CAR_Public/100324.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, March 24, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 58

                            Headlines

AARON'S INC: Court Gives Conditional Certification in Kunstmann
AES CORP: Continues to Defend Suit over Greenhouse Gas Emissions
AES CORP: Brazil Court Dismisses Suit Against AES Sul Unit
AETNA INC: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Dismissal of Suit Still Pending
AETNA INC: Continues to Defend UCR Litigation in New Jersey

BAKER HUGHES: Enters MOU to Settle Delaware Suit over BJ Merger
BAKER HUGHES: Inks MOU to Settle Consolidated Suit in Texas
CAPITAL ONE: COBNA Unit Faces 3 Suits Over Marketing Practices
CAPITAL ONE: Consolidated Suit Over "Late Fees" Still Pending
CAPITAL ONE: COBNA & COSI Appealing Certification in "Spinelli"

CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Plaintiffs Appeal Decertification Ruling
CHEMED CORP: Certification Denied in Suit Against Vitas Unit
EMC MORTGAGE: Removes "Barger and McCoy" Complaint to N.D. Calif.
FREEDOM INVESTMENT: Charged With Selling Unregistered Securities
HUMANADENTAL INSURANCE: Accused of Sending Unsolicited Fax Ads

J.B. HUNT: Wage Violations Suit Remains Pending in California
MARSH & MCLENNAN: New York Court Approves $425 Mil. Settlement
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Court Okays $35 Mil. Settlement in ERISA Suit
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Appeal on Settlement Okay of Two Suits Pending
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Derivative Claims Over Putnam Funds Pending

MARSH & MCLENNAN: Continues to Face ERISA Lawsuits with Putnam
MCDONALD'S CORP: Continues to Face Obesity-Related Suit
NCR CORP: Appeal in "Death Benefits" Suit Remains Pending
PENN NATIONAL: Court Terminates Complaint Due to Inactivity
PENN NATIONAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Maryland Suit

PITNEY BOWES: "Rine" Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal Ruling
PITNEY BOWES: Faces Securities Violation Suit in Connecticut
SKYTERRA COMMUNICATIONS: Inks MOU to Settle Consolidated Suit
STIFEL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend ARS-Related Suit in MO
VERIZON COMMS: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Suit Dismissal Pending

VHOSS CORPORATION: Truck Insurance Refuses Defense Coverage
VOLKSWAGEN: "Cheap & Poorly Made" Car Seat Suit Filed in Phila.

                            *********

AARON'S INC: Court Gives Conditional Certification in Kunstmann
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama has ruled
to conditionally certify a plaintiff class in a suit against
Aaron's Inc., captioned Kunstmann et al v. Aaron Rents, Inc.,
according to the company's Feb. 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

In the suit, plaintiffs have alleged that the company improperly
classified store general managers as exempt from the overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Plaintiffs seek to
recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages for all
similarly situated general managers nationwide for the period
Jan. 25, 2007 to present.

After initially denying plaintiffs' class certification motion in
April 2009, the court ruled to conditionally certify a plaintiff
class in early 2010.

The potential class is an estimated 2,600 individuals.  Those
individuals who affirmatively opt to join the class may be
required to travel at their own expense to Alabama for discovery
purposes and/or trial.  The company states that the court's class
certification ruling is procedural only and does not address the
merits of the plaintiffs' claims.

Aaron's Inc., formerly Aaron Rents Inc. --
http://www.aaronsinc.com/-- is a specialty retailer of consumer  
electronics, computers, residential and office furniture,
household appliances and accessories.  The company engages in the
lease ownership, rental and retail sale of a variety of products,
such as widescreen and liquid crystal display televisions;
computers; living room, dining room and bedroom furniture, and
washers, dryers and refrigerators. Aaron offers brands, such as
JVC, Mitsubishi, Philips, Panasonic, Sony, Dell, Hewlett-Packard,
Simmons, Frigidaire and Sharp.  The company's operates through
two divisions: the Aaron's Sales & Lease Ownership division and
the MacTavish Furniture Industries division, supplies the
majority of the upholstered furniture and bedding leased and sold
in its stores.  As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company had 1,679 sales
and lease ownership stores, which comprised 1,082 company-
operated stores in 31 states and Canada.


AES CORP: Continues to Defend Suit over Greenhouse Gas Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------
AES Corp. continues to defend a putative class action complaint
over alleged greenhouse gas emissions, according to the company's
Feb. 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In April 2006, a putative class action complaint was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi on
behalf of certain individual plaintiffs and all residents and/or
property owners in the State of Mississippi who allegedly
suffered harm as a result of Hurricane Katrina, and against the
company and numerous unrelated companies, whose alleged
greenhouse gas emissions allegedly increased the destructive
capacity of Hurricane Katrina.

The plaintiffs assert unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy/aiding
and abetting, public and private nuisance, trespass, negligence,
and fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment claims against
the defendants.

The plaintiffs seek damages relating to loss of property, loss of
business, clean-up costs, personal injuries and death, but do not
quantify their alleged damages.

In August 2007, the District Court dismissed the case.

The plaintiffs subsequently appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit, which heard oral arguments in November
2008.

In October 2009, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court's
dismissal of the plaintiffs' unjust enrichment, fraudulent
misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy claims.

However, the Fifth Circuit reversed the District Court's
dismissal of the plaintiffs' public and private nuisance,
trespass, and negligence claims, and remanded those claims to the
District Court for further proceedings.

The company has filed a petition seeking en banc review at the
Fifth Circuit.

The AES Corp. -- http://www.aes.com/-- is a global power  
company.  During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the company owned
a portfolio of electricity generation and distribution businesses
on five continents in 29 countries, with generation capacity
totaling approximately 43,000 megawatts and distribution networks
serving over 11 million people. In addition, AES have more than
3,000 MW under construction in 10 countries.  The company
operates in two lines of business: generation and utilities.  In
the generation business, the company owns and/or operates power
plants to generate and sell power to wholesale customers such as
utilities and other intermediaries.  In the utilities business,
the company owns and/or operates utilities to distribute,
transmit and sell electricity to the customers in the
residential, commercial, industrial and governmental sectors in a
defined service area.


AES CORP: Brazil Court Dismisses Suit Against AES Sul Unit
----------------------------------------------------------
The 16th District Court of Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, has
dismissed a class action against AES Sul over allegations that it
illegally passed taxes to consumers, according to AES Corp.'s
Feb. 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

AES Sul is owned and operated by AES and distributes electricity
to more than one million customers in the southern state of Rio
Grande do Sul.

In September 2009, the Public Defender's Office of the State of
Rio Grande do Sul filed a class action against AES Sul in
Brazilian state court claiming that AES Sul has been illegally
passing PIS and COFINS taxes (taxes based on AES Sul's income) to
consumers.

According to ANEEL's Order No. 93/05, the federal laws of Brazil,
and the Brazilian Constitution, energy companies such as AES Sul
are entitled to highlight PIS and COFINS taxes in power bills to
final consumers, as the cost of those taxes is included in the
energy tariffs that are applicable to final consumers.

In September 2009, the Public Defender's Office of the State of
Rio Grande do Sul filed a class action against AES Sul in the
16th District Court of Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, claiming
that AES Sul has been illegally passing PIS and COFINS taxes
(taxes based on AES Sul's income) to consumers.

Before AES Sul had been served with the action, the District
Court dismissed the lawsuit in October 2009 on the ground that
AES Sul had been properly highlighting PIS and COFINS taxes in
consumer bills in accordance with Brazilian law.  The Public
Defender's Office is expected to appeal.

If the dismissal is reversed and AES Sul does not prevail in the
lawsuit and is ordered to cease recovering PIS and COFINS taxes
pursuant to its energy tariff, its potential prospective losses
could be approximately R$9.6 million ($6 million) per month, as
estimated by AES Sul.  In addition, if AES Sul is ordered to
reimburse consumers, its potential retrospective liability could
be approximately R$1.2 billion ($692 million), as estimated by
AES Sul.

The AES Corp. -- http://www.aes.com/-- is a global power  
company.  During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the company owned
a portfolio of electricity generation and distribution businesses
on five continents in 29 countries, with generation capacity
totaling approximately 43,000 megawatts and distribution networks
serving over 11 million people. In addition, AES have more than
3,000 MW under construction in 10 countries.  The company
operates in two lines of business: generation and utilities.  In
the generation business, the company owns and/or operates power
plants to generate and sell power to wholesale customers such as
utilities and other intermediaries.  In the utilities business,
the company owns and/or operates utilities to distribute,
transmit and sell electricity to the customers in the
residential, commercial, industrial and governmental sectors in a
defined service area.


