CAR_Public/100310.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, March 10, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 48

                            Headlines

AXIS CAPITAL: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Suit Dismissal Still Pending
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Sued for Failing to Purchase Adequate Insurance
CHATTEM INC: Accused of Deceptive Advertising in California Suit
CHESTER COUNTY: Pa. Ct. Upholds Property Tax Appeal Filing Fees
COXHEALTH: Radiation Overdoses Spur Missouri Class Action Suit

CP SHIPS: Notice of $12.8 Million Shareholder Settlement
DENDREON CORP: Court Orders Discovery Be Completed by May 21
DENTSPLY INT'L: Appellate Court Reverses Decertification Ruling
DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Court Dismisses Two Plaintiffs Claims
DENTSPLY INT'L: Plaintiffs Appeal Claims Dismissal in Del. Suit

ELI LILLY: Faces "Fecho" Suit in Washington
ELI LILLY: "Schaefer-LaRose" Plaintiffs' Appeal Pending
ELI LILLY: California Suit Stayed Pending Issue Resolution
ELI LILLY: Appeal on Certification Ruling Remains Pending
ELI LILLY: In Discussions to Resolve Canadian Zyprexa Suits

EQUINIX INC: Seeks Court Approval of Settlement Agreement
FIRSTMERIT BANK: Class OK'd in Ponzi Scheme Money Laundering Suit
MERCEDES-BENZ: Notice of Reed Value Litigation Settlement
MERCK & CO: Shareholder Objects to Payment of Class Counsel Fees
NATIONAL WESTERN: Agrees to Settle California Suit for $17 Mil.

NETFLIX INC: California Court Dismisses "Nunez" Suit
NETFLIX INC: Defends Subscriber Privacy Violations Suit
NETFLIX INC: Continues to Face Antitrust Suit Over DVD Sales
NORTHWEST NATURAL: Accused in Wash. of Deceptive Advertising
PEPSI BOTTLING: April 12 Hearing Set for Settlement Approval

PINELLAS COUNTY: Fla. App. Ct. Says Class Should Be Certified
PULTE HOMES: Union's NLRB Proceeding Dismissed with Prejudice
RADIOSHACK CORP: Appeal to "Brookler" Ruling Remains Stayed
RADIOSHACK CORP: Reaches Agreement to Settle Reimbursements Suit
REGIONS FIN'L: Faces Suit Over Trust III's Securities Offering

REGIONS FIN'L: Suits by Funds Investors & Shareholders Pending
SOUTH DAKOTA: State Opposes Certification of Indian Voter Class
STATE STREET: Faces ERISA-Related Suits in Massachusetts
STEEL DYNAMICS: Indiana Court Dismisses "Panasuk" Suit
STEEL DYNAMICS: Antitrust Lawsuits by Direct Purchasers Ongoing

SWITCH & DATA: Seeks Court Approval of Settlement Agreement
TELETECH HOLDINGS: Settlement Approval Hearing Set for June 11
WARNER HOME: Accused of Conspiring with Rival in N.Y. Suit
WOO MEDIA: California Suit Complains About E-mail Solicitations
YELP! INC: Spa Owner Makes Extortion Claims in S.D. Calif. Suit

                            *********

AXIS CAPITAL: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Suit Dismissal Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of a putative class
action lawsuit against Axis Capital Holdings Limited alleging
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, remains pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.

In 2005, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the
company's U.S. insurance subsidiaries.

The suit is captioned In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust
Litigation and was filed on Aug. 15, 2005 in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey and includes as defendants
numerous insurance brokers and insurance companies.

The lawsuit alleges antitrust and RICO violations in connection
with the payment of contingent commissions and manipulation of
insurance bids and seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

On Oct. 3, 2006, the District Court granted, in part, motions to
dismiss filed by the defendants, and ordered plaintiffs to file
supplemental pleadings setting forth sufficient facts to allege
their antitrust and RICO claims.  After plaintiffs filed their
supplemental pleadings, defendants renewed their motions to
dismiss.

On April 15, 2007, the District Court dismissed without prejudice
plaintiffs' complaint, as amended, and granted plaintiffs thirty
days to file another amended complaint and/or revised RICO
Statement and Statements of Particularity.  In May 2007,
plaintiffs filed:

     (i) a Second Consolidated Amended Commercial Class Action
         complaint,

    (ii) a Revised Particularized Statement Describing the
         Horizontal Conspiracies Alleged in the Second
         Consolidated Amended Commercial Class Action Complaint,
         and

   (iii) a Third Amended Commercial Insurance Plaintiffs' RICO
         Case Statement Pursuant to Local Rule 16.1(B)(4).

On June 21, 2007, the defendants filed renewed motions to
dismiss.  On Sept. 28, 2007, the District Court dismissed with
prejudice plaintiffs' antitrust and RICO claims and declined to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' remaining
state law claims.

On Oct. 10, 2007, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of all
adverse orders and decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit, and a hearing was held in April 2009.

No further updates were reported in the company's Feb. 22, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Axis Capital Holdings Limited -- http://www.axiscapital.com/--  
is a Bermuda-based holding company for the AXIS Group of
Companies.  The company, through its various operating
subsidiaries and branches, provide a range of insurance and
reinsurance products to insureds and reinsureds globally with
locations in Bermuda, the United States and Europe.  The company
operates in two business segments: insurance segment and
reinsurance segment.  Axis Capital's direct and indirect
subsidiaries, and branches include AXIS Specialty Limited (AXIS
Specialty Bermuda), AXIS Specialty Limited (Singapore Branch),
AXIS Specialty Europe Limited (AXIS Specialty Europe), AXIS
Specialty London, AXIS Specialty Australia, AXIS Specialty
Insurance Company (AXIS Specialty U.S.), AXIS Re Limited (AXIS Re
Ltd.), AXIS Reinsurance Company (AXIS Re U.S.), AXIS Reinsurance
Company (Canadian Branch), AXIS Surplus Insurance Company (AXIS
Surplus), AXIS Insurance Company (AXIS Insurance Co.) and AXIS Re
Europe.


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Sued for Failing to Purchase Adequate Insurance
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. (NYSE: CEL) (TASE: CEL) was served with a
purported class action lawsuit filed against it and another
cellular operator in the District Court of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa by two
plaintiffs alleging to be subscribers of the defendants, in
connection with allegations that the defendants breached their
license by failing to purchase insurance against monetary
liability which the defendants may suffer due to bodily damages
that allegedly may be caused by cellular radiation.  The
plaintiffs request the court to award compensation in an amount
equal to the insurance premiums allegedly payable for insuring
such liability (estimated by the plaintiffs to be NIS 300 million
per year per defendant) for the past seven years and to order the
defendants to purchase such insurance coverage in the future.
If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the total amount
claimed is estimated by the plaintiffs to be approximately NIS
4.2 billion, out of which NIS 2.1 billion is attributed to the
Company individually.

At this preliminary stage, the Company says it is unable to
assess the lawsuit's chances of success.

                         About Cellcom Israel

Cellcom Israel Ltd. -- http://www.cellcom.co.il/-- established  
in 1994, is the leading Israeli cellular provider; Cellcom Israel
provides its approximately 3.292 million subscribers (as at
December 31, 2009) with a broad range of value added services
including cellular and landline telephony, roaming services for
tourists in Israel and for its subscribers abroad and additional
services in the areas of music, video, mobile office etc., based
on Cellcom Israel's technologically advanced infrastructure. The
Company operates an HSPA 3.5 Generation network enabling advanced
high speed broadband multimedia services, in addition to
GSM/GPRS/EDGE and TDMA networks. Cellcom Israel offers Israel's
broadest and largest customer service infrastructure including
telephone customer service centers, retail stores, and service
and sale centers, distributed nationwide. Through its broad
customer service network Cellcom Israel offers its customers
technical support, account information, direct to the door parcel
services, internet and fax services, dedicated centers for the
hearing impaired, etc. As of 2006, Cellcom Israel, through its
wholly owned subsidiary Cellcom Fixed Line Communications L.P.,
provides landline telephone communication services in Israel, in
addition to data communication services. Cellcom Israel's shares
are traded both on the New York Stock Exchange (CEL) and the Tel
Aviv Stock Exchange (CEL).


CHATTEM INC: Accused of Deceptive Advertising in California Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Chattanooga-based Chattem
pushes its Garlique diet supplement with false claims about its
ability to reduce cholesterol, a class action claims in Los
Angeles Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Melvin v. Chattem, Inc., Case No.
10-cv-01593 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/05/Garlic.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Howard Rubinstein, Esq.
          Attorney at Law
          914 Waters Ave., Suite 20
          Aspen, CO 81611
          Telephone: 832-715-2788

               - and -

          Harold M. Hewell, Esq.
          HEWELL LAW FIRM
          105 West F St., 2nd Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-235-6854


CHESTER COUNTY: Pa. Ct. Upholds Property Tax Appeal Filing Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
In Appeal of Silvio F. and Elizabeth O. D'Ignazio, No. 1366 C.D.
2009, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed dismissal
of a class action lawsuit contesting $25 and $50 filing fees paid
by the owners of three commercial properties in West Nottingham
Township, Pa.  A copy of the decision is available for free at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=inpaco20100305571


COXHEALTH: Radiation Overdoses Spur Missouri Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The News-Leader in Springfield, Mo., reports that a class-action
lawsuit has been filed against CoxHealth alleging wrongful death
as a result of a radiation overdose.

Anthony Zilius is the plaintiff in the case, representing his
wife, Diane Dale Zilius.

According to court records, Diane Zilius died in August after
suffering partial brain damage and other medical issues after
beginning radiation treatment.

Anthony Zilius was one of the people who received a letter from
CoxHealth, according to court documents, after hospital officials
discovered an attachment on a radiation machine was calibrated
incorrectly.

A copy of the Complaint in Zilius v. Lester E. Cox Medical
Centers, Case No. 1031-cv-03255 (Mo. Cir. Ct., Greene Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.news-leader.com/assets/pdf/DO15315535.PDF

Mr. Zilius is represented by:

          Christopher A. Wright, Esq.
          Brian P. Millikan, Esq.
          MILLIKAN WRIGHT LLC
          1826 Chouteau Avenue
          St. Louis, MO 63103
          Telephone: 314-621-0622

               - and -  

          Frank H. Bailey, Esq.
          BAILEY & OLIVER LAW FIRM
          506 Hospital Dr.
          Mountain Home, AR 72653
          Telephone: 870-425-6041

Kathryn Wall at the News-Leader reported last month that
CoxHealth confirmed that 76 people were exposed to too much
radiation for cancer treatment between 2004 and 2009.

Of those 76 exposed, 40 are dead, but hospital officials say they
can't yet determine how many of those were a result of the
treatment or of the brain tumors the patients were being treated
for.

