaintiffs filed their reply on
June 12, 2019 and the parties are currently awaiting the Court's
decision.

The Company disputes the allegations in the lawsuit and intend to
defend these actions vigorously.

Zyla said, "The Company cannot determine the likelihood of, nor can
it reasonably estimate the range of, any potential loss, if any,
from these lawsuits."

Zyla Life Sciences, a commercial-stage life sciences company,
focuses on the development and marketing of various treatments for
patients and healthcare providers. It has a portfolio of various
treatments for various types of pain and inflammation. The company,
formerly known as Egalet Corporation, was founded in 2010 and is
headquartered in Wayne, Pennsylvania.


[^] WEBINAR: Best Practices in Qualifying the Class
---------------------------------------------------
Beard Group, Inc. is hosting a webinar for plaintiff practitioners
on client intake for mass torts and class actions on Thurs., May
28
at 2 p.m. Eastern Time.

Register FREE at bit.ly/2KqkcIV

Lead generation is just half the battle. You still have to win
over
the client. Register now and learn the following:

     -- Primary elements in responding to a lead
     -- How to customize scripts for case, demographics
     -- Developing effective screening criteria
     -- Tactics in converting leads to plaintiffs on first
        contact
     -- Minimize lead loss
     -- Publicity vs. conversion budgets

Benefits:

     -- Optimize your marketing budget's ROI
     -- Maximize the size of your class
     -- Reduce acquisition cost per client

Tom Ball, Senior Vice President at Alert Communications, will
present what his company has learned after completing millions of
new client intakes for law firms and legal marketing agencies.

Thurs., May 28
2 p.m. Eastern
Register FREE at bit.ly/2KqkcIV


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***