AETNA INC: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Dismissal of Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of a consolidated
complaint against Aetna Inc., remains pending in the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the company's Feb. 26,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Two purported class action lawsuits were pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against
Aetna and certain of its current or former officers and/or
directors.

On Oct. 24, 2007, the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
Authority filed suit on behalf of all purchasers of Aetna common
stock between Oct. 27, 2005 and April 27, 2006.  The second
lawsuit was filed on Nov. 27, 2007, by the Plumbers and
Pipefitters Local 51 Pension Fund on behalf of all purchasers of
the company's common stock between July 28, 2005 and July 27,
2006.

On June 3, 2008, plaintiffs in these two lawsuits filed a
consolidated complaint in the Pennsylvania Federal Court on
behalf of all purchasers of the company's common stock between
Oct. 27, 2005 and July 27, 2006.  The consolidated complaint
supersedes and replaces the two previous complaints.

The plaintiffs allege that Aetna and four of its current or
former officers and/or directors, John W. Rowe, M.D., Ronald A.
Williams, Alan M. Bennett and Craig R. Callen, violated federal
securities laws.  The plaintiffs allege misrepresentations and
omissions regarding, among other things, the company's medical
benefit ratios and health plan pricing practices, as well as
insider trading by Dr. Rowe and Messrs. Bennett and Callen.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages plus interest and
attorneys' fees, among other remedies.

On June 9, 2009, the Pennsylvania Federal Court granted Aetna's
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.  On July 7, 2009,
the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the Pennsylvania
Federal Court's order dismissing the consolidated complaint.

On Feb. 11, 2010, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals conducted
oral arguments on the plaintiff's appeal.

Aetna Inc. -- http://www.aetna.com/-- is a diversified health  
care benefits company.  Its offers a range of traditional and
consumer-directed health insurance products and related services,
including medical, pharmacy, dental, behavioral health, group
life and disability plans, and medical management capabilities
and health care management services for Medicaid plans.  Aetna's
customers include employer groups, individuals, college students,
part-time and hourly workers, health plans, governmental units,
government-sponsored plans, labor groups and expatriates.  It
operates under three segments: Health Care, Group Insurance and
Large Case Pensions.  In November 2009, Psychiatric Solutions,
Inc. completed the sale of its employee assistance program (EAP)
business to the company.  In addition, on Nov. 1, 2009, Aetna,
Inc. completed the acquisition of Horizon Behavioral Services,
LLC.


AETNA INC: Continues to Defend UCR Litigation in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aetna Inc., continues to defend the matter In re: Aetna UCR
Litigation, MDL No. 2020, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, according to the company's Feb. 26, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The company is named as a defendant in several purported class
actions and individual lawsuits arising out of its practices
related to the payment of claims for services rendered to the
company's members by health care providers with whom the company
does not have a contract (out-of-network providers).  Other major
health insurers are also the subject of similar litigation or
have settled similar litigation.  Among other things, these
lawsuits charge that the company paid too little to its health
plan members and/or providers for these services, among other
reasons, because of the company's use of data provided by
Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of one of its competitors.

Various plaintiffs who are health care providers or medical
associations seek to represent nationwide classes of out-of-
network providers who provided services to the company's members
during the period from 2001 to the present.  Various plaintiffs
who are members in the company's health plans seek to represent
nationwide classes of the company's members who received services
from out-of-network providers during the period from 2001 to the
present.  Taken together, these lawsuits allege that the company
violated state law, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974, as amended, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act and federal antitrust laws, either acting alone
or in concert with its competitors.

The purported classes seek reimbursement of all unpaid benefits,
recalculation and repayment of deductible and coinsurance
amounts, unspecified damages and treble damages, statutory
penalties, injunctive and declaratory relief, plus interest,
costs and attorneys' fees, and seek to disqualify us from acting
as a fiduciary of any benefit plan that is subject to ERISA.  
Individual lawsuits that generally contain similar allegations
and seek similar relief have been brought by a health plan member
and by out-of-network providers.

The first class action case was commenced on July 30, 2007.  The
federal Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation has
consolidated these class action cases in federal district court
in New Jersey under the caption In re: Aetna UCR Litigation, MDL
No. 2020.

A purported member class action lawsuit which makes the same
allegations as the other consolidated member class action
lawsuits is pending in federal court in California.  In addition,
the MDL Panel has transferred the individual lawsuits to MDL
2020.  Discovery has commenced in MDL 2020, and the court has not
set a trial date.

Aetna Inc. -- http://www.aetna.com/-- is a diversified health  
care benefits company.  Its offers a range of traditional and
consumer-directed health insurance products and related services,
including medical, pharmacy, dental, behavioral health, group
life and disability plans, and medical management capabilities
and health care management services for Medicaid plans.  Aetna's
customers include employer groups, individuals, college students,
part-time and hourly workers, health plans, governmental units,
government-sponsored plans, labor groups and expatriates.  It
operates under three segments: Health Care, Group Insurance and
Large Case Pensions.  In November 2009, Psychiatric Solutions,
Inc. completed the sale of its employee assistance program (EAP)
business to the company.  In addition, on Nov. 1, 2009, Aetna,
Inc. completed the acquisition of Horizon Behavioral Services,
LLC.


BAKER HUGHES: Enters MOU to Settle Delaware Suit over BJ Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Baker Hughes Inc., has entered into a memorandum of understanding
to settle a consolidated amended class action complaint over its
planned merger with BJ Services Company, according to the
company's Feb. 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

On Sept. 1, 2009, three purported stockholder class action
lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware on behalf of the public stockholders of BJ Services,
with respect to the Merger Agreement, dated as of Aug. 30, 2009,
among Baker Hughes, its wholly owned subsidiary, BSA Acquisition
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (Merger Sub) and BJ
Services, whereby, subject to satisfaction of the conditions to
closing, BJ Services will merge with and into Merger Sub, with
Merger Sub continuing as the surviving entity after the Merger.

The suits are:

     (1) Laborers Local 235 Benefit Fund v. Stewart, et al.,
     (2) The Booth Family Trust v. Huff, et al., and
     (3) Dugdale v. Huff, et al.

Each action names BJ Services, the current members of the BJ
Services Board of Directors and the company as defendants.

In these Delaware actions, the plaintiffs allege, among other
things, that the members of the BJ Services Board breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to properly value BJ Services,
failing to take steps to maximize the value of BJ Services to its
public stockholders, and avoiding a competitive bidding process.  
The actions each allege that the company aided and abetted the
purported breaches by the BJ Services Board.  The plaintiffs in
each lawsuit seek, among other things, injunctive relief with
respect to the Merger.

As of Feb. 26, 2010, six additional purported class action
lawsuits have been filed in the Delaware Chancery Court on behalf
of the public stockholders of BJ Services against the Company, BJ
Services and the BJ Services Board, including:

     -- Myers, v. BJ Services, et al., (filed Sept. 4, 2009),

     -- Garden City Employees' Retirement System v. BJ
        Services, et al., (filed Sept. 8, 2009),

     -- Saratoga Advantage Trust-Energy & Basic Materials
        Portfolio v. Huff, et al., (filed Sept. 8, 2009),

     -- Stationary Engineers Local 39 Pension Trust Fund v.
        Stewart, et al., (filed Sept. 11, 2009),

     -- Jacobs v. Stewart, et al., (filed Sept. 23, 2009), and

     -- Lyle v. BJ Services Company, et al., (filed on
        Oct. 1, 2009).

On Sept. 25, 2009, the Delaware Chancery Court entered an order
consolidating the lawsuits filed in the Delaware Chancery Court.  
On Oct. 6, 2009, the Delaware Chancery Court entered an order
implementing a bench ruling of Oct. 5, 2009, resolving competing
motions for appointment of lead counsel in the Delaware Chancery
Court and designating the law firm of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP of New
York, New York as lead counsel and Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess,
P.A. of Wilmington, Delaware as liaison counsel.

On Oct. 14, 2009, the Delaware Chancery Court entered a
supplemental consolidation order adding the Oct. 1, 2009, Lyle
complaint to the consolidated action.

On Oct. 16, 2009, lead counsel for plaintiffs in the consolidated
class action, In re: BJ Services Company Shareholders Litigation,
C.A. No. 4851-VCN, served a Verified Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

The Amended Complaint, among other things, adds an officer of BJ
Services (Jeffrey E. Smith, the Executive Vice President-Finance
and CFO of BJ Services) as a defendant, contains new factual
allegations about the negotiations between BJ Services and the
Company, and alleges the Form S-4 Registration Statement and
preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 14, 2009, omits and
misrepresents material information.