A human error in calibrating the BrainLAB stereotactic machine
used to target radiation treatment for brain tumors release as
much as 50 percent more radiation than prescribed on average.

The physicist who was responsible for calibrating the machine no
longer works at CoxHealth, officials said, but cited human
resources issues with revealing whether the individual was fired
or left voluntarily.

One-hundred and fifty-two people were treated with the radiation
machine between 2004 and 2009. Of those treated, both from the
group of 76 that received too much radiation and the remaining
group's treatment considered within safe levels, 90 individuals
have died.


CP SHIPS: Notice of $12.8 Million Shareholder Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
This notice is to all Canadian citizens or individuals or
entities resident, domiciled, or headquartered in Canada, or
organized under the laws of Canada or a Canadian province (other
than Excluded Persons, as defined below), who acquired securities
of CP Ships Limited during the period from January 29, 2003, to
and including August 9, 2004, and held some or all of those
securities on August 9, 2004.

READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AS IT MAY AFFECT YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS.

Please note: This is a short form notice, produced for
publication purposes, announcing court approval of the settlement
reached in this litigation. A Long-Form Notice, with full details
of the settlement is available on Class Counsel's Web site at
http://www.classaction.ca/or the Administrator's Web site at  
http://www.nptricepoint.com/

COURT APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTIONS

In 2005, class actions were commenced in Ontario, British
Columbia and Quebec against CP Ships and certain of its current
and former officers and directors.  On August 28, 2008, the
Quebec Superior Court authorized as a class proceeding on behalf
of a national class. Subsequently, on June 3, 2009, the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice certified a class consisting of
Canadian citizens and entities not included within the Quebec
Class. By Orders issued by the Quebec Superior Court and the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice dated January 18, 2010, and
February 3, 2010, respectively, the courts approved the
Settlement Agreement reached between the parties to the class
actions. The B.C. action was discontinued as part of the approval
process. The settlement is a compromise of disputed claims and is
not an admission of liability, wrongdoing or fault on the part of
any of the Defendants, all of whom have denied, and continue to
deny, the allegations against them.

The Settlement Agreement provides for the settlement of the
claims of all Class Members for the sum of $12.8 million. The
Settlement Amount will be held in an interest bearing account by
Class Counsel until the monies are distributed to the Class. The
amount of each Class Member's compensation will be calculated by
application of the formulae outlined in the Distribution
Protocol.

"Excluded Persons" are precluded from receiving compensation
pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and include:

     (a) the Defendants and the current, former and future
         officers, directors, partners, members, parents,
         subsidiaries, administrators, affiliates, employees,
         agents, attorneys, underwriters, insurers,
         representatives, heirs, successors in interest and
         assigns of any Defendant;

     (b) Raymond Miles, Frank Halliwell and Ian Webber and all
         members of their families;

     (c) all entities over which any of the foregoing persons or
         entities has or had during the Class Period any legal or
         de facto control; and

     (d) any person or entity who is included in the settlement
         class In Re CP Ships Ltd. Securities Litigation (Court
         File No. 8:05-MD-1656-T-27TBM) (the "U.S. Action"), and
         who has filed a claim and received compensation in
         respect of the settlement of the U.S. Action.

ADMINISTRATION OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

The Courts have appointed NPT RicePoint Class Action Services as
the Administrator of this Settlement Agreement. NPT RicePoint
will oversee the claims processes and will distribute the
Settlement Amount.

Those Class Members who wish to receive compensation from the
Settlement Amount must mail or otherwise submit a completed Claim
Form, and any supporting documentation to the Administrator,
postmarked no later than Monday, June 7, 2010, at:

          CP Ships Ltd. Securities Litigation
          Claims Administrator
          P.O. Nox 3355
          London, ON N6A 4K3
          CANADA

All Class Members will be bound by the terms of the Settlement
Agreement unless they "opted out" in accordance with the Pre-
Approval Notice. The deadline to opt-out was January 8, 2010.

For further information regarding the terms of the Settlement
Agreement or the Distribution Protocol, the process for filing a
claim, or to obtain a Claim Form visit the Administrator's
website: www.nptricepoint.com or contact the Administrator by
calling 1-866-432-5534. Questions may also be directed to Class
Counsel as follows:

     * The law firm of Siskinds LLP is counsel to the plaintiff
       in the Ontario class proceeding, and can be reached by
       telephone, toll free, at 1-800-461-6166 ext. 2380.

     * The law firm of Siskinds, Desmeules s.e.n.c.r.l. is
       counsel to the Plaintiff in the Quebec class proceeding,
       and can be reached by telephone at 1-418-694-2009.

                           March 8, 2010

           PUBLICATION OF THIS NOTICE HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED
              BY THE ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
                     AND THE QUEBEC SUPERIOR COURT


DENDREON CORP: Court Orders Discovery Be Completed by May 21
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
has ordered that discovery in a securities class action suit
against Dendreon Corp., be completed by May 21, 2010, according
to the company's Feb. 22, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

Beginning on May 24, 2007, four proposed securities class action
suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, on behalf of the Company's common stock,
purporting to state claims for securities law violations stemming
from the company's disclosures related to Provenge and the FDA's
actions regarding our BLA for Provenge.

The complaints seek compensatory damages, attorney's fees and
expenses.

On Oct. 4, 2007, the Court consolidated these actions under the
caption McGuire v. Dendreon Corporation, et al., and
designated a lead plaintiff.

The lead plaintiff designated the complaint filed June 6, 2007 in
McGuire, et al. v. Dendreon Corporation, et al., as the operative
complaint.

On Dec. 21, 2007, the company and individual defendants jointly
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

By order dated April 18, 2008, the Court granted the motion to
dismiss the complaint, holding that plaintiffs failed to plead a
claim against the company or the individual defendants, and
allowing plaintiffs thirty days to file an amended complaint.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 2, 2008, naming
Dendreon, its chief executive officer, and a senior vice
president as defendants.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
July 2, 2008.

By order dated Dec. 5, 2008, the Court granted the motion to
dismiss the allegations against the company's chief executive
officer based on allegedly false or misleading statements and his
sale of Dendreon stock, and denied the remainder of the motion.

The Court gave plaintiffs permission to file an amended complaint
to reassert their allegations against the company's chief
executive officer, and plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint on Jan. 5, 2009.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
on Jan. 29, 2009.

On May 21, 2009, the Court issued an order granting in part, and
denying in part, defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint, and allowing leave to amend.

Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on June 8, 2009.

On June 29, 2009, defendants filed an answer to the third amended
complaint.

The parties have commenced discovery, and exchanged initial
disclosures on July 22, 2009.

The Court has ordered that discovery be completed by May 21,
2010.

Trial in this action has been set for Oct. 18, 2010.

Dendreon Corporation -- http://www.dendreon.com/-- is a  
biotechnology company focused on the discovery, development and
commercialization of therapeutics that improve cancer treatment
options for patients.  Dendreon's most advanced product candidate
is Provenge (sipuleucel-T), an active cellular immunotherapy that
has completed two Phase III trials for the treatment of
asymptomatic, metastatic, androgen-independent prostate cancer.


DENTSPLY INT'L: Appellate Court Reverses Decertification Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeals has issued a ruling reversing the
decertification of a purported class-action lawsuit that accuses
DENTSPLY International, Inc., of misrepresenting its Cavitron
ultrasonic scalers, according to the company's Feb. 22, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On June 18, 2004, Marvin Weinstat, D.D.S. and Richard Nathan,
D.D.S. filed a class action suit in San Francisco County,
California alleging that the company misrepresented that its
Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers are suitable for use in oral
surgical procedures.

The Complaint seeks a recall of the product and refund of its
purchase price to dentists who have purchased it for use in oral
surgery.

The Court certified the case as a class action in June 15, 2006,
with respect to the breach of warranty and unfair business
practices claims.

The class is defined as California dental professionals who
purchased and used one or more Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers for
the performance of oral surgical procedures.

The company filed a motion for decertification of the class and
this motion was granted.  Plaintiffs appealed the decertification
of the class to the California Court of Appeals and the Court of
Appeals has reversed the decertification decision of the trial
Court.

The Company is planning on filing a Petition for Review of the
Court of Appeals decision with the California Supreme Court.

DENTSPLY International, Inc. -- http://www.dentsply.com/-- is a  
designer, developer, manufacturer and marketer of a range of
products for the dental market.


DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Court Dismisses Two Plaintiffs Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
has granted the motion of DENTSPLY International, Inc., dismiss
the claims of Drs. Carole Hildebrand and Robert Jaffin for lack
of standing, according to the company's Feb. 22, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On December 12, 2006, a complaint was filed by Carole Hildebrand,
D.D.S. and Robert Jaffin, D.D.S. in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.  The Plaintiffs subsequently added Dr. Mitchell
Goldman as a named class representative.

The case was filed by the same law firm that filed the Weinstat
case in California.

The Complaint asserts putative class action claims on behalf of
dentists located in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

The Complaint seeks damages and asserts that the company's
Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scaler was negligently designed and sold
in breach of contract and warranty arising from
misrepresentations about the potential uses of the product
because it cannot assure the delivery of potable or sterile
water.

Plaintiffs have filed their Motion for class certification to
which the company has filed its response.

The company also filed other motions, including a Motion to
dismiss the claims of Drs. Hildebrand and Jaffin for lack of
standing, which Motion was recently granted by the Court.

The suit is "Hilderbrand, et al. v. Dentsply International, et
al., Case No. 2:06-cv-05439-RBS," (E.D. Penn.) (Barclay, J.).

Representing the plaintiff is:

        Alan Klein, Esq.
        Duane Morris LLP
        30 South 17th St.
        Philadelphia, PA 19103-4196
        Phone: 215-979-1000
        Fax: 215-979-1020
        E-mail: aklein@duanemorris.com

Representing the defendants is:

        Richard G. Placey
        Montgomery, Mccracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP
        123 S. Broad St., 24th Floor
        Philadelphia, PA 19109
        Phone: 215-772-7424
        E-mail: rplacey@mmwr.com


DENTSPLY INT'L: Plaintiffs Appeal Claims Dismissal in Del. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of their claims
against DENTSPLY International, Inc., by the U.S. District Court
for the District of Delaware remains pending in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, according to the company's Feb.
22, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Jan. 5, 1999, the Department of Justice filed a Complaint
against the company in the U.S. District Court in Wilmington,
Delaware alleging that the company's tooth distribution practices
violated the antitrust laws and seeking an order for the Company
to discontinue its practices.  This case has been concluded and
the District Court, upon the direction of the Court of Appeals,
issued an injunction in May 2006, preventing DENTSPLY from taking
action to restrict its tooth dealers in the U.S. from adding new
competitive teeth lines.

Subsequent to the Department of Justice's filing of a complaint
in 1999, several private party class actions were commenced
based on allegations similar to those in the DoJ case, on behalf
of dental laboratories, and denture patients in 17 states who
purchased Trubyte teeth or products containing Trubyte teeth.

These cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware.  The private party suits seek damages in an
unspecified amount.

At the company's behest, the Court declared the lack of standing
of the laboratory and patient class action suits to pursue
damage claims.

The plaintiffs in the laboratory case appealed this decision to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which largely
upheld the decision of the District Court in dismissing the
plaintiffs' damages claims against DENTSPLY, with the exception
of allowing the plaintiffs to pursue a damage claim based on a
theory of resale price maintenance between the company and its
tooth dealers.

The plaintiffs then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the
Third Circuit's decision, but the request was denied.

The plaintiffs in the laboratory case filed an amended complaint
asserting that DENTSPLY and its tooth dealers, and the dealers
among themselves, engaged in a conspiracy to violate the
antitrust laws.

DENTSPLY and the dealers have filed motions to dismiss the
plaintiffs' new claims, except for the resale price maintenance
claims.

The District Court granted the motions filed by DENTSPLY and the
dealers, leaving only the resale price maintenance claim.  
The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their claims to the
Third Circuit.

The Third Circuit held oral arguments in January 2010 and the
company is awaiting a decision.

Additionally, manufacturers of two competitive tooth lines and a
dealer, as a putative class action, have filed separate actions
seeking damages alleged to have been incurred as a result of the
company's tooth distribution practice found to be a violation of
the antitrust law.  This case is currently scheduled for trial in
May 2010 and the Plaintiffs have submitted their expert's report,
which claims single damages in the range of $1.6 million to $4.2
million.

DENTSPLY International, Inc. -- http://www.dentsply.com/-- is a  
designer, developer, manufacturer and marketer of a range of
products for the dental market.


ELI LILLY: Faces "Fecho" Suit in Washington
-------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company faces a suit captioned Michele Fecho, et al
v. Eli Lilly and Company, et al., filed in the U.S. District
Court in Washington, D.C., according to the company's Feb. 22,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The suit was filed in Dec. 30, 2009, against Lilly and other
manufacturers seeking to assert product liability claims on
behalf of a putative class of men and women allegedly exposed to
drug-eluting stents who claim to have later developed breast
cancer.

Eli Lilly and Company -- http://www.lilly.com/-- discovers,  
develops, manufactures, and sells products in one business
segment, pharmaceutical products.  The company also has an animal
health business segment.  It manufactures and distributes its
products through facilities in the United States, Puerto Rico,
and 17 other countries.  Its products are sold in approximately
128 countries.  The company's products include Neuroscience
products, Endocrinology products, Oncology products,
Cardiovascular products, Animal health products, and other
pharmaceuticals.  In the United States, Eli Lilly and Company
distributes pharmaceutical products principally through
independent wholesale distributors, with some sales directly to
pharmacies.


ELI LILLY: "Schaefer-LaRose" Plaintiffs' Appeal Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the summary
judgment decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana in the matter Schaefer-LaRose, et al. v. Eli
Lilly and Company, is still pending, according to the company's
Feb. 22, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The company has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York,
claiming that its pharmaceutical sales representatives should
have been categorized as "non-exempt" rather than "exempt"
employees, and claiming that the company owes them back wages for
overtime worked, as well as penalties, interest, and attorneys'
fees.  The suit was filed Nov. 14, 2006.

Other pharmaceutical industry participants face identical
lawsuits.

The case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana in August 2007.

In February 2008, the Indianapolis court conditionally certified
a nationwide opt-in collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of all current and former employees who served as a
Lilly pharmaceutical sales representative at any time from
November 2003 to the present.  As of the close of the opt-in
period, fewer than 400 of the over 7,500 potential plaintiffs
elected to participate in the lawsuit.

In September 2009, the District Court granted the company's
motion for summary judgment with regard to Ms. Schaefer-LaRose's
claims and ordered the plaintiffs to demonstrate why the entire
collective action should not be decertified within 30 days.

Plaintiffs have filed a motion for reconsideration of the summary
judgment decision and have also opposed decertification, and all
other matters have been stayed pending a ruling on these issues.

If summary judgment is not reconsidered, the company expects the
plaintiffs will appeal the ruling to the 7th Circuit Court of
Appeals.

Eli Lilly and Company -- http://www.lilly.com/-- discovers,  
develops, manufactures, and sells products in one business
segment, pharmaceutical products.  The company also has an animal
health business segment.  It manufactures and distributes its
products through facilities in the United States, Puerto Rico,
and 17 other countries.  Its products are sold in approximately
128 countries.  The company's products include Neuroscience
products, Endocrinology products, Oncology products,
Cardiovascular products, Animal health products, and other
pharmaceuticals.  In the United States, Eli Lilly and Company
distributes pharmaceutical products principally through
independent wholesale distributors, with some sales directly to
pharmacies.


ELI LILLY: California Suit Stayed Pending Issue Resolution
----------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action suit against Eli Lilly and Company
remains stayed pending a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit on the issue addressing the exempt status
of pharmaceutical sales representatives, according to the
company's Feb. 22, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

In September 2009, one of the opt-in plaintiffs in the matter
Schaefer-LaRose, et al v. Eli Lilly and Company filed an action
in the Superior Court for Alameda County, California, alleging on
behalf of a putative class that the company violated California's
Business and Professions Code by failing to pay sales
representatives overtime and by not providing them with rest and
meal breaks under California law.

After removing the lawsuit to the federal district court in the
Northern District of California, the parties agreed, and the
Court ordered, that the lawsuit would be stayed pending a
decision from the 9th Circuit in one of the other several
lawsuits addressing the exempt status of pharmaceutical sales
representatives.

Eli Lilly and Company -- http://www.lilly.com/-- discovers,  
develops, manufactures, and sells products in one business
segment, pharmaceutical products.  The company also has an animal
health business segment.  It manufactures and distributes its
products through facilities in the United States, Puerto Rico,
and 17 other countries.  Its products are sold in approximately
128 countries.  The company's products include Neuroscience
products, Endocrinology products, Oncology products,
Cardiovascular products, Animal health products, and other
pharmaceuticals.  In the United States, Eli Lilly and Company
distributes pharmaceutical products principally through
independent wholesale distributors, with some sales directly to
pharmacies.


ELI LILLY: Appeal on Certification Ruling Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company's appeal on the class certification order
in a consolidated lawsuit over Zyprexa remains pending in the
U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the company's
Feb. 22, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In 2005, two lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York purporting to be nationwide
class actions on behalf of all consumers and third-party payors,
excluding governmental entities, which have made or will make
payments for their members or insured patients being prescribed
Zyprexa.

These actions have been consolidated into a single lawsuit, which
is brought under certain state consumer protection statutes, the
federal civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
statute, and common law theories, seeking a refund of the cost of
Zyprexa, treble damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.

Two additional lawsuits were filed in the Court in 2006 on
similar grounds.

In September 2008, the Hon. Jack B. Weinstein certified a class
consisting of third-party payors, excluding governmental entities
and individual consumers.

The company appealed the certification order, and Judge
Weinstein's order denying the company's motion for summary
judgment, in September 2008.

While the Second Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on
the appeal in December 2009, no opinions have been rendered.

                       PETF Claims

In 2007, The Pennsylvania Employees Trust Fund brought claims in
state court in Pennsylvania as insurer of Pennsylvania state
employees, who were prescribed Zyprexa on similar grounds as
described in the New York cases.  In general, these lawsuits
allege that the company inadequately tested for and warned about
side effects of Zyprexa and
improperly promoted the drug.

In December 2009, the court granted the company's summary
judgment motion, dismissing the case.  Plaintiffs have appealed
this decision.

Eli Lilly and Company -- http://www.lilly.com/-- discovers,  
develops, manufactures, and sells products in one business
segment, pharmaceutical products.  The company also has an animal
health business segment.  It manufactures and distributes its
products through facilities in the United States, Puerto Rico,
and 17 other countries.  Its products are sold in approximately
128 countries.  The company's products include Neuroscience
products, Endocrinology products, Oncology products,
Cardiovascular products, Animal health products, and other
pharmaceuticals.  In the United States, Eli Lilly and Company
distributes pharmaceutical products principally through
independent wholesale distributors, with some sales directly to
pharmacies.


ELI LILLY: In Discussions to Resolve Canadian Zyprexa Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company is currently in advanced discussions to
resolve all Zyprexa class-action litigation in Canada, acording
to the company's Feb. 22, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

In early 2005, the company served with four lawsuits seeking
class action status in Canada on behalf of patients who took
Zyprexa.

One of these four lawsuits has been certified for residents of
Quebec, and a second has been certified in Ontario and includes
all Canadian residents except for residents of Quebec and British
Columbia.

The allegations in the Canadian actions are similar to those in
the product liability litigation pending in the U.S.

Eli Lilly and Company -- http://www.lilly.com/-- discovers,  
develops, manufactures, and sells products in one business
segment, pharmaceutical products.  The company also has an animal
health business segment.  It manufactures and distributes its
products through facilities in the United States, Puerto Rico,
and 17 other countries.  Its products are sold in approximately
128 countries.  The company's products include Neuroscience
products, Endocrinology products, Oncology products,
Cardiovascular products, Animal health products, and other
pharmaceuticals.  In the United States, Eli Lilly and Company
distributes pharmaceutical products principally through
independent wholesale distributors, with some sales directly to
pharmacies.


EQUINIX INC: Seeks Court Approval of Settlement Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------
Equinix, Inc., continues to pursue court approval of an agreement
settling three lawsuits in connection with its planned merger
with Switch & Data Facilities Company, Inc., according to the
company's Feb. 22, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

On Oct. 27, 2009, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the Delaware Chancery Court against Switch and Data,
members of Switch and Data's board of directors, Sundance
Acquisition Corporation and Equinix.

The lawsuit, Gibbs v. Switch & Data Facilities Company, Inc., et
al. (Case No. 5027-VCS), alleges that the members of Switch and
Data's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to
Switch and Data's stockholders in connection with the proposed
merger by, among other things, entering into the Merger Agreement
without first taking steps to obtain adequate, fair and maximum
consideration for Switch and Data's stockholders, by structuring
the transaction to benefit themselves and by including provisions
intended to dissuade other potential suitors from making
competing offers.

On Oct. 30, 2009, a second purported stockholder class action
lawsuit, Jiannaras v. Switch & Data Facilities Company, Inc., et
al. (Case No. 09-CA-027950), was filed against the same
defendants in a Hillsborough County, Florida state court.  The
complaint alleges that the members of Switch and Data's board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties to Switch and Data's
stockholders by, among other things, failing to take steps to
maximize the value of Switch and Data to its public stockholders,
failing to value properly Switch and Data, failing to protect
against the directors' conflicts of interest and failing to
disclose all material information to allow a fully informed vote
by the stockholders.

On Dec. 7, 2009, a third purported stockholder class action
lawsuit, Broadbased Equities v. Keith Olsen, et al. (Case No.
8:09-CV-02473), was filed against the same defendants (other than
Sundance Acquisition Corporation, which was not named) in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.  The
complaint alleges that the defendants have provided materially
incomplete information to Switch and Data stockholders in the
Proxy Statement, that Switch and Data's Chief Executive Officer
and President sought to advance his own interests at the expense
of Switch and Data stockholders in connection with the merger,
and that Switch and Data's directors breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the merger, including by agreeing to
provisions in the Merger Agreement intended to dissuade other
potential suitors from making competing offers.

On Jan. 19, 2010, counsel for parties in all three lawsuits
entered into a memorandum of understanding in which they agreed
upon the terms of a settlement of all three lawsuits. In
connection with this settlement, the three lawsuits and all
claims asserted therein are expected to be dismissed with
prejudice. The memorandum of understanding provides that the
parties will seek approval of the settlement in Florida state
court and that simultaneously, the parties will agree to stay the
actions pending in the Delaware Chancery Court and the Florida

On Jan. 19, 2010, counsel for parties in all three lawsuits
entered into a memorandum of understanding in which they agreed
upon the terms of a settlement of all lawsuits.

In connection with this settlement, the three lawsuits and all
claims asserted therein would be dismissed with prejudice,
including the claims brought against Switch and Data and its
directors.

The parties will seek approval of the settlement in the Florida
state court; simultaneously, the parties will agree to stay the
actions pending in the Delaware Chancery Court and the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

The proposed settlement is conditional upon, among other things,
the execution of an appropriate stipulation of settlement,
consummation of the merger and final approval of the proposed
settlement by the Florida state court.  The proposed settlement
contemplates that plaintiffs' counsel will apply to the Florida
state court for an award of attorneys' fees and costs in an
aggregate amount of $900,000, and that the defendants will not
oppose or undermine this application.   The company expects that
approximately 70% of these attorneys' fees will be paid by
insurance maintained by Switch and Data, and that the company
will pay the remainder.

Equinix, Inc. -- http://www.equinix.com/-- provides network-
neutral colocation, interconnection and managed information
technology infrastructure services to enterprises, content
providers and financial companies.  Through its International
Business Exchange (IBX) data centers, across 18 markets in North
America, Europe and Asia-Pacific, customers directly interconnect
with a network ecosystem of partners and customers.  Its services
comprises colocation, interconnection and managed IT
infrastructure services.  Colocation services include cabinets,
power, operations space and storage space for customers'
colocation needs.  Interconnection services include cross
connects, as well as switch ports on the Equinix exchange
service.  Managed IT infrastructure services helps customers to
leverage Equinix's telecommunications.  In February 2008, it
acquired Virtu Secure Webservices B.V.  In May 2009, the company
announced the opening of the second phase expansion of its New
York-4 IBX data center in Secaucus, New Jersey.


FIRSTMERIT BANK: Class OK'd in Ponzi Scheme Money Laundering Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Akron Beacon Journal reports that a lawsuit against
FirstMerit Bank alleging it facilitated a Cuyahoga County, Ohio,
woman's fraudulent and illegal promissory note scheme has been
given class-action status.

Last week, Cuyahoga Common Pleas Judge John P. O'Donnell agreed
to allow the victims of Joanne Schneider to form a class-action
suit against FirstMerit in an effort to recover about $60.5
million they had collectively invested with and lost from Ms.
Schneider.

According to the plaintiff's complaint, Ms. Schneider used a
checking account at the Strongsville branch of FirstMerit to
"launder" the millions of dollars she stole from her victims.

Ms. Schneider was sentenced to three years in prison last year
for bilking investors out of millions of dollars in what
prosecutors said was a Ponzi scheme.

FirstMerit spokesman Rob Townsend said the company did not
comment about pending litigation.

Patrick O'Donnell at The Plain Dealer reports that although he
allowed the case to move forward as a class, Judge O'Donnell
cautioned that it is unclear if case law will support the
investors' arguments.  Judge O'Donnell turned down First Merit's
request to dismiss the case, but left the door open for throwing
out the case later.

Judge O'Donnell also noted that a class-action case could save
the bank from multiple lawsuits from investors, all rehashing the
same facts.


MERCEDES-BENZ: Notice of Reed Value Litigation Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
A nationwide settlement has been reached in Marsikyan, et al. v.
MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, Case No. 08-cv-04876 (C.D. Calif.) (Matz,
J.).  The lawsuit alleges that the reed valve in the air and
water duct in 2001-2006 model year Mercedes-Benz S-Class (W220)
and CL-Class (W215) vehicles is susceptible to clogging by
leaves, pine needles and other debris, which can cause water to
accumulate in the air/water duct and to overflow into the
passenger compartment, possibly resulting in damage to electrical
and other components.  

Under a proposed settlement agreement, Mercedes-Benz dealers will
include a check, and, if necessary, clearing of the reed valve in
future "A" and "B" service visits, and class members may also be
entitled to reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs for repairs due
to water damage from a clogged reed valve.

This lawsuit was filed in June 2008, and alleges that the reed
valve in the air and water duct (part of the climate control
system) in 2001 through 2006 model year S-Class (W220) and CL-
Class (W215) Mercedes-Benz vehicles is susceptible to clogging by
leaves, pine needles and other debris, which can cause water
(such as in a rainstorm) to overflow into the passenger
compartment, possibly resulting in damage to electrical and other
components. The lawsuit asserts claims against Mercedes-Benz USA,
LLC, the U.S. distributor of Mercedes-Benz vehicles, for breach
of warranty and violation of consumer protection laws. MBUSA
denies any liability for the alleged problem, but has agreed to
enter into a settlement in order to avoid protracted litigation.

On December 21, 2009, the Court preliminarily approved a
nationwide settlement of all claims, which provides certain
benefits to class members as described in the Settlement
Agreement and in the Class Notice, both of which are available at  
http://www.reedvalvesettlement.com/

A Fairness Hearing is currently scheduled for May 17, 2010, at
10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 14 of the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, 312 N. Spring St., Los
Angeles, California 90012.  Information regarding options
available to class members, copies of relevant documents,
including the Claim Form and Release, and important dates and
deadlines are available at http://www.reedvalvesettlement.com/

Class Counsel is:

          Stephen M. Harris, Esq.
          KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE
          550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
          Glendale, CA 91203-1922

               - and -

          Robert L. Starr, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. STARR
          23277 Ventura Boulevard
          Woodland Hills, CA 91364-1002

MBUSA's Counsel is:

          Terri S. Reiskin, Esq.
          WALLACE KING DOMIKE & REISKIN, PLLC
          Harbourside, Suite 500
          2900 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20007-5127

The Claims Administrator is:

          Marsikyan v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
          Claims Administrator
          P.O. Box 6159
          Novato, CA 94948-6159


MERCK & CO: Shareholder Objects to Payment of Class Counsel Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant at the New Jersey Law Journal reports that a law
firm faces conflict allegations over its projected $3.5 million
fee for representing shareholders who obtained no monetary or
equitable relief in a class action settlement over the merger of
drug giants Merck and Schering-Plough.

Class member Allan Marain, Esq., a lawyer in New Brunswick, N.J.,
filed papers last week opposing the settlement, which a federal
judge has tentatively approved, and seeking sanctions against the
firm, Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello in
Roseland, N.J.

The parties settled the claims in In re Schering-Plough/Merck
Merger Litigation, 2:09-cv-1099, last July, and Carella Byrne and
Merck reached the agreement for the $3.5 million fee in talks
with a court-appointed mediator last November.  A final approval
hearing is set for March 24.

Metuchen, N.J., solo Mark Silber, Esq., who represents Mr.
Marain, argues that certifying the class serves no purpose except
to make Carella Byrne eligible for attorney fees. Because the
class members are now holders of Merck stock, they would benefit
more if the class were not certified, because then Carella Byrne
would not be eligible to apply for fees, says Mr. Silber.

"They didn't accomplish anything at all. They go from
representing a class to achieving nothing and wanting their
clients to pay them three-and-a-half million dollars. They
switched their allegiance," says Mr. Silber.

Mr. Silber also seeks sanctions against Carella Byrne under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11(b)(3) for allegedly botching
the class action suit.

The plaintiffs are Schering-Plough stockholders who believe the
company was undervalued in the $41 billion merger. Four suits
that were consolidated with U.S. District Judge Dennis Cavanaugh
cited its product pipeline, current product line and projected
growth in sales and earnings.

When Judge Cavanaugh gave preliminary approval to the settlement
last Dec. 4, he certified the class, consisting of all holders of
Schering-Plough common stock, other than company directors,
between March 8, 2009, and Nov. 3, 2009, the date the merger
closed.

The suits claimed that Schering's directors breached their
fiduciary duty to stockholders when they approved the merger.
Schering-Plough shareholders received 0.5767 shares of Merck
stock and $10.50 in cash for each Schering-Plough share.

In addition to monetary damages, the consolidated suit asked for
the merger to be stopped, or set aside if it were consummated.
The complaint also asked for Schering to correct "material
deficiencies" in the proxy statement issued before that company's
stockholders voted on the deal.

In particular, the suit said the proxy lacked information on the
process leading to the Schering-Plough board's approval of the
merger, fees paid to Schering-Plough's and Merck's financial
advisers in connection with the merger, the March 12 announcement
of Phase II trial results for Schering-Plough's new thrombin-
receptor-antagonist drug and the potential impact of the merger
on Schering-Plough's joint venture relating to the drug Remicade.

Schering did make additional disclosures on those topics to the
Securities & Exchange Commission as a result of the suit. The
disclosures are listed in an exhibit to the settlement agreement.

But the settlement provides no recovery for the shareholders,
which the objectors say was the product of the Carella Byrne
lawyers hurriedly bringing litigation that lacked "evidentiary
support" shortly after the merger.

"This case, as handled by Class Counsel, is the reason people and
legislatures across the country call for tort reform, and
"explains why industry and business in America and in particular,
in New Jersey is choked to death with frivolous litigation.
Defendants obviously have agreed that it's cheaper to pay $3.5
million to settle this case than to continue to fight it, even
though Class Counsel virtually concedes it is going nowhere," Mr.
Silber states.

Mr. Silber urges the court to "protect citizens from the abuse of
self-serving lawyers who, somewhere during their careers, lose
their sense of fiduciary obligation to their clients, the public
good and their oath of office."

The Carella Byrne lawyer on the case, James Cecchi, Esq., says
"the objection is entirely devoid of merit" and "we will respond
in writing to the court."

Mr. Cecchi said his firm earned its keep by obtaining the
additional disclosures, made available before shareholders voted
on approving the settlement.

"In this case, the plaintiffs achieved the fullest extent of what
could have been achieved for company shareholders, and provided a
benefit that fully vindicated [their] rights. Indeed, the right
of shareholders to cast a fully-informed vote is the sacrosanct
principle of the shareholder franchise," Mr. Cecchi says.