                    Proposed Settlement

The company believes that the actions filed in Delaware, as well
as the cases filed in Texas, are without merit, and that it has
valid defenses to all claims.  Nevertheless, in an effort to
minimize further cost, expense, burden and distraction of any
litigation relating to such lawsuits, on Feb. 9, 2010, the
parties to the Delaware and Texas actions entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding regarding the terms of settlement of
such lawsuits.

The Memorandum of Understanding resolves the allegations by the
plaintiffs against the defendants in connection with the merger
and provides a release and settlement by the purported class of
the BJ Services stockholders of all claims against BJ Services,
its directors and an officer and Baker Hughes, and their
affiliates and agents, in connection with the merger.

In exchange for such release and settlement, the parties agreed,
after discussions on an arms' length basis, that Baker Hughes and
BJ Services provide additional supplemental disclosures in the
joint proxy statement/prospectus included in a registration
statement on Form S-4 filed by Baker Hughes on Feb. 9, 2010 with
the SEC.

The proposed settlement includes an agreement that neither BJ
Services nor Baker Hughes will oppose plaintiff's counsel's
application for BJ Services to pay attorneys' fees and costs in
an amount to be determined by the court up to $700,000.  In
general, the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding will not
become legally binding unless and until further definitive
documentation is entered into and court approval is obtained.  
The settlement is contingent upon consummation of the merger.

Baker Hughes Incorporated -- http://www.bakerhughes.com/-- is  
engaged in the oilfield services industry.  The company is a
supplier of wellbore related products and technology services and
systems and provides products and services for drilling,
formation evaluation, completion and production, and reservoir
technology and consulting to the worldwide oil and natural gas
industry.  The company operates in 90 countries. It provides
products and services for drilling and evaluation of oil and gas
wells; completion and production of oil and gas wells; fluids and
chemicals used in drilling oil and gas wells and producing
hydrocarbons, and reservoir technology and consulting to the
worldwide oil and natural gas industry.  Its Western Hemisphere
operations consist of four regions: Canada, United States Land
and Gulf of Mexico, and Latin America.  Eastern Hemisphere
operations consist of five regions Europe, Africa, Russia
Caspian, Middle East and Asia Pacific.


BAKER HUGHES: Inks MOU to Settle Consolidated Suit in Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------
Baker Hughes Inc., has entered into a memorandum of understanding
to settle a consolidated class action complaint in Texas over its
planned merger with BJ Services Company, according to the
company's Feb. 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

On Sept. 4, 2009, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
styled Garden City Employees' Retirement System v. BJ Services
Company, et al., was filed in the 80th Judicial District Court of
Harris County, Texas, on behalf of the public stockholders of BJ
Services with respect to the Merger Agreement naming BJ Services,
the current members of the BJ Services Board, the company and BSA
Acquisition LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (Merger
Sub) as defendants.

As of Feb. 26, 2010, three additional actions have been filed
against the company, BJ Services and its Board in District Courts
in Harris County, Texas.  They are:

     (1) Johnson v. Stewart, et al., filed on Sept. 11, 2009,

     (2) Saratoga Advantage Trust - Energy & Basic Materials
         Portfolio v. Huff, et al., filed on Sept. 11, 2009, and

     (3) Matt v. Huff, et al., which was filed on
         Sept. 21, 2009.

The lead plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel in the Garden City and
Saratoga Advantage Trust cases filed in Texas also filed the
cases of the same name in Delaware.  The Texas actions make
substantially the same allegations as were initially asserted in
the Delaware actions, and seek the same relief.

On Oct. 9, 2009, the Harris County Court consolidated the Texas
actions and restyled the action as Garden City Employees'
Retirement System, et al. v. BJ services Company, et al., Cause
No. 2009-57320, 80th Judicial District of Harris County, Texas.  
No amended consolidated complaint has been filed as of Feb. 26,
2010.

On Oct. 20, 2009, the Court of Appeals for the First District of
Texas at Houston granted Defendants' emergency motion to stay the
Texas cases pending its decision on defendants' mandamus petition
seeking a stay of the Texas litigation pending adjudication of
the first-filed cases in Delaware.

                    Proposed Settlement

The company believes that the actions filed in Delaware, as well
as the cases filed in Texas, are without merit, and that it has
valid defenses to all claims.  Nevertheless, in an effort to
minimize further cost, expense, burden and distraction of any
litigation relating to such lawsuits, on Feb. 9, 2010, the
parties to the Delaware and Texas actions entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding regarding the terms of settlement of
such lawsuits.

The Memorandum of Understanding resolves the allegations by the
plaintiffs against the defendants in connection with the merger
and provides a release and settlement by the purported class of
the BJ Services stockholders of all claims against BJ Services,
its directors and an officer and Baker Hughes, and their
affiliates and agents, in connection with the merger.

In exchange for such release and settlement, the parties agreed,
after discussions on an arms' length basis, that Baker Hughes and
BJ Services provide additional supplemental disclosures in the
joint proxy statement/prospectus included in a registration
statement on Form S-4 filed by Baker Hughes on Feb. 9, 2010 with
the SEC.

The proposed settlement includes an agreement that neither BJ
Services nor Baker Hughes will oppose plaintiff's counsel's
application for BJ Services to pay attorneys' fees and costs in
an amount to be determined by the court up to $700,000.  In
general, the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding will not
become legally binding unless and until further definitive
documentation is entered into and court approval is obtained.  
The settlement is contingent upon consummation of the merger.

Baker Hughes Incorporated -- http://www.bakerhughes.com/-- is  
engaged in the oilfield services industry.  The company is a
supplier of wellbore related products and technology services and
systems and provides products and services for drilling,
formation evaluation, completion and production, and reservoir
technology and consulting to the worldwide oil and natural gas
industry.  The company operates in 90 countries. It provides
products and services for drilling and evaluation of oil and gas
wells; completion and production of oil and gas wells; fluids and
chemicals used in drilling oil and gas wells and producing
hydrocarbons, and reservoir technology and consulting to the
worldwide oil and natural gas industry.  Its Western Hemisphere
operations consist of four regions: Canada, United States Land
and Gulf of Mexico, and Latin America.  Eastern Hemisphere
operations consist of five regions Europe, Africa, Russia
Caspian, Middle East and Asia Pacific.


CAPITAL ONE: COBNA Unit Faces 3 Suits Over Marketing Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corp.'s subsidiary, Capital One National
Association, faces three purported class actions over its
marketing practices, according to the company's Feb. 26, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In January 2010, three individual plaintiffs, each purporting to
represent a nationwide class of cardholders, filed lawsuits
against National Association (COBNA) and Capital One Services,
LLC (COSI) challenging various marketing practices relating to
the payment protection product.

The suits are:

     (1) Sullivan v. Capital One Bank, et al, (U.S. District
         Court for the District of Connecticut);

     (2) McCoy v. Capital One Bank, et al. (U.S. District Court
         for the Southern District of California); and

     (3) Salazar v. Capital One Bank, et al. (U.S. District
         Court for the District of South Carolina).

These three purported nationwide class actions seek a range of
remedies, including compensatory damages, punitive damages,
restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, and attorneys'
fees.

COBNA and COSI have not yet filed responsive motions to any of
these suits.

Capital One Financial Corporation -- http://www.capitalone.com/
-- is a diversified financial services company, whose banking and
non-banking subsidiaries market a variety of financial products
and services.  Capital One, National Association (CONA), which
offers a range of banking products and financial services to
consumers, small businesses and commercial clients.  The company
operates in three segments: Credit Card, Commercial Banking and
Consumer Banking.  The company's principal subsidiaries include
Capital One Bank, (USA), National Association (COBNA), which
offers credit and debit card products, other lending products and
deposit products.


CAPITAL ONE: Consolidated Suit Over "Late Fees" Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated suit against Capital One Financial Corp. over late
fees continues to remains stayed, according to the company's Feb.
26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In 2007, a number of individual plaintiffs, each purporting to
represent a class of cardholders, filed antitrust lawsuits in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against several issuing banks, including the company (In Re Late
Fees Litigation).

These lawsuits allege, among other things, that the defendants
conspired to fix the level of late fees and over-limit fees
charged to cardholders, and that these fees are excessive.  In
May 2007, the cases were consolidated for all purposes and a
consolidated amended complaint was filed alleging violations of
federal statutes and state law.  The amended complaint requests
civil monetary damages, which could be trebled.

In November 2007, the court dismissed the amended complaint.  
Plaintiffs appealed that order to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.

The plaintiffs' appeal challenges the dismissal of their National
Bank Act, Depository Institutions Deregulation Act of 1980 and
California Unfair Competition Law claims, but not their antitrust
conspiracy claims.

In June 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the
matter pending the bankruptcy proceedings of one of the defendant
financial institutions.

In November 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals entered an
additional order continuing the stay of the matter pending the
bankruptcy proceedings.