Merck's lawyer in the case, Maureen Ruane, Esq., of Lowenstein
Sandler in Roseland, N.J., did not return a call.  Merck
spokesman Ronald Rogers declines to comment.


NATIONAL WESTERN: Agrees to Settle California Suit for $17 Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
National Western Life Insurance Company has reached a settlement
agreement with the plaintiffs and plaintiff in intervention
(California Department of Insurance) who filed a class action
lawsuit against the company in the State of California, according
to the company's Feb. 22, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a statewide class of
purchasers aged 65 and over who made various allegations on
select company annuity products.  National Western denies
liability for the claims asserted by the plaintiff in
intervention and the plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the
class.

The settlement agreement, subject to preliminary and final court
approval, will provide a settlement benefit of approximately
$17 million.

The settlement amount will be charged against the company's
operating results for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, which are
scheduled to be reported on or before March 16, 2010.

National Western Life Insurance Company is a stock life insurance
company with assets in excess of $7.3 billion and stockholders'
equity of $1.1 billion, as of September 30, 2009.

National Western Life Insurance Company --
https://www.nationalwesternlife.com/ -- is a stock life insurance
company and doing business in 49 states, the District of
Columbia, and four United States territories or possessions.  The
company is also licensed in Haiti, and although not otherwise
licensed, accepts applications from and issues policies to
residents of various countries in Central and South America, the
Caribbean, the Pacific Rim, Eastern Europe and Asia.  Such
policies are underwritten, accepted, and issued in the United
States upon applications submitted by independent contractors.  
It provides life insurance products for the savings and
protection needs of approximately 148,000 policyholders and for
the asset accumulation and retirement needs of 117,000 annuity
contract holders.  It offers a portfolio of individual whole
life, universal life and term insurance plans, and annuities,
including supplementary riders.  It manages its business between
Domestic Insurance Operations and International Insurance
Operations.


NETFLIX INC: California Court Dismisses "Nunez" Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court, County, has dismissed a purported
class-action lawsuit filed by Jay Nunez, against Netflix, Inc.,
according to the company's Feb. 22, 2010, 2009, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On April 1, 2009, Jay Nunez, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated in California, filed a purported class action
lawsuit against the company in California Superior Court, County
of Orange.

The complaint asserts claims of unlawful, unfair and deceptive
business practices and violation of the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act relating to certain of the Company's marketing
statements.  The complaint seeks restitution, injunction and
other relief.

On July 14, 2009, the company filed a demurrer to the first
amended complaint.  On Aug. 21, 2009, the Court granted the
company's demurrer and granted leave to amend.

Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on Sept. 11, 2009.

On Nov. 30, 2009, plaintiff filed a voluntary request for
dismissal.

As set forth in the declaration of plaintiff's counsel in support
of dismissal, neither plaintiff nor his counsel has received or
will receive any compensation or other consideration from Netflix
or any other entity as a result of the voluntary dismissal of
this action.

On Dec. 18, 2009, the Court dismissed the action.

Netflix, Inc. -- http://www.netflix.com/-- provides online movie  
rental subscription service in the United States to approximately
10 million subscribers.  The company offers a variety of plans
and provides subscribers access to over 100,000 digital versatile
disc (DVD) and Blu-ray titles plus more than 12,000 streaming
content choices.


NETFLIX INC: Defends Subscriber Privacy Violations Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Netflix, Inc., faces a purported class action lawsuit alleging
violation of subscribers' privacy rights, according to the
company's Feb. 22, 2010, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

On Dec. 17, 2009, plaintiffs Jane Doe, Nelly Valdez-Marquez,
Anthony Sinopoli, and Paul Navarro filed a purported class action
lawsuit against the company in the U.S. District Court, District
of Northern California, Case No. C09-05903 on behalf of:

     (1) a nationwide class consisting of "all Netflix
         subscribers that rented a Netflix movie and also rated
         a movie on the Netflix website during the period of
         October 1998 through December 2005, residing in the
         United States,"

     (2) a subclass of California residents and

     (3) an injunctive class consisting of "all Netflix
         subscribers since 2006, residing in the United States."

Plaintiffs allege that Netflix breached the privacy rights of its
subscribers by, among other things, releasing certain data in
connection with the "Netflix Prize" contest.

Plaintiffs have brought this action pursuant to the Video Privacy
Protection Act, 18 U.S.C.   2710; California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, Civil Code Section 1750; California Customer
Records Act, Civil Code Section 1798.80; California's Unfair
Competition Law, Bus. & Prof'l Code Sections 17200, 17500; and
common law actions for Unjust Enrichment and Public Disclosure of
Private Facts.

Plaintiffs are seeking declaratory relief; statutory, actual and
punitive damages; disgorgement of profits; and injunctive relief.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
          David A. Stampley, Esq.
          KAMBEREDELSON, LLC
          11 Broadway, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: 212-920-3072

               - and -  

          Joseph H. Malley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH H. MALLEY
          1045 North Zang Blvd.
          Dallas, TX 75208
          Telephone: 214-943-6100

               - and -  

          David Parisi, Esq.
          Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq.
          PARISI & HAVENS LLP
          15233 Valleyheart Drive
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: 818-990-1299


NETFLIX INC: Continues to Face Antitrust Suit Over DVD Sales
------------------------------------------------------------
Netflix, Inc., continues to defend a purported class-action
lawsuit claiming that the company, along with Wal-Mart Stores
Inc., and Walmart.com USA LLC, colluded to divide the rental and
retail markets for DVDs, thus driving up Netflix subscription
prices allowing Wal-Mart to overcharge for DVD sales.

In January through April of 2009, a number of purported anti-
trust class action suits were filed against the company.  Wal-
Mart Stores, Inc. and Walmart.com USA LLC, collectively, Wal-
Mart, were also named as defendants in these suits.

Most of the suits were filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California and other federal
district courts around the country.

A number of suits were filed in the Superior Court of the State
of California, Santa Clara County.  The plaintiffs, who are
current or former Netflix customers, generally allege that
Netflix and Wal-Mart entered into an agreement to divide the
markets for sales and online rentals of DVDs in the United
States, which resulted in higher Netflix subscription prices.

The complaints, which assert violation of federal and/or state
antitrust laws, seek injunctive relief, costs, including
attorneys' fees, and damages in an unspecified amount.

On April 10, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered all cases pending in federal court transferred to the
Northern District of California to be consolidated or coordinated
for pre-trial purposes.

These cases have been assigned the multidistrict litigation
number MDL-2029.

The cases pending in the Superior Court of the State of
California, Santa Clara County have been consolidated.

In addition, in May of 2009, three additional lawsuits were
filed-two in the Northern District of California and one in the
Superior Court of the State of California, San Mateo County-
alleging identical conduct and seeking identical relief.

In these three cases, the plaintiffs are current or former
subscribers to the online DVD rental service offered by
Blockbuster Inc.

The two cases filed in federal court on behalf of Blockbuster
subscribers have been related to MDL-2029.

The lawsuit filed in Superior Court of the State of California,
San Mateo County has been coordinated with the cases pending in
Santa Clara County.

On Dec. 1, 2009, the federal Court entered an order granting
defendants' motion to dismiss the two federal cases filed on
behalf of Blockbuster subscribers.  Plaintiffs have until March
1, 2010 to file an amended complaint.

The lawsuit filed in Superior Court of the State of California,
San Mateo County has been coordinated with the cases pending in
Santa Clara County, according to the company's Feb. 22, 2010,
2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Netflix, Inc. -- http://www.netflix.com/-- provides online movie  
rental subscription service in the United States to approximately
10 million subscribers.  The company offers a variety of plans
and provides subscribers access to over 100,000 digital versatile
disc (DVD) and Blu-ray titles plus more than 12,000 streaming
content choices.


NORTHWEST NATURAL: Accused in Wash. of Deceptive Advertising
------------------------------------------------------------
June Williams at Courthouse News Service reports that L'il
Critters Omega-3 Gummy Fish have "very little, if any, of the
omega-3 fatty acids" bruited on the label, a class action claims
in King County Court.  The class objects to defendant Northwest
Natural plugging its product as "Smart Gummies for Smart Kids,"
and a "Brain Booster."

The class action comes as the FDA announced a campaign of its own
against companies, some of them giants, that push their products
with misleading claims about their nutritional value.

In the Gummy Fish case, the class says Northwest Natural labels
its treat as having DHA omega-3, which is "widely recognized for
its association with healthy brain development and function in
both children and adults."

But the class claims, "Instead of DHA, Omega-3 Gummy Fish contain
primarily, if not exclusively, ALA.  This is significant because
ALA is not associated with healthy brain development and/or
function."

The four named plaintiffs say they were duped by Northwest
Natural's deceptive advertising and seek damages for unlawful
business practices, breach of warranty, conversion and unjust
enrichment.  

A copy of the Complaint in Aust, et al. v. Northwest Natural
Products, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-2-07949-1 (Wash. Super. Ct.,
King Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/05/GumyFish.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Douglas C. McDermott, Esq.
          MCDERMOTT NEWMAN, PLLC
          1001 Fourth Ave., Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98154
          Telephone: 206-749-9296


PEPSI BOTTLING: April 12 Hearing Set for Settlement Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware has set an
April 12, 2010, hearing to consider approval of the Stipulation
and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement, and Release, in a
consolidated suit against The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc.,
according to the company's Feb. 22, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 26, 2009.

                     PepsiCo Offer

On April 19, 2009, the company received an unsolicited proposal
from PepsiCo to acquire all of the outstanding shares of the
company's common stock not already owned by PepsiCo for $29.50
per share.  The proposal consisted of $14.75 in cash plus 0.283
shares of PepsiCo common stock for each share of PBG common
stock.  Immediately following receipt of the proposal, PBG's
Board of Directors formed a special committee to review the
adequacy of the proposal.  On May 4, 2009, the company's Board of
Directors rejected the proposal.

On Aug. 3, 2009, the company and PepsiCo entered into a
definitive merger agreement, under which PepsiCo will acquire all
outstanding shares of the company common stock it does not
already own for the price of $36.50 in cash or 0.6432 shares of
PepsiCo common stock, subject to proration such that the
aggregate consideration to be paid to PBG shareholders shall be
50 percent in cash and 50 percent in PepsiCo common stock.  At a
special meeting of our shareholders held on Feb. 17, 2010, our
shareholders adopted the merger agreement.  The transaction is
subject to certain regulatory approvals and is expected to be
finalized by the end of the first quarter of 2010.

                   Delaware Actions

Beginning on April 22, 2009, seven putative stockholder class
action complaints challenging the April 19 proposal were filed
against the company and the individual members of the Board of
Directors of the company in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware.

The complaints alleged, among other things, that the defendants
had breached or would breach their fiduciary duties owed to the
public stockholders of the company in connection with the April
19 proposal.  The Delaware Lawsuits were consolidated on June 5,
2009, and an amended complaint was filed on June 19, 2009.

The amended complaint seeks, among other things, damages and
declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief alleging,
among other things, that the defendants have breached or will
breach their fiduciary duties owed to the public stockholders of
the company, that the April 19 proposal and the transactions
contemplated thereunder were not entirely fair to the public
stockholders, that PepsiCo had retaliated or would retaliate
against the company for rejecting the April 19 proposal, and that
certain provisions of the company's certificate of incorporation
are invalid and/or inapplicable to the April 19 proposal and the
pending merger.

On July 23, 2009, motions for partial summary judgment were filed
concerning the plaintiffs' allegations relating to the company's
certificate of incorporation.  On Aug. 31, 2009, the Court of
Chancery entered a Stipulation and Order Governing the Protection
and Exchange of Confidential Information in each of the Delaware
Lawsuits.  Shortly thereafter, defendants began producing
documents to co-lead plaintiffs in these actions.

On Nov. 20, 2009, the parties to the Delaware Lawsuits entered
into the Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement, and
Release.

              Westchester County Actions

Beginning on April 29, 2009, two putative stockholder class
action complaints were filed against the company and members of
the company's Board of Directors in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of Westchester.

The complaints seek, among other things, damages and declaratory,
injunctive, and other equitable relief and allege, among other
things, that the defendants have breached or will breach their
fiduciary duties owed to the public stockholders of the company,
that the April 19 proposal and the transactions contemplated
thereunder were not entirely fair to the public stockholders of
the company, and that the defensive measures implemented by the
Company were not being used to maximize stockholder value.

On June 8, 2009, the company filed Motions to Dismiss (or, in the
alternative, to Stay), the actions in favor of the previously
filed actions pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery.  As of
June 26, 2009, the company's Motions were fully briefed and
submitted to the Court.

On Oct. 19, 2009, the parties to the two Westchester County
actions entered into a stipulation staying the Westchester County
actions in favor of the Delaware Lawsuits.  On Oct. 21, 2009, the
court entered an order staying the two Westchester County actions
pending resolution of the Delaware Lawsuits.  On Nov. 20, 2009,
the parties to the two Westchester County actions entered into
the Settlement Stipulation.

                 New York County Actions

On May 8, 2009, a putative stockholder class action complaint was
filed against the company and the members of the Board of
Directors of the company other than John C. Compton and Cynthia
M. Trudell in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County
of New York.

The complaint alleged that the defendants had breached their
fiduciary duties owed to the public stockholders of the company
by depriving those stockholders of the full and fair value of
their shares by failing to accept PepsiCo's April 19 proposal to
acquire the Company or to negotiate with PepsiCo after that
proposal was made and by adopting certain defensive measures.

On June 8, 2009, the company filed Motions to Dismiss (or, in the
alternative, to Stay) this action in favor of the previously
filed actions pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The
plaintiff failed to file a timely opposition to the Motion.

On Aug. 10, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended class action
complaint, adding as defendants PepsiCo, Mr. Compton and Ms.
Trudell.  The amended complaint seeks, among other things,
damages and declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief
and alleges, among other things, that the defendants have
breached or will breach their fiduciary duties owed to the public
stockholders of the company and that the pending merger is not
entirely fair to the public stockholders of the company.

On Aug. 27, 2009, the company again filed Motions to Dismiss (or,
in the alternative, to Stay) this action in favor of the
previously filed actions pending in the Delaware Court of
Chancery.

On Oct. 2, 2009, the parties to the New York County action
entered into a stipulation providing that this action should be
voluntarily stayed for 45 days while plaintiff's counsel
conferred with co-lead counsel in the Delaware Lawsuits and that
the defendants' motion to dismiss or stay should be adjourned
during the voluntary stay.

Also on Oct. 2, 2009, the court entered an order staying the New
York County action for 45 days while plaintiff's counsel
conferred with co-lead counsel in the Delaware Lawsuit.

On Nov. 13, 2009, the parties to the New York County action
entered into a stipulation providing that the action should be
voluntarily stayed pending resolution of the Delaware Lawsuits.  
On Nov. 20, 2009, the parties to the New York County action
entered into the Settlement Stipulation.

On Dec. 2, 2009, the court entered an order staying the New York
County action pending resolution of the Delaware Lawsuits.

            Settlement of Shareholder Litigation

On Nov. 20, 2009, the parties to the Delaware Lawsuits, as well
as the parties to the three actions pending in the Supreme Court
of the State of New York, entered into a Settlement Stipulation
to resolve all of these actions.

Pursuant to the Settlement Stipulation, and in exchange for the
releases, defendants have taken or will take the following
actions, among others:

     (1) PepsiCo and the company have included and will continue
         to include co-lead counsel in the disclosure process
         (including providing them with the opportunities to
         review and comment on drafts of the preliminary and
         final proxy statements/prospectuses before they were or
         are filed with the SEC);

     (2) PepsiCo agreed to reduce the termination fee set forth
         in the merger agreement from $165.3 million to
         $115 million; and

     (3) PepsiCo agreed to shorten the termination fee period
         set forth in the merger agreement from 12 months to 6
         months. The settlement is conditioned on satisfaction
         by co-lead counsel that the disclosures made in
         connection with the pending merger are not materially
         omissive or misleading.

Pursuant to the Settlement Stipulation, the Delaware Lawsuits
will be dismissed with prejudice on the merits, the plaintiffs in
the New York actions will voluntarily dismiss those actions with
prejudice, and all defendants will be released from any and all
claims relating to, among other things, the pending merger, the
merger agreement, and any disclosures made in connection
therewith.

The Settlement Stipulation is subject to customary conditions,
including consummation of the merger, completion of certain
confirmatory discovery, class certification, and final approval
by the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware following
notice to the company's shareholders.

On Dec. 2, 2009, the Court of Chancery entered an order setting
forth the schedule and procedures for notice to our shareholders
and the court's review of the settlement.  The Court of Chancery
scheduled a hearing for April 12, 2010, at which the court will
consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the
settlement.

The settlement will not affect the form or amount of the
consideration to be received by the company's shareholders in the
pending merger.

The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc. -- http://www.pbg.com/-- is a  
wholly owned subsidiary of PepsiCo, Inc.  PBG operates carbonated
soft drinks and other ready-to-drink beverages.  It conducts
business in all or a portion of the United States, Mexico,
Canada, Spain, Russia, Greece and Turkey.  PBG is the
manufacturer, seller and distributor of Pepsi-Cola beverages.  In
some of its territories the company has the right to manufacture,
sell and distribute soft drink products of companies other than
PepsiCo, including Dr Pepper, Crush and Squirt.  It also has the
right in some of its territories to manufacture, sell and
distribute beverages under trademarks that PBG owns, including
Electropura, e-puramr and Garci Crespo.


PINELLAS COUNTY: Fla. App. Ct. Says Class Should Be Certified
-------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Appeal of Florida concluded last week in
Morgan v. Coats, Case No. 2D09-1352, that the trial court erred
by denying Douglas J. Morgan's motion for class certification.  
The appellate tribunal held that Mr. Morgan sufficiently met the
commonality and typicality requirements as well as the
predominancy and superiority requirements.

Mr. Morgan appealed from an order denying his motion for class
certification in a lawsuit against Jim Coats, the Pinellas County
sheriff, asserting claims for breach of an oral contract, quantum
meruit, and unjust enrichment; all the claims pertained to his
prior employment as a detention deputy for the sheriff's office.
He thereafter sought class certification on behalf of all
detention deputies who worked standard 8-1/2-hour shifts during
the two years preceding the filing of the complaint. It appears
from the trial court's order that after a careful analysis of the
facts and thoughtful discernment of the law, the circuit court
denied class certification on the basis that Mr. Morgan failed to
prove the commonality and typicality prongs of the class
certification test.  The circuit court also found that Mr. Morgan
failed to prove that common issues predominated over individual
questions and that class action status was the superior means of
adjudicating the controversy.  However, the appellate court
concluded that in making these findings, the circuit court erred.

A copy of the decision is available for free at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=inflco20100305175

Mr. Morgan is represented by:

          Brandon S. Vesely, Esq.
          Michael J. Keane, Esq.
          KEANE, REESE, VESELY & GERDES, P.A.
          Veritas Courtyard
          770 Second Avenue South
          Saint Petersburg, FL 33701
          Telephone: 727.823.5000

The County is represented by:

          Richard C. McCrea, Jr., Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
          Courthouse Plaza, Suite 100
          625 East Twiggs Street
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: 813.318.5700


PULTE HOMES: Union's NLRB Proceeding Dismissed with Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pulte Homes, Inc., disclosed last week that the National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB) for Region 28 has dismissed a charge filed
by the Laborers' International Union of North America (LiUNA)
that alleged Pulte Homes, Inc., violated the National Labor
Relations Act.

LiUNA alleged that Pulte interfered with its subcontractors'
employees' rights to join a union. The NLRB refused to issue a
complaint in the matter, finding that "there is insufficient
evidence to establish that [Pulte] has violated the Act in any
manner." In dismissing LiUNA's charge, the NLRB found the union's
allegations lacked merit, and that "further proceedings are not
warranted."

This dismissal is the third time in the past month that LiUNA has
been rebuked for its misguided and unfounded attacks, according
to the Company. On February 18, the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice
a putative class action lawsuit filed against Pulte that drew
heavily from LiUNA and other union-related reports/lawsuits. One
day earlier, the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri denied a LiUNA motion to dismiss a Pulte
Homes of St. Louis' lawsuit alleging the union and its agents
violated federal and state law when they barged into the
Company's private employee meeting and orchestrated an attack
against employees.

For some time, LiUNA has waged a "corporate campaign" against
Pulte and other large homebuilders, seeking to damage Pulte's
reputation by making false or misleading claims, according to the
Company.  Pulte believes at the root of the issue is LiUNA's need
to increase membership after losing hundreds of thousands of
members over the past decade.  In the case of Pulte, LiUNA is
trying to coerce the Company to force Pulte subcontractors to
sign union agreements and deprive workers of their free choice
regarding whether to join a union.

                         About Pulte Homes

Pulte Homes -- http://www.pulteinc.com/-- is one of America's  
largest home building companies with operations in 69 markets, 29
states and the District of Columbia. In 2009, Pulte Homes brands
received more top rankings than any other homebuilder in the
annual J.D. Power and Associates 2009 New-Home Builder Customer
Satisfaction Studysm. Pulte Mortgage LLC is a nationwide lender
offering Pulte customers a variety of loan products and superior
service.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Appeal to "Brookler" Ruling Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff's appeal of the class decertification ruling in the
class-action lawsuit entitled, Brookler v. RadioShack Corp.,
remains stayed.