Capital One Financial Corporation -- http://www.capitalone.com/
-- is a diversified financial services company, whose banking and
non-banking subsidiaries market a variety of financial products
and services.  Capital One, National Association (CONA), which
offers a range of banking products and financial services to
consumers, small businesses and commercial clients.  The company
operates in three segments: Credit Card, Commercial Banking and
Consumer Banking.  The company's principal subsidiaries include
Capital One Bank, (USA), National Association (COBNA), which
offers credit and debit card products, other lending products and
deposit products.


CAPITAL ONE: COBNA & COSI Appealing Certification in "Spinelli"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One National Association (COBNA) and Capital One
Services, LLC's (COSI) motion for reconsideration with respect to
the class certification in the matter Spinelli v. Capital One
Bank, et al., remains pending, according to Capital One Financial
Corp.'s Feb. 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In September 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida certified a statewide class action in the
suit with respect to the marketing of the payment protection
product in Florida.  COBNA and COSI have filed a motion for
reconsideration with respect to the class certification order and
are awaiting a ruling on the motion from the Court.

Capital One Financial Corporation -- http://www.capitalone.com/
-- is a diversified financial services company, whose banking and
non-banking subsidiaries market a variety of financial products
and services.  Capital One, National Association (CONA), which
offers a range of banking products and financial services to
consumers, small businesses and commercial clients.  The company
operates in three segments: Credit Card, Commercial Banking and
Consumer Banking.  The company's principal subsidiaries include
Capital One Bank, (USA), National Association (COBNA), which
offers credit and debit card products, other lending products and
deposit products.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Plaintiffs Appeal Decertification Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a lawsuit where CenterPoint Energy, Inc.'s
subsidiary, CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp., is a defendant,
are seeking reconsideration on the denial of class certification,
according to the company's Feb. 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

CERC Corp. and certain of its subsidiaries are defendants in two
mismeasurement lawsuits brought against approximately 245
pipeline companies and their affiliates pending in state court in
Stevens County, Kansas.

In one case (originally filed in May 1999 and amended four
times), the plaintiffs purport to represent a class of royalty
owners who allege that the defendants have engaged in systematic
mismeasurement of the volume of natural gas for more than 25
years.  The plaintiffs amended their petition in this suit in
July 2003 in response to an order from the judge denying
certification of the plaintiffs' alleged class.

In the amendment, the plaintiffs dismissed their claims against
certain defendants (including two CERC Corp. subsidiaries),
limited the scope of the class of plaintiffs they purport to
represent and eliminated previously asserted claims based on
mismeasurement of the British thermal unit (Btu) content of the
gas.  The same plaintiffs then filed a second lawsuit, again as
representatives of a putative class of royalty owners in which
they assert their claims that the defendants have engaged in
systematic mismeasurement of the Btu content of natural gas for
more than 25 years.

In both lawsuits, the plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, along
with statutory penalties, treble damages, interest, costs and
fees.

In September 2009, the district court in Stevens County, Kansas,
denied plaintiffs' request for class certification of their case.  
The plaintiffs are seeking reconsideration of that denial.

CenterPoint Energy, Inc. -- http://www.centerpointenergy.com/--  
is a public utility holding company.  The company's indirect
wholly owned subsidiaries include CenterPoint Energy Houston
Electric, LLC (CenterPoint Houston), which engages in the
electric transmission and distribution business in a 5,000-square
mile area of the Texas Gulf Coast that includes Houston, and
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. (CERC Corp.), which owns and
operates natural gas distribution systems in six states.  
Subsidiaries of CERC Corp. own interstate natural gas pipelines
and gas gathering systems, and provide various ancillary
services.  A wholly owned subsidiary of CERC Corp. offers
variable and fixed-price physical natural gas supplies primarily
to commercial and industrial customers and electric and gas
utilities.  The company's operating segments include Electric
Transmission & Distribution, Natural Gas Distribution,
Competitive Natural Gas Sales and Services, Interstate Pipelines,
Field Services and Other Operations.


CHEMED CORP: Certification Denied in Suit Against Vitas Unit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, has denied
the plaintiff's motion for class certification in a suit against
Vitas Healthcare Corporation, according to Chemed Corp.'s Feb.
26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Vitas is party to a class action lawsuit filed in September 2006
by Bernadette Santos, Keith Knoche and Joyce White.

This case alleges failure to pay overtime and failure to provide
meal and rest periods to a purported class of California
admissions nurses, chaplains and sales representatives. T he case
seeks payment of penalties, interest and Plaintiffs' attorney
fees.


In December 2009, the trial Court denied plaintiff's motion for
class certification.

Chemed Corporation -- http://www.chemed.com/-- operates through  
two wholly owned subsidiaries: VITAS Healthcare Corporation and
Roto-Rooter Group, Inc.  VITAS is focused on providing hospice
care for terminally ill patients.  Through its team of doctors,
nurses, home health aides, social workers, clergy and volunteers,
VITAS provides direct medical services to patients, as well as
spiritual and emotional counseling to both patients and their
families.  Roto-Rooter is focused on providing plumbing and drain
cleaning services to both residential and commercial customers.  
The company operates through two business segments: VITAS Group
and the Roto-Rooter Group.


EMC MORTGAGE: Removes "Barger and McCoy" Complaint to N.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Barger and Kimberly McCoy, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. EMC Mortgage Corporation, et al.,
Case No. RG10492801 (Calif. Super. Ct., _____ Cty.), was filed on
Jan. 7, 2010.  Mr. Barger and Ms. McCoy allege that the
Defendants violated (i) the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
in connection with the Plaintiff's alleged purchase of certain
real properties from the Defendants, and (ii) the California
Unfair Practices Act, in connection with the same alleged
purchase of real property.  

On Mar. 17, 2010, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1331 and 1367(a),
the Defendants removed the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, and the Clerk assigned Case
No. 10-cv-01152 to the proceeding.  

Defendant EMC Mortgage has its principal place of business in
Texas and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Defendant JPMorgan
Chase & Co.

The Defendants are represented by:

          George G. Weickhardt, Esq.
          Wendy C. Krog, Esq.
          ROPERS, MAJESKI, KOHN & BENTLEY
          201 Spear Street, Suite 1000
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 543-4800
          Email: gweickhardt@rmkb.com
                 wkrog@rmkb.com

               - and -

          Leann Pedersen Pope, Esq.
          Danielle J. Szukala, Esq.
          Michael G. Salemi, Esq.
          Madeleine W. Milan, Esq.
          BURKE, WARREN, MACKAY & SERRITELLA, P.C.
          330 North Wabash Avenue, 22nd Floor
          Chicago, IL 60611-3607
          Telephone: (312) 840-7000
          Email: lpope@burkelaw.com
                 dszukala@burkelaw.com
                 msalemi@burkelaw.com
                 mmilan@burkelaw.com
          
The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel F. Crowley, Esq.
          DANIEL CROWLEY & ASSOCIATES
          37 Old Courthouse Square, Suite 200
          Santa Rosa, CA 95404
          Telephone: (707) 525-8999

               - and -
          
          Joshua Katz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOSHUA KATZ
          700 College Avenue
          Santa Rosa, CA 95404-4107
          Telephone: (707) 546-4510


FREEDOM INVESTMENT: Charged With Selling Unregistered Securities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vishal Sharma and Wendy Kwong, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Freedom Investment Club Ltd., et al., Case
No. 2010-cv-01172 (N.D. Calif. Mar. 19, 2010), charges the
private investment club with violating federal and state
securities laws
by selling unregistered securities related to foreclosed
residential properties in the United States, promising huge
returns on their investments which did not materialize, and
making material misstatements or omissions in connection with the
solicitation.  

Plaintiffs Vishal Sharma and Wendy Kwong are both California
residents who puchased property contracts from Defendant Mohawk
Diversified LLC in August 2008.  Plaintiffs claim that because
FIC sold securities without registering them, or qualifying for
an applicable exemption, they are entitled to rescission under
federal and state law.  Plaintiffs also relate that had the
material disclosures been made in the securities offering, they
would not have pushed through with their investments.  Contrary
to the contractual promises and oral representations made by the
Defendants, Plaintiff say they never received any income or title
to any property.  

The Plaintiff asks for a jury trial and is represented by:

          Perry J. Narancic, Esq.
          NARANCIC & KATZMAN, PC
          325 Sharon Park Drive, Suite 736
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Telephone: (650) 814-7688
          E-mail: pnarancic@nk-pc.com


HUMANADENTAL INSURANCE: Accused of Sending Unsolicited Fax Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence S. Brodsky, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Humanadental Insurance Company, d/b/a Humana
Specialty Benefits, Case No. 2010-CH-11306  (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook
Cty.
Mar. 18, 2010), charges Humanadental with sending unsolicited fax
advertisements, in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.  Under the TCPA, all fax advertisements must
contain a notice satisfying specific criteria and allowing the
recipient to opt-out of receiving future fax advertisements.  
Plaintiff also asserts claims against the Defendant under the
common law of conversion and the consumer protection statutes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500

               - and -
  
          Philip A. Bock, Esq.
          James M. Smith, Esq.
          BOCK & HATCH, LLC
          134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500


J.B. HUNT: Wage Violations Suit Remains Pending in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc., remains a defendant in
certain class-action allegations in which the plaintiffs are
current and former California-based drivers who allege claims for
unpaid wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, and other
items.

Further proceedings have been stayed in these matters pending the
California Supreme Court's decision in a case unrelated to the
company's involving similar issues.  

No further details were reported in the company's Feb. 26, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc. -- http://www.jbhunt.com/--  
is a holding company. The Company provides a range of
transportation services to a group of customers throughout the
continental United States, Canada and Mexico. It has arrangements
with the North American rail carriers to transport freight in
containers and trailers. It also provides customized freight
movement, revenue equipment, labor, systems and delivery
services. It also provides integrated capacity and transportation
and logistics services and solutions by utilizing a network of
thousands of third-party carriers. Its business operations are
primarily organized through four business segments: intermodal
(JBI), dedicated contract services (DCS), full-load dry-van (JBT)
and integrated capacity solutions (ICS). It transports, or
arranges for the transportation of a range of freight, including
general merchandise, specialty consumer items, food and
beverages, building materials, soaps and cosmetics, and
chemicals.


MARSH & MCLENNAN: New York Court Approves $425 Mil. Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
approved a settlement in a purported securities class action
against Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc., and its subsidiary, Marsh
Inc., and certain of their former officers, according to the
company's Feb. 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

Plaintiffs make factual allegations similar to those asserted in
the New York Attorney General's lawsuit, including that MMC
artificially inflated its share price by making
misrepresentations and omissions relating to Marsh's market
service agreements and business practices.

Plaintiffs also allege that MMC failed to disclose alleged anti-
competitive and illegal practices at Marsh, such as "bid-rigging"
and soliciting fictitious quotes.

Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and seek unspecified damages.  

On Dec. 23, 2009, the Court York approved a settlement, reached
by the parties in November 2009, of the purported securities
class action lawsuit.

Without admitting liability or wrongdoing of any kind, MMC agreed
to pay $425 million, $205 million of which was covered by
insurance.  A group of stockholders, representing approximately
4% of eligible shares, initially indicated their intent to opt
out of this settlement, but subsequently agreed to opt in to the
settlement for an additional payment.  The settlement resolves
all of the claims in this lawsuit against MMC, Marsh and the
named individuals.

Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. -- http://www.mmc.com/-- is a  
global professional services firm providing advice and solutions
in the areas of risk, strategy and human capital.  It is the
parent company of a number of risk experts and specialty
consultants, including Marsh, Guy Carpenter, Mercer, Oliver Wyman
Group and Kroll.  MMC operates in three segments: Risk and
Insurance Services, which includes risk management activities
(risk advice, risk transfer and risk control and mitigation
solutions), as well as insurance and reinsurance broking and
services; Consulting, which includes HR consulting and related
outsourcing and investment services, and specialized management
and economic consulting services, and Risk Consulting and
Technology, which includes risk consulting and related
investigative, intelligence, financial, security and technology
services.  In February 2010, Kroll sold Kroll Laboratory
Specialists, its substance abuse testing business.


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Court Okays $35 Mil. Settlement in ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
approved the $35 million settlement in a purported class action
against Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc., alleging the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act violations, according to the
company's Feb. 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

A purported ERISA class action lawsuit was brought on behalf of
participants and beneficiaries of an MMC retirement plan against
MMC and various current and former employees, officers and
directors.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that in light of the
alleged misconduct described in the New York Attorney General's
lawsuit, the defendants knew or should have known that the
investment of the plan's assets in MMC stock was imprudent, that
certain defendants failed to provide plan participants with
complete and accurate information about MMC stock, that certain
defendants responsible for selecting, removing and monitoring
other fiduciaries did not comply with ERISA, and that MMC
knowingly participated in other defendants' breaches of fiduciary
duties.

The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory
damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and costs.

On Jan. 29, 2010, the Court approved a settlement, reached by the
parties in November 2009, of the purported ERISA class action
lawsuit.

The settlement resolves all of the claims in the litigation
against MMC, Marsh and the named individuals.  Without admitting
liability or wrongdoing of any kind, MMC agreed to pay $35
million, $25 million of which was covered by insurance.

Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. -- http://www.mmc.com/-- is a  
global professional services firm providing advice and solutions
in the areas of risk, strategy and human capital.  It is the
parent company of a number of risk experts and specialty
consultants, including Marsh, Guy Carpenter, Mercer, Oliver Wyman
Group and Kroll.  MMC operates in three segments: Risk and
Insurance Services, which includes risk management activities
(risk advice, risk transfer and risk control and mitigation
solutions), as well as insurance and reinsurance broking and
services; Consulting, which includes HR consulting and related
outsourcing and investment services, and specialized management
and economic consulting services, and Risk Consulting and
Technology, which includes risk consulting and related
investigative, intelligence, financial, security and technology
services.  In February 2010, Kroll sold Kroll Laboratory
Specialists, its substance abuse testing business.


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Appeal on Settlement Okay of Two Suits Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal on the approval of a settlement in two consolidated
putative class actions against Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.,
remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey, according to the company's Feb. 26, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc., continues to face putative class
actions by policyholders relating to a civil complaint filed by
the New York State Attorney General.

The lawsuit is based on similar allegations to those made in the
New York State Attorney General's complaint commenced against
MMC, one or more of its subsidiaries, and their current and
former directors and officers.

Among other things, the NYAG Lawsuit alleged that Marsh's use of
market service agreements with various insurance companies
entailed fraudulent business practices, bid-rigging, illegal
restraint of trade and other statutory violations.

In February 2009, the trial court approved a settlement of the
claims against MMC, Marsh and certain Marsh subsidiaries in two
consolidated putative class actions (one on behalf of a purported
class of "commercial" policyholders and the second on behalf of a
purported class of "employee benefit" policyholders).

The court's approval of the settlement has been appealed.

In addition, ten actions instituted by individual policyholders
against MMC, Marsh and certain Marsh subsidiaries are pending in
federal and state courts; and one putative class action against
these parties is pending in Canada.

Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. -- http://www.mmc.com/-- is a  
global professional services firm providing advice and solutions
in the areas of risk, strategy and human capital.  It is the
parent company of a number of risk experts and specialty
consultants, including Marsh, Guy Carpenter, Mercer, Oliver Wyman
Group and Kroll.  MMC operates in three segments: Risk and
Insurance Services, which includes risk management activities
(risk advice, risk transfer and risk control and mitigation
solutions), as well as insurance and reinsurance broking and
services; Consulting, which includes HR consulting and related
outsourcing and investment services, and specialized management
and economic consulting services, and Risk Consulting and
Technology, which includes risk consulting and related
investigative, intelligence, financial, security and technology
services.  In February 2010, Kroll sold Kroll Laboratory
Specialists, its substance abuse testing business.


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Derivative Claims Over Putnam Funds Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action purporting to assert derivative claims on
behalf of all Putnam LLC mutual funds remains ongoing.

Two putative class actions by investors in certain Putnam Funds
are pending against Putnam.

One action asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Section 36(b) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940.

The other action purports to assert derivative claims on behalf
of all Putnam Funds under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company
Act.

Both suits seek to recover unspecified damages allegedly suffered
by the Putnam Funds and their investors as a result of purported
market-timing and late trading activity in certain Putnam Funds.

In December 2008 and April 2009, the court granted Putnam's
motion for summary judgment in the action relating to securities
claims, and the plaintiffs have filed an appeal.

In the derivative action, the court denied Putnam's motion for
summary judgment.

On Aug. 3, 2007, Great-West Lifeco Inc. completed its purchase of
Putnam Investments Trust. Under the terms of the stock purchase
agreement with GWL, MMC agreed to indemnify GWL in the future
with respect to certain Putnam-related litigation and regulatory
matters.

No further updates were reported in Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.'s
Feb. 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. -- http://www.mmc.com/-- is a  
global professional services firm providing advice and solutions
in the areas of risk, strategy and human capital.  It is the
parent company of a number of risk experts and specialty
consultants, including Marsh, Guy Carpenter, Mercer, Oliver Wyman
Group and Kroll.  MMC operates in three segments: Risk and
Insurance Services, which includes risk management activities
(risk advice, risk transfer and risk control and mitigation
solutions), as well as insurance and reinsurance broking and
services; Consulting, which includes HR consulting and related
outsourcing and investment services, and specialized management
and economic consulting services, and Risk Consulting and
Technology, which includes risk consulting and related
investigative, intelligence, financial, security and technology
services.  In February 2010, Kroll sold Kroll Laboratory
Specialists, its substance abuse testing business.


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Continues to Face ERISA Lawsuits with Putnam
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc., Putnam LLC and certain of their
current and former officers, directors and employees remain
defendants in purported Employee Retirement Income Security Act
class actions.

One class action was brought by participants in an MMC retirement
plan and the other case was brought by participants in a Putnam
retirement plan.

The actions allege, among other things, that, in view of the
market-timing that was allegedly allowed to occur at Putnam, the
investment of the plans' funds in MMC stock and the Putnam Funds
was imprudent and constituted a breach of fiduciary duties to
plan participants.

Both actions seek unspecified damages and equitable relief.

Following a September 2006 dismissal of the action regarding the
Putnam plan, the plaintiff appealed the decision to the Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals.

In June 2008, the appellate court reversed the dismissal and
remanded the case for further proceedings.

No further updates were reported in Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.'s
Feb. 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. -- http://www.mmc.com/-- is a  
global professional services firm providing advice and solutions
in the areas of risk, strategy and human capital.  It is the
parent company of a number of risk experts and specialty
consultants, including Marsh, Guy Carpenter, Mercer, Oliver Wyman
Group and Kroll.  MMC operates in three segments: Risk and
Insurance Services, which includes risk management activities
(risk advice, risk transfer and risk control and mitigation
solutions), as well as insurance and reinsurance broking and
services; Consulting, which includes HR consulting and related
outsourcing and investment services, and specialized management
and economic consulting services, and Risk Consulting and
Technology, which includes risk consulting and related
investigative, intelligence, financial, security and technology
services.  In February 2010, Kroll sold Kroll Laboratory
Specialists, its substance abuse testing business.


MCDONALD'S CORP: Continues to Face Obesity-Related Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
McDonald's Corporation continues to defend a suit alleging that
its products caused obesity.

On or about Feb. 17, 2003, two minors, by their parents and
guardians, filed an Amended Complaint against McDonald's
Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York (Case No. 02 Civ. 7821) captioned Ashley Pelman, a
child under the age of 18 years, by her mother and natural
guardian, Roberta Pelman, and Jazlen Bradley, a child under the
age of 18 years, by her father and natural guardian, Israel
Bradley, v. McDonald's Corporation.

The suit is seeking class action status on behalf of individuals
in New York under the age of 18 (and their parents and/or
guardians), who became obese or developed other adverse health
conditions allegedly from eating McDonald's products.

On Sept. 3, 2003, the Court dismissed all counts of the complaint
with prejudice.

On Jan. 25, 2005, following an appeal by the plaintiffs, the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's
decision to dismiss alleged violations of Section 349 of the New
York Consumer Protection Act as set forth in Counts I-III of the
amended complaint.

On Dec. 12, 2005, the plaintiffs filed their Second Amended
Complaint.

In this complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that McDonald's
Corporation:

     (1) engaged in a deceptive advertising campaign to "be
         perceived to be less nutritionally detrimental-than-in-
         fact";

     (2) failed to disclose adequately its use of certain
         additives and ingredients; and

     (3) failed to provide nutritional information about its
         products.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages; an order
directing defendants to label their individual products
specifying the fat, salt, sugar, cholesterol and dietary content;
an order prohibiting marketing to certain individuals; "funding
of an educational program to inform children and adults of the
dangers of eating certain foods" sold by defendants; and
attorneys' fees and costs.

No further developments were reported in the company's Feb. 26,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

McDonald's Corporation -- http://www.mcdonalds.com/-- franchises  
and operates McDonald's restaurants in the food service industry.
These restaurants serve a varied, yet limited, value-priced menu
in more than 100 countries worldwide.  All restaurants are
operated either by the Company or by franchisees, including
conventional franchisees under franchise arrangements, and
foreign-affiliated markets and developmental licensees under
license agreements.  Independently-owned and operated
distribution centers, approved by the company, distribute
products and supplies to most McDonald's restaurants.  In
addition, restaurant personnel are trained in the storage,
handling and preparation of products and in the delivery of
customer service.  In February 2009, the company sold its
interest in Redbox Automated Retail, LLC.


NCR CORP: Appeal in "Death Benefits" Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
NCR Corp. appeal on the decision of the federal court in Ohio
granting motions for summary judgment against the company in two
companion class actions remains pending, according to the
company's Feb. 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

In August 2009, a federal court in Ohio granted motions for
summary judgment against the company in two companion class
actions brought on behalf of certain unionized retirees, who
claimed that the company's 2003 decision to terminate certain
benefits payable on death violated collective bargaining
agreements and other rights.

The company has appealed the decision to the Sixth Circuit Court
of Appeals.

NCR Corporation is a global technology company and leader in
automated teller machines, self-checkouts and other self- and
assisted-service solutions, serving customers in more than 100
countries.  NCR's software, hardware, consulting and support
services help organizations in retail, financial, entertainment,
travel, healthcare and other industries interact with consumers
across multiple channels.


PENN NATIONAL: Court Terminates Complaint Due to Inactivity
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, Pennsylvania, has
terminated a complaint filed on behalf of Penn National Gaming,
Inc.'s public shareholders due to inactivity, according to the
company's Feb. 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

In August 2007, a complaint was filed on behalf of a putative
class of the company's public shareholders, and derivatively on
behalf of the company, in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks
County, Pennsylvania.

The Complaint names the company's Board of Directors as
defendants and the company as a nominal defendant.  The Complaint
alleges, among other things, that the Board of Directors breached
their fiduciary duties by agreeing to the proposed transaction
with Fortress Investment Group, LLC and Centerbridge Partners,
L.P., for inadequate consideration, that certain members of the
Board of Directors have conflicts with regard to the Merger, and
that the company and its Board of Directors have failed to
disclose certain material information with regard to the Merger.

The Complaint seeks, among other things, a court order
determining that the action is properly maintained as a class
action and a derivative action enjoining the company and its
Board of Directors from consummating the proposed Merger, and
awarding the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses.  The
company and the plaintiff had reached a tentative settlement,
contingent upon consummation of the transaction with Fortress and
Centerbridge, in which the company agreed to pay certain
attorneys' fees and to make certain disclosures regarding the
events leading up to the transaction with Fortress and
Centerbridge in the proxy statement sent to shareholders in
November 2007.  The case was terminated by the court for
inactivity on Sept. 7, 2009, and no payments were made.

Penn National Gaming, Inc. -- http://www.pngaming.com/-- is a  
diversified, multi-jurisdictional owner and manager of gaming and
pari-mutuel properties.  The company owns or manages 19
facilities in 15 jurisdictions, including Colorado, Florida,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri,
New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and
Ontario.  The company's properties include Charles Town
Entertainment Complex, Hollywood Casino Lawrenceburg, Hollywood
Casino at Penn National Race Course, Hollywood Casino Aurora,
Empress Casino Hotel, Argosy Casino Riverside, Hollywood Casino
Baton Rouge, Argosy Casino Al, Hollywood Casino Tunica, Hollywood
Casino Bay St. Louis, Argosy Casino Sioux City, Boomtown Biloxi,
Hollywood Slots Hotel and Raceway, Bullwhackers, Black Gold
Casino at Zia Park, Raceway Park, Freehold Raceway, Sanford-
Orlando Kennel Club, Off-track Wagering Facilities, Account
Wagering/Internet Wagering and Casino Rama.


PENN NATIONAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Maryland Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a purported class action lawsuit against Penn
National Gaming, Inc., are appealing the decision of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland dismissing the
complaint, according to the company's Feb. 26, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On July 16, 2008, the company was served with a purported class
action lawsuit brought by plaintiffs seeking to represent a class
of shareholders who purchased shares of the company's Common
Stock between March 20, 2008 and July 2, 2008.

The lawsuit alleges that the company's disclosure practices
relative to the proposed transaction with Fortress Investment
Group, LLC and Centerbridge Partners, L.P., and the eventual
termination of that transaction were misleading and deficient in
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint, which seeks class certification and unspecified
damages, was filed in federal court in Maryland.  The complaint
was amended, among other things, to add three new named
plaintiffs and to name Peter M. Carlino, Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, and William J. Clifford, Senior Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer, as additional defendants.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in November
2008, and the court granted the motion and dismissed the
complaint with prejudice.  The plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration, which was denied on Oct. 21, 2009. The
plaintiffs have appealed the decision and the parties are in the
process of filing appellate briefs.

Penn National Gaming, Inc. -- http://www.pngaming.com/-- is a  
diversified, multi-jurisdictional owner and manager of gaming and
pari-mutuel properties.  The company owns or manages 19
facilities in 15 jurisdictions, including Colorado, Florida,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri,
New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and
Ontario.  The company's properties include Charles Town
Entertainment Complex, Hollywood Casino Lawrenceburg, Hollywood
Casino at Penn National Race Course, Hollywood Casino Aurora,
Empress Casino Hotel, Argosy Casino Riverside, Hollywood Casino
Baton Rouge, Argosy Casino Al, Hollywood Casino Tunica, Hollywood
Casino Bay St. Louis, Argosy Casino Sioux City, Boomtown Biloxi,
Hollywood Slots Hotel and Raceway, Bullwhackers, Black Gold
Casino at Zia Park, Raceway Park, Freehold Raceway, Sanford-
Orlando Kennel Club, Off-track Wagering Facilities, Account
Wagering/Internet Wagering and Casino Rama.


PITNEY BOWES: "Rine" Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the suit Rine, et al. v. Imagitas, Inc., have filed
a petition for rehearing after the U.S. Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Judicial Circuit affirmed the ruling dismissing the
case, according to Pitney Bowes Inc.'s Feb. 26, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Imagitas is Pitney Bowes' wholly-owned subsidiary.

Imagitas is a defendant in ten purported class actions filed in
six different states.  These lawsuits have been coordinated in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
captioned In re: Imagitas, Driver's Privacy Protection Act
Litigation (Coordinated, May 28, 2007).

Each of these lawsuits alleges that the Imagitas DriverSource
program violates the federal Drivers Privacy Protection Act.
Under the DriverSource program, Imagitas entered into contracts
with state governments to mail out automobile registration
renewal materials along with third party advertisements, without
revealing the personal information of any state resident to any
advertiser.  The DriverSource program assisted the state in
performing its governmental function of delivering these mailings
and funding the costs of them.  The plaintiffs in these actions
are seeking statutory damages under the DPPA.

On April 9, 2008, the District Court granted Imagitas' motion for
summary judgment in one of the coordinated cases, Rine, et al. v.
Imagitas, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida,
filed Aug. 1, 2006).

On July 30, 2008, the District Court issued a final judgment in
the Rine lawsuit and stayed all of the other cases filed against
Imagitas pending an appellate decision in Rine.  On Aug. 27,
2008, the Rine plaintiffs filed an appeal of the District Court's
decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Judicial Circuit.

On Dec. 21, 2009, the Circuit Court affirmed the District Court
decision.  On Jan. 8, 2010, the Rine plaintiffs filed a petition
for rehearing en banc with the Circuit Court.

Pitney Bowes Inc. -- http://www.pb.com/index.shtml-- is a  
provider of mail processing equipment and integrated mail
solutions.  The company offers a range of equipment, supplies,
software and services for end-to-end mailstream solutions, which
enable its customers to optimize the flow of physical and
electronic mail, documents and packages across their operations.  
Pitney Bowes Inc. operates in two business groups: Mailstream
Solutions and Mailstream Services.  It operates both inside and
outside the United States.  The company conducts its business
activities in seven business segments within the Mailstream
Solutions and Mailstream Services business groups, which includes
United States Mailing; International Mailing; Production Mail;
Software; Management Services; Mail Services, and Marketing
Services.  The company's products and services are marketed
through a network of direct sales offices in the United States
and through a number of its subsidiaries and independent
distributors and dealers in many countries worldwide.


PITNEY BOWES: Faces Securities Violation Suit in Connecticut
------------------------------------------------------------
Pitney Bowes Inc. faces a class action lawsuit captioned  NECA-
IBEW Health & Welfare Fund v. Pitney Bowes Inc. et al., filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut,
according to the company's Feb. 26, 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 Oct. 28, 2009 against the company and
certain of its current and former officers.

The complaint asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 on behalf of those who purchased the common stock of the
company during the period between July 30, 2007 and Oct. 29, 2007
alleging that the company, in essence, missed two financial
projections.

Pitney Bowes Inc. -- http://www.pb.com/index.shtml-- is a  
provider of mail processing equipment and integrated mail
solutions.  The company offers a range of equipment, supplies,
software and services for end-to-end mailstream solutions, which
enable its customers to optimize the flow of physical and
electronic mail, documents and packages across their operations.  
Pitney Bowes Inc. operates in two business groups: Mailstream
Solutions and Mailstream Services.  It operates both inside and
outside the United States.  The company conducts its business
activities in seven business segments within the Mailstream
Solutions and Mailstream Services business groups, which includes
United States Mailing; International Mailing; Production Mail;
Software; Management Services; Mail Services, and Marketing
Services.  The company's products and services are marketed
through a network of direct sales offices in the United States
and through a number of its subsidiaries and independent
distributors and dealers in many countries worldwide.


SKYTERRA COMMUNICATIONS: Inks MOU to Settle Consolidated Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
SkyTerra Communications, Inc., has entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle a consolidated lawsuit relating to its
planned merger with Harbinger Capital Partners, according to the
company's Feb. 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

After the announcement of the merger with Harbinger Capital
Partners, four stockholder lawsuits, each styled as a class
action, were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery naming as
defendants Harbinger, SkyTerra and SkyTerra's board of directors.

On Oct. 28, 2009, the Court consolidated these actions under the
caption, In re SkyTerra Communications, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 4987-CC.  The consolidated action
challenges the Harbinger Merger, and generally alleges, among
other things, that the Harbinger Merger is the result of an
unfair process and that the terms of the Harbinger Merger are
unfair and coercive to SkyTerra stockholders.  The consolidated
action also alleges that SkyTerra has not held an annual meeting
of stockholders since July 25, 2006, and seeks to compel SkyTerra
to schedule and hold such an annual meeting.

Based on these allegations, the consolidated action generally
seeks, among other relief, an order declaring the action to be a
class action, declaring that the Harbinger Merger is not entirely
fair and is the result of a breach of the defendants' fiduciary
duties, granting injunctive relief preliminarily enjoining the
Harbinger Merger, compelling SkyTerra to schedule and hold an
annual meeting of SkyTerra stockholders, awarding plaintiffs and
the class appropriate damages, awarding plaintiffs costs,
including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees, and granting
plaintiffs and other members of the purported class such further
relief as the court deems just and proper.

In order to resolve the litigation and avoid further cost and
delay, SkyTerra, Harbinger and the individual defendants, without
admitting any wrongdoing, entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding, dated November 18, 2009, for the settlement of the
litigation.

The terms of the MOU are that:

     (i) the proxy would include certain disclosures requested
         by co-lead counsel for plaintiffs,

    (ii) the Harbinger Merger Agreement would be amended to
         include a non-waivable "majority of the minority" of
         shares voting requirement for the stockholder vote and

   (iii) SkyTerra will convene a meeting of stockholders for the
         purpose of electing directors in the event that the
         Harbinger Merger is not consummated on or before
         March 31, 2010.

In connection therewith, the preliminary proxy filed on Nov. 18,
2009, as amended on Jan. 8, 2010, Feb. 5, 2010, and Feb. 16,
2010, contained certain disclosures requested by co-lead counsel
for plaintiffs and the Harbinger Merger Agreement has since been
amended to include a non-waivable "majority of the minority" of
shares voting requirement for the stockholder vote.

Based on the MOU, the parties contemplated entering into a
settlement agreement that will be presented to the Court for
approval after notice to the class.  Co-lead counsel for
plaintiffs will make an application to the Court for an award of
attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed in the aggregate $1.35
million and SkyTerra (or the surviving corporation) has agreed to
pay such amount to the extent approved by the Court.  The parties
executed the stipulation of settlement on Feb. 24, 2010.  The
parties will present the settlement to the Court and cooperate in
seeking dismissal of the litigation.

SkyTerra has recorded $1.35 million in plaintiffs' attorney fees,
along with its own related attorney fees and costs, in the
accompanying statement of operations for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.  SkyTerra's insurer, as well as Harbinger, may reimburse
SkyTerra for certain amounts of such fees and costs.  However,
SkyTerra has not yet recorded any such fees and costs as
recoverable from either its insurer or from Harbinger.  

SkyTerra Communications, Inc. -- http://www.skyterra.com/--  
operates its business through its subsidiary, SkyTerra LP, which
operates a next generation satellite system in the 1.5 to 1.6
gigahertz (GHz) frequency band (the L-band).  The company offers
a range of mobile satellite communications services using two
nearly identical in-orbit geostationary satellites that support
the delivery of data, voice, fax and dispatch radio services to a
number of vertical markets in the United States, Canada and
Mexico.  The company is developing an integrated satellite and
terrestrial communications network to provide ubiquitous wireless
broadband services, including Internet access and voice services,
in the United States and Canada.  On Sept. 23, 2009, SkyTerra
entered into a merger agreement with Sol Private Corp., Harbinger
Capital Partners Master Fund I, Ltd. (Master Fund) and Harbinger
Capital Partners Special Situations Fund, L.P.


STIFEL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend ARS-Related Suit in MO
------------------------------------------------------------
Stifel Financial Corp. continues to defend a suit over its
auction rate securities in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri.

The company was named in a civil lawsuit filed on Aug. 8, 2008,
seeking class action status for investors who purchased and
continue to hold ARS offered for sale between June 11, 2003 and
Feb. 13, 2008, the date when most auctions began to fail and the
auction market froze, which alleges misrepresentation about the
investment characteristics of ARS and the auction markets.

The company discloses that approximately 97% of the Eligible ARS
investors have agreed to participate in the ARS repurchase offer.

No further developments were reported in the company's Feb. 26,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission or the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Stifel Financial Corp. -- http://www.stifel.com/-- is a  
financial service holding company.  It provides securities
related financial services to approximately 1.0 million client
accounts of customers throughout the United States and Europe.  
The Company operates in three segments: Global Wealth Management,
Capital Markets and Other.  Its subsidiaries include Stifel,
Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated (Stifel Nicolaus), a full
service retail and institutional brokerage and investment banking
firm; Century Securities Associates, Inc. (CSA), an independent
contractor broker-dealer firm; Stifel Nicolaus Limited (SN Ltd),
and Stifel Bank & Trust (Stifel Bank).


VERIZON COMMS: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Suit Dismissal Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of a consolidated
suit against Verizon Communications Inc., over its alleged
participation in intelligence-gathering activities, remains
pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
according to the company's Feb. 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

Verizon, and a number of other telecommunications companies, have
been the subject of multiple class action suits concerning its
alleged participation in intelligence-gathering activities
allegedly carried out by the federal government, at the direction
of the President of the United States, as part of the
government's post-September 11 program to prevent terrorist
attacks.

Plaintiffs generally allege that Verizon has participated by
permitting the government to gain access to the content of its
subscribers' telephone calls and/or records concerning those
calls and that such action violates federal and/or state
constitutional and statutory law.  Relief sought in the cases
includes injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and statutory and
punitive damages.

On Aug. 9, 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered that these actions be transferred, consolidated and
coordinated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.  The Panel subsequently ordered that a number of
"tag along" actions also be transferred to the Northern District
of California.

On July 10, 2008, the President signed into law the FISA
Amendments Act of 2008, which provides for dismissal of these
suits by the court based on submission by the Attorney General of
the United States of a specified certification.  On Sept. 19,
2008, the Attorney General made such a submission in the
consolidated proceedings.  Based on this submission, the court
ordered dismissal of the complaints on June 3, 2009.

Plaintiffs have appealed this dismissal, and the appeal remains
pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Verizon Communications Inc. -- http://www22.verizon.com/-- is a  
provider of communications services. Verizon operates in two
segments: Domestic Wireless and Wireline.  Its Domestic
Wireless's products and services include wireless voice and data
services and equipment sales across the United States.  
Wireline's communications products and services include voice,
Internet access, broadband video and data, next generation
Internet protocol (IP) network services, network access, long
distance and other services.  It provides these products and
services to consumers in the United States, as well as to
carriers, businesses and government customers both in the United
States and in 150 other countries worldwide.


VHOSS CORPORATION: Truck Insurance Refuses Defense Coverage
-----------------------------------------------------------
On July 9, 2009, Otto Stuparitz filed a class action complaint
against Vhoss Corporation, d/b/a Al's Number 1 Italian Beef, Case
No. 2009-CH-22496 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill.,
alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate Transactions Act of
2003 amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  Vhoss
Corporation operates a restaurant located in the Village of
Tinley Park, Ill.  Mr. Stuparitz was a patron of the restaurant.

On Oct. 9, 2009, Al's Beef tendered the defense of the Stuparitz
complaint to Truck Insurance Exchange.  Truck had issued a
Business Owners Liability policy to Al's Beef for the period
Dec. 1, 2008, to Dec. 1, 2009.  Truck declined coverage to Al's
Beef based upon certain policy provisions.

On March 17, 2010, Truck filed a complaint for declaratory relief
with the Circuit Court.  The Clerk assigned Case No. 2010-CH-
11079 to the proceeding.  Truck asked the Court to rule that it
has no duty to defend or indemnify Al's Beef because the Business
Owners Liability policy that it issued to Al's Beef specifically
excluded violations of the 2003 Amendment to the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

Truck asks the Court to declare that it has no duty to defend or
indemnify Al's Beef.

Truck Insurance Exchange is represented by:

          Danny L. Worker, Esq.
          Siobhan Murphy, Esq.
          Lisa M. Taylor, Esq.  
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP
          550 West Adams Street, Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 345-1718


VOLKSWAGEN: "Cheap & Poorly Made" Car Seat Suit Filed in Phila.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy R. Fleishman of the national plaintiffs' law firm Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, reports that Kathleen and
James Fiedler of Fogelsville, Pa., filed a lawsuit against
Volkswagen of America for the wrongful death of their twenty-year
old son Andrew Fiedler.  The complaint charges that a defectively
designed and manufactured car seat in the 2008 Jetta S played a
direct role in the death of Andrew Fiedler.  

"Andrew touched and filled the lives of so many with joy in a
very short time.  He struggled initially in college, but he found
his focus and decided to major in Hotel and Resort Management.  
He aspired to open his own restaurant one day," Mrs. Fiedler
stated.  "We hope that this lawsuit prompts Volkswagen to
manufacture cars that are in fact safe, not simply advertised as
being safe.  Other parents should not suffer the profound grief
we have experienced."

                     Alleged Defective Car Seat
                In Jetta Resulted In Fatal Accident

On Saturday, November 1, 2008, James and Kathleen Fiedler
purchased a 2008 Jetta S for their son Andrew.  A principal
reason why they chose the Jetta was the assurance by the dealer
and VW that the Jetta was one of the safest vehicles available in
America.  That afternoon the Fiedlers gave the Jetta to Andrew.  
It was intended that he drive the 2008 Jetta S back and forth
from their home to his college, Lehigh Carbon Community College.  

The evening of November 1, 2008, Andrew and a friend drove the
brand new Jetta to another friend's house.  After visiting,
Andrew and his friend started to return to the Fiedler's home.  
Both Andrew and his friend were seat belted into the vehicle.

At approximately 8:22 p.m., while traveling on Holbens Valley
Road, in the County of Lehigh, the 2008 Jetta S lost control.  
The 2008 Jetta S struck a guard rail, causing it to fishtail, so
that the rear of the vehicle was facing the opposite direction
from their initial travel.  The left rear was then struck by an
oncoming vehicle.

During the impact, the inside back support part of the seat frame
of Andrew's seat - the part that connects the reclineable back of
the seat to the lower frame of the seat - sheered into two
pieces, causing Andrew's seat to collapse backward on the right
side.  As a result, Andrew was no longer supported by the seat.  
Nor was he restrained by the seat belt.  

The force of the collision propelled Andrew toward the right rear
of the vehicle.  Andrew's head hit an area to the right of the
rear seat in the right rear of the passenger compartment,
shattering his skull and killing him.

"Absent the cheap and poorly made seat support in the Jetta which
broke in the collision, the complaint charges that Andrew would
have walked away from the accident and be alive today," stated
Wendy R. Fleishman of Lieff Cabraser.

Andrew's friend suffered no serious physical injuries in the
accident.  Her seat, the passenger seat, remained intact.  

The complaint was filed last week in the Court of Common Pleas,
Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.

             Legal Resources for Drivers and Passengers
           Injured in Accidents Due To Defective Vehicles

Lieff Cabraser represents persons across America injured by
defective vehicles.  If you would like to learn more about your
legal rights please visit http://www.usautoinjurylaw.com

There is no charge or obligation for the Firm to review your
case.

                        About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP --
http://www.lieffcabraser.com/-- is a sixty-plus attorney law  
firm that has represented plaintiffs nationwide since 1972.  The
Firm has offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville.  
Lieff Cabraser has a comprehensive and diverse practice, which
includes representing persons injured and families of loved ones
who died in auto accidents.  



Since 2003, The National Law Journal has selected Lieff Cabraser
as one of the top plaintiffs' law firms in the nation.  

                            *********

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, Joy A. Agravante,
Ronald Sy 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  * * *