The litigation involves allegations that RadioShack violated
California's wage order and labor code relating to the provision
of meal periods.

On Oct. 10, 2008, the Los Angeles County Superior Court granted
RadioShack's second Motion for Class Decertification in the class
action lawsuit.

Plaintiffs' claims that RadioShack violated California's wage and
hour laws relating to meal periods was originally certified as a
class action on Feb. 8, 2006.  RadioShack's first Motion for
Decertification of the class was denied on Aug. 29, 2007.

However, after the California Appellate Court's favorable
decision on similar facts in Brinker Restaurant Corporation v.
Superior Court, RadioShack again sought class decertification.

Based on the California Appellate Court's decision in Brinker,
the trial court granted RadioShack's second motion.

The plaintiffs in Brookler have appealed this ruling.

Due to the unsettled nature of California state law regarding the
standard of liability for meal period violations, RadioShack and
the Brookler plaintiffs agreed to a stay with respect to the
plaintiffs' appeal of the class decertification ruling, pending
the California Appellate court's decision in Brinker.

No further updates were reported in the company's Feb. 22, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

RadioShack Corp. -- http://www.radioshackcorporation.com/-- is  
primarily engaged in the retail sale of consumer electronics
goods and services through its RadioShack store chain and non-
RadioShack branded kiosk operations.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Reaches Agreement to Settle Reimbursements Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
RadioShack Corp. has reached an agreement with the plaintiff to
settle the purported class action lawsuit Richard Stuart v.
RadioShack Corporation, et al., according to the company's Feb.
22, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The suit was filed on June 7, 2007, against RadioShack in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
based on allegations that RadioShack failed to properly reimburse
employees in California for mileage expenses associated with
their use of personal vehicles to make transfers of merchandise
between company stores.

On Feb. 9, 2009, the Court granted the plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification.

Following a mediation held on Oct. 5, 2009, the parties reached a
tentative settlement of the lawsuit subject to court approval.

The parties reached agreement on all terms of the proposed
settlement agreement in January 2010, and the plaintiffs will be
filing a Motion for Preliminary Approval.

RadioShack Corp. -- http://www.radioshackcorporation.com/-- is  
primarily engaged in the retail sale of consumer electronics
goods and services through its RadioShack store chain and non-
RadioShack branded kiosk operations.


REGIONS FIN'L: Faces Suit Over Trust III's Securities Offering
--------------------------------------------------------------
Regions Financial Corp., continues to defend a purported class
action lawsuit filed on behalf of the purchasers of trust
preferred securities offered by Regions Financing Trust III,
according to the company's Feb. 22, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

In April 2009, Regions, Trust III and certain of Regions' current
and former directors, were named in a purported class action
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of the purchasers of trust
preferred securities offered by the Trust III.

The complaint alleges that defendants made statements in Regions'
registration statement, prospectus and year-end filings which
were materially false and misleading.

No class has been certified, and at this stage of the lawsuit
Regions cannot determine the probability of a material adverse
result or reasonably estimate a range of potential exposures, if
any.

Regions Financial Corp. -- http://www.regions.com/-- is a  
financial holding company that operates throughout the South,
Midwest and Texas. The Company provides traditional commercial,
retail and mortgage banking services, as well as other financial
services in the fields of investment banking, asset management,
trust, mutual funds, securities brokerage, insurance and other
specialty financing.


REGIONS FIN'L: Suits by Funds Investors & Shareholders Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class-actions lawsuits filed in federal and state courts on
behalf of investors who purchased shares of certain Regions
Morgan Keegan Select Funds and shareholders of Regions Financial
Corp. remain pending.

The company and certain of its affiliates were named in class-
action lawsuits filed in late 2007 and during 2008.

The complaints contain various allegations, including claims that
the Funds and the defendants misrepresented or failed to
disclose material facts relating to the activities of the Funds.  
No class has been certified.

No further updates wer reported in the company's Feb. 22, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Regions Financial Corp. -- http://www.regions.com/-- is a  
financial holding company that operates throughout the South,
Midwest and Texas. The Company provides traditional commercial,
retail and mortgage banking services, as well as other financial
services in the fields of investment banking, asset management,
trust, mutual funds, securities brokerage, insurance and other
specialty financing.


SOUTH DAKOTA: State Opposes Certification of Indian Voter Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that South Dakota's attorney
general's office has asked a federal judge not to expand a voting
rights lawsuit into a class-action one on behalf of American
Indians in South Dakota.

The lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union alleges that
two women from Pine Ridge where improperly removed from the
voting list when they were convicted of a felony but sentenced
only to probation and not prison time.  It wants to expand the
lawsuit to include more plaintiffs.

Lawyers for the state say the ACLU has failed to provide
information showing there are widespread violations sufficient to
expand the plaintiff class beyond the two women.

The secretary of state and the state elections board are among
the defendants in the lawsuit.


STATE STREET: Faces ERISA-Related Suits in Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------
State Street Corporation faces class action complaints in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act,
according to the company's Feb. 22, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

Two related securities class actions against the company were
commenced between December 2009 and January 2010.

In addition, two participants in the State Street Salary Savings
Program have filed class action complaints purportedly on behalf
of participants and beneficiaries who invested in the program's
State Street stock option.  Those complaints were filed in May
2009 and February 2010.

The complaints, all of which are pending in federal court in
Boston, allege violations of the federal securities laws and
ERISA in connection with the company's foreign exchange trading
business, our investment securities portfolio and our asset-
backed commercial paper conduits program.

State Street Corporation -- http://www.statestreet.com/-- is a  
financial holding company.  The company, through its
subsidiaries, including its banking subsidiary, State Street Bank
and Trust Company provides a range of products and services for
institutional investors worldwide.  The company operates in two
lines of business: Investment Servicing and Investment
Management.  These two lines of business provides services to
support institutional investors, including custody, record
keeping, daily pricing and administration, shareholder services,
foreign exchange, brokerage and other trading services,
securities finance, deposit and short-term investment facilities,
loan and lease financing, investment manager and alternative
investment manager operations outsourcing, performance, risk and
compliance analytics, investment research and investment
management, including passive and active United States and non-
United States equity and fixed-income strategies.


STEEL DYNAMICS: Indiana Court Dismisses "Panasuk" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana has
dismissed an amended complaint alleging securities fraud against
Steel Dynamics, Inc., according to the company's Feb. 22, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.  

On March 18, 2009, the company, together with its Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer, Keith E. Busse, and John Bates, a member
of its board of directors, were served with a complaint,
captioned Panasuk v. Steel Dynamics, Inc., et al., Civil Action
No. 1109cv0066, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, purporting to represent
a class of purchasers of Steel Dynamics common stock between Jan.
26, 2009 and March 11, 2009.

The complaint, which was amended on July 13, 2009, alleges
securities fraud in connection with the company's issuance of
certain earnings guidance and seeks damages in an unspecified
amount.

On Aug. 31, 2009, the company and Messrs. Busse and Bates filed
Motions to Dismiss the amended complaint.

On Dec. 21, 2009, the District Court granted all of the
defendants' motions to dismiss and entered a final judgment of
dismissal.  Plaintiffs did not appeal.

Steel Dynamics, Inc. -- http://www.steeldynamics.com/-- is a  
steel producer and metals recycler. The Company has three
segments: steel operations, steel fabrication operations, and
metals recycling and ferrous resources operations. The company's
products in its steel segment include hot rolled, cold rolled,
galvanized, Galvalume and painted sheet steel; various structural
steel beams and rails; special bar quality steel, and various
merchant steel products, including beams, angles, flats and
channels. Its products in the metals recycling segment include
ferrous and nonferrous scrap processing, scrap management,
transportation, and brokerage and trading products and services.
The steel fabrication segment produces steel joists and decking
materials.


STEEL DYNAMICS: Antitrust Lawsuits by Direct Purchasers Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steel Dynamics, Inc. and other steel manufacturing companies
continue to defend direct purchaser class action antitrust
lawsuits, according to the company's Feb. 22, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Sept. 17, 2008, the company and eight other steel
manufacturing companies were served with a class action antitrust
complaint, filed in the Court in Chicago by Standard Iron Works
of Scranton, Pennsylvania, alleging violations of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants conspired to fix,
raise, maintain and stabilize the price at which steel products
were sold in the United States, starting in 2005, by artificially
restricting the supply of such steel products.

Six additional lawsuits, each of them materially similar to the
original, have also been filed in the same federal court, each of
them likewise seeking similar class certification.

All but one of the Complaints purport to be brought on behalf of
a class consisting of all direct purchasers of steel products
between Jan. 1, 2005 and the present.

The other Complaint purports to be brought on behalf of a class
consisting of all indirect purchasers of steel products within
the same time period.

All Complaints seek treble damages and costs, including
reasonable attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment interest and
injunctive relief.

On Jan. 2, 2009, Steel Dynamics and the other defendants filed a
Joint Motion to Dismiss all of the direct purchaser lawsuits.

On June 12, 2009, however, the Court denied the Motion.

The parties are currently in the process of commencing some
discovery.

Steel Dynamics, Inc. -- http://www.steeldynamics.com/-- is a  
steel producer and metals recycler. The Company has three
segments: steel operations, steel fabrication operations, and
metals recycling and ferrous resources operations. The company's
products in its steel segment include hot rolled, cold rolled,
galvanized, Galvalume and painted sheet steel; various structural
steel beams and rails; special bar quality steel, and various
merchant steel products, including beams, angles, flats and
channels. Its products in the metals recycling segment include
ferrous and nonferrous scrap processing, scrap management,
transportation, and brokerage and trading products and services.
The steel fabrication segment produces steel joists and decking
materials.


SWITCH & DATA: Seeks Court Approval of Settlement Agreement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Switch & Data Facilities Company, Inc., continues to pursue court
approval of an agreement settling three lawsuits in connection
with its planned merger with Equinix, Inc., according to the
company's Feb. 22, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

On Oct. 21, 2009, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Equinix and Sundance Acquisition Corporation, a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Equinix (Merger Sub).  Pursuant to the
terms of the Merger Agreement and subject to the satisfaction or
waiver of the conditions therein, Merger Sub will merge with and
into the companys, with the company surviving as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Equinix.

On Oct. 27, 2009, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the Delaware Chancery Court against Switch and Data,
members of Switch and Data's board of directors, Sundance
Acquisition Corporation and Equinix. The lawsuit, Gibbs v. Switch
& Data Facilities Company, Inc., et al. (Case No. 5027-VCS),
alleged that the members of the company's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties to its stockholders in connection
with the Merger by, among other things, entering into the Merger
Agreement without first taking steps to obtain adequate, fair and
maximum consideration for the company's stockholders, by
structuring the transaction to benefit themselves and by
including provisions intended to dissuade other potential suitors
from making competing offers.  The complaint also alleged that
Switch and Data and Equinix aided and abetted those supposed
breaches of duty.  The complaint sought various forms of relief,
including but not limited to an injunction prohibiting the
consummation of the Merger.

On Oct. 30, 2009, a second purported stockholder class action
lawsuit, Jiannaras v. Switch & Data Facilities Company, Inc., et
al. (Case No. 09-CA-027950), was filed against the same
defendants in a Hillsborough County, Florida state court.  The
complaint alleged that the members of the company's board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties to our stockholders by,
among other things, failing to take steps to maximize our value
to our stockholders, failing to value properly Switch and Data,
failing to protect against the directors' conflicts of interest,
and failing to disclose all material information to allow a fully
informed vote by the stockholders.  Specifically, plaintiffs
contended that the defendants timed the merger to take advantage
of the recent downturn in our share price to sell us at an
illusory premium that did not reflect our financial performance,
thereby depriving our stockholders of the true value of their
shares and allowing defendants to reap disproportionate benefits
to themselves instead of maximizing stockholder value.  
Plaintiffs further asserted that Switch and Data and Equinix
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of duty by our directors.  
The complaint sought various relief, including but not limited to
an injunction prohibiting the consummation of the Merger.

On Dec. 7, 2009, a third purported stockholder class action
lawsuit, Broadbased Equities v. Keith Olsen, et al. (Case No.
8:09-CV-02473), was filed against the same defendants (other than
Sundance Acquisition Corporation, which was not named) in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.  The
complaint alleges that the defendants have provided materially
incomplete information to our stockholders in the Proxy
Statement, that the company's Chief Executive Officer and
President sought to advance his own interests at the expense of
company stockholders in connection with the Merger, and that the
company's directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with the Merger, including by agreeing to provisions in the
Merger Agreement intended to dissuade other potential suitors
from making competing offers.  The complaint also alleged that
Equinix aided and abetted those supposed breaches of duty.  The
complaint sought various forms of relief, including but not
limited to an injunction prohibiting the consummation of the
Merger.

On Jan. 19, 2010, counsel for parties in all three lawsuits
entered into a memorandum of understanding in which they agreed
upon the terms of a settlement of all lawsuits.  In connection
with this settlement, the three lawsuits and all claims asserted
therein would be dismissed with prejudice, including the claims
brought against us and our directors. The parties will seek
approval of the settlement in the Florida state court;
simultaneously, the parties will agree to stay the actions
pending in the Delaware Chancery Court and the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

The proposed settlement is conditional upon, among other things,
the execution of an appropriate stipulation of settlement,
consummation of the Merger and final approval of the proposed
settlement by the Florida state court.  The proposed settlement
contemplates that plaintiffs' counsel will apply to the Florida
state court for an award of attorneys' fees and costs in an
aggregate amount of $900,000, and that the defendants will not
oppose or undermine this application.  These attorneys' fees and
costs will not be deducted from the Merger consideration.

Both Switch and Data and Equinix will share in the payment of
such settlement.  As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company has accrued
$600,000, the company's portion of the settlement, and recorded
an insurance receivable of $400,000.

Switch and Data -- http://www.switchanddata.com/-- is a premier  
provider of network-neutral data centers that house, power and
interconnect the Internet.  Leading content companies,
enterprises and communications service providers rely on Switch
and Data to connect to customers and exchange Internet traffic.  
Switch and Data has built a reputation for world-class service,
delivered across the broadest collocation footprint and richest
network of interconnections in North America. Switch and Data
operates 34 sites in the U.S. and Canada, provides one of the
highest customer satisfaction scores for technical and
engineering support in the industry, and is home to PAIX(R) --
the world's first commercial Internet exchange.


TELETECH HOLDINGS: Settlement Approval Hearing Set for June 11
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has
set a June 11, 2010, hearing to consider final approval of the
settlement agreement in the matter  In re: TeleTech Litigation,
according to the company's Feb. 22, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Jan. 25, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed entitled
Beasley v. TeleTech Holdings, Inc., et al. against TeleTech,
certain current directors and officers and others alleging
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act,
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5  
promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act.

The complaint alleges, among other things, false and misleading
statements in the Registration Statement and Prospectus in
connection with:

     (i) a March 2007 secondary offering of common stock and

    (ii) various disclosures made and periodic reports filed by
         the company between Feb. 8, 2007 and Nov. 8, 2007.

On Feb. 25, 2008, a second nearly identical class action
complaint, entitled Brown v. TeleTech Holdings, Inc., et al., was
filed in the same court.

On May 19, 2008, the actions were consolidated under the caption
In re: TeleTech Litigation and lead plaintiff and lead counsel
were approved.

On Oct. 21, 2009, the company and the other defendants named
executed a stipulation of settlement with the lead plaintiffs to
settle the consolidated class action lawsuit.

The Court has preliminarily approved the settlement and has set a
hearing on final approval on June 11, 2010.

The company will pay $225,000 of the total settlement amount,
which is included in Other accrued expenses in the Consolidated
Balance Sheet, and the rest of the settlement amount will be
covered by the company's insurance carriers.

TeleTech Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.teletech.com/-- is a  
global provider of onshore, offshore and work-from-home business
process outsourcing services focusing on customer and enterprise
management, and technology enabled solutions.  The company
provides around the clock integrated global solution that spans
people, process, technology and infrastructure for governments
and private sector clients in the automotive, broadband, cable,
financial services, government, healthcare, logistics, media and
entertainment, retail, technology, travel, wireline and wireless
communication industries.  As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company
provided services from nearly 35,600 workstations across 68
delivery centers in 16 countries. TeleTech Holdings, Inc. has
approximately 90 global clients.  The company performs a variety
of BPO services for its clients and support approximately 270 BPO
programs.


WARNER HOME: Accused of Conspiring with Rival in N.Y. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Warner Bros. and Netflix
conspired to restrain trade by agreeing that Netflix would not
rent or sell Warner movies until 28 days after they become
available on DVD, a class action claims in Manhattan Federal
Court.

The case is Uman v. Warner Home Video, et al., Case No.
10-cv-01714 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marian Rosner, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          New York City Office
          845 Third Ave.
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: 212-759-4600


WOO MEDIA: California Suit Complains About E-mail Solicitations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that Internet
dating site WooMe.com loots email address books and uses them to
solicit new members with viral email that makes it appear the
messages come from friends, according to a federal class action.
The class claims that Irvine-based WooMe promises it will not use
their personal email information, but uses licensed software to
copy their "entire email address book . . . to send its
solicitation emails to all the users' contacts who are not WooMe
subscribers."

In an interview last week, a WooMe executive said the class's
allegations "are based on falsehoods."

The executive, who asked not to be named for legal reasons, said,
"A lot of the claims are technically impossible, which anyone who
understands technology would know."

But the class says it is possible, and that WooMe uses what the
social networking industry calls a "contact importer" to raid
email accounts.

"Using software it licenses from Octazen Solutions, WooMe
accesses users' email address books but does much more than check
for contacts who are already WooMe subscribers," the complaint
states.  "Rather, WooMe copies the subscriber's entire email
address book and uses it to send its solicitation emails to all
the users' contacts who are not WooMe subscribers.

"Further, WooMe impersonates the unsuspecting user, automatically
customizing its solicitation messages to be sent in the name and
from an email address associated with the owner of the address
book from which recipients' contact information has been
harvested."

Lead plaintiff Gordon Campbell says that WooMe got into his Gmail
address book to solicit contacts for WooMe membership, though he
explicitly refused to provide it with his email password.

Mr. Campbell claims that "within four minutes" of initiating a
video chat with a relative on his Gmail account, "his relative
received a WooMe solicitation message that appeared to have been
sent by plaintiff and which stated that a message from plaintiff
was waiting on WooMe's Web site for the family members to
retrieve. . . .

"However, plaintiff had not requested that a message be sent to
his relative, had not authorized WooMe to send such a message,
had not provided his relative's email address to WooMe, and had
not posted a message for his relative to retrieve from the WooMe
Web site."

The WooMe official acknowledged that the company licenses the
Octazen Solutions system, which he described as "an industry
standard."

"Everyone does it," the WooMe official said.  "You go to Facebook
and you'll see it.  You basically put in your email address and
it tells you what friends are on the social network."

The WooMe official said Facebook purchased Octazen a few weeks
ago.  He said "that the objective is also to invite friends," but
added that the use of Octazen does not mean WooMe scoured
people's email address books without their knowledge or consent.

But Mr. Campbell says he had to spend "substantial time
responding to inquiries from his contacts who had received WooMe
solicitation messages that appeared to have been sent by
[Campbell], investigating the source of these messages, and
contacting WooMe to request that WooMe purge his address book
information list and desist from sending solicitation messages in
his name."

The complaint estimates that each class member has lost at least
$5,000 during a year of fruitless efforts to get WooMe to stop
sending emails in their names.

The named defendants are Woo Media and Stephen Stokols.

The class seeks an injunction requiring WooMe to delete all
misappropriated contact information, stop accessing their email
accounts and stop sending solicitation emails.  It demands
compensatory, statutory and punitive damages for violation of the
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and Computer Crime Law, privacy
violations, unfair competition and unjust enrichment.

A copy of the Complaint in Campbell v. Woo Media, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-00253 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/05/WooMedia.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
          David A. Stampley, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLC
          11 Broadway, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: 212-920-3072

               - and -

          David Parisi, Esq.
          Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq.
          PARISI & HAVENS LLP
          15233 Valleyheart Drive
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: 818-990-1299


YELP! INC: Spa Owner Makes Extortion Claims in S.D. Calif. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Hoge at the San Francisco Business Times reports that a
second proposed class action lawsuit against Yelp Inc. has been
filed in federal court, this time by a San Diego County day-spa
owner who claims Yelp deleted positive reviews she had solicited
from customers about her business after she refused to advertise
on the site.

The plaintiff in the suit, filed in Central District Court of
California, is Christine LaPaulsky, owner of D'ames Day Spa in
Imperial Beach.

Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman responded to the suit in a blog
posting saying it was meritless, that reviews about D'ames Day
Spa were removed automatically by Yelp's filters, which are
designed "to protect consumers from shill reviews and businesses
from malicious reviews from competitors."

Late last month, two other law firms filed a federal class action
claim against alleging that Yelp extorts advertising from
businesses in exchange for removing negative comments. The
plaintiff, Cats and Dogs Animal Hospital Inc. of Long Beach.
owner Gregory Perrault, said he got high pressure calls from Yelp
employees who promised to hide negative reviews in exchange for
advertising.

Stoppelman has also said those claims are untrue. He suggested in
his blog that lawyers may be in a "race to the courthouse" to try
to get some of the $25 million in capital that U2 singer Bono's
private equity firm Elevation Partners recently committed to
Yelp.

                            *********

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., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda and Peter A. Chapman,
Editors.

Copyright 2010.  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 $575 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 Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *