CAR_Public/100407.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, April 7, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 67

                            Headlines

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Continues Litigating Claims in Hashimoto
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Continues to Face "Ross" Suit in Ohio
AGIO INT'L: Recalls 5,800 Patio Glow Outdoor Gas Fire Columns
AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Violations Suit in Mass.
ARDICA TECHNOLOGIES: Recalls 2,600 Jackets and Vests

BAUER HOCKEY: Recalls 127,000 Youth and Junior Hockey Sticks
BIOSCRIP INC: Settlement in Suit Against PBM Services Approved
BLUEKNIGHT ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending
CANADA: Appellate Court Decertifies Agent Orange Class
CEPHALON INC: E.D. Pa. Refuses to Dismiss Provigil Antitrust Case

CHILDREN'S PLACE: "Ruggiero" Settlement Gets Preliminary Okay
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Settlement in "Fong" Suit Gets Final Approval
CRATE & BARREL: Recalls 44,200 Glass Water Bottles
CRYSTAL RIVER: Faces Three Suits Over Brookfield Merger
DISH NETWORK: Dismissal of Channel Bundling Suit Appealed

DISH NETWORK: Continues to Defend Retailers' Suit in Colorado
HOWARD BERGER: Recalls 12,000 Extension Cords and Power Strips
INTERNAP NETWORK: Wants Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed
KING LONG: Recalls 6,800 Chrome Shelving Units
LIMITED BRANDS: Faces Suit by IBEW Local 697 in Ohio

NATIONAL SECURITY: Suits in Hurricanes' Aftermath Remain Pending
NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Amended Suit in AL
NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Appeal on Suit Against NLIC Unit Pending
NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Dismissal of "Beary" Suit Affirmed
NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Haddock" Suit

NEW YORK: Contractors Prepare to Sue State After Payment Halt
NEXCEN BRANDS: Hearing on Dismissal Motion Set for May 5
NORTH-SPORTIF: Recalls 720 Vests and Hooded Jackets
NPC INTERNATIONAL: Seeks Dismissal of Second Amended Complaint
PBTEEN: Williams-Sonoma Unit Recalls 3,000 PBteen Ottoman Beds

PUBLIC STORAGE: "Brinkley" Wage and Hour Suit Remains Deferred
RHI ENTERTAINMENT: Defends Shareholder Lawsuit in New York
RIGEL PHARMA: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Amended Suit
SBARRO INC: Final Approval of Settlement Remains Pending
TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Riverside Unit Still Defends "Shellman" Suit

UNITED FIRE: Continues to Defend Katrina-Related Suits
URS CORP: Unit Continues to Defend Suit on Industrial Canal Work
WAL-MART STORES: Injured Worker Class Certified in Colorado
WASHINGTON POST: Approval of Settlement Agreement Still Pending
WASHINGTON POST: Kaplan Unit Agrees to Settle California Suit

WASHINGTON POST: Kaplan Seeks to Dismiss Suit Over LSAT
WASHINGTON POST: Settlement Pact in Wage Violations Suit Okayed

                            *********

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Continues Litigating Claims in Hashimoto
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. and Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.,
continue to litigate claims in a class-action lawsuit in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles.

The suit was filed by Lisa Hashimoto on June 23, 2006.  She,
along with several other plaintiffs, alleged on behalf of a
putative class of California store managers employed in Hollister
and Abercrombie stores that they were entitled to receive
overtime pay as "non-exempt" employees under California wage and
hour laws.

The complaint seeks injunctive relief, equitable relief, unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid benefits, penalties, interest and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The defendants filed an answer to the complaint on Aug. 21, 2006.  
The parties engaged in discovery.

On Dec. 10, 2007, the defendants reached an agreement in
principle with the plaintiffs' counsel to settle certain claims
in the action.

The agreement resulted in a written Stipulation and Settlement
Agreement, effective as of Feb. 7, 2008, settling all claims of
Hollister and Abercrombie store managers who served in the stores
from June 23, 2002, to April 30, 2004.

On June 23, 2008, the Superior Court approved that proposed
partial settlement.  The partial settlement does not affect
claims which are alleged to have arisen in the period commencing
on April 30, 2004, but continued to oppose the plaintiffs'
remaining claims.

On Jan. 29, 2009, the Court certified a class consisting of all
store managers who served at Hollister and abercrombie stores in
California from May 1, 2004, through the future date upon which
the action concludes.

The parties are continuing to litigate the claims of that
putative class.

No further developments were reported in the company's March 29,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 30, 2010.

Abercrombie & Fitch Co. -- http://www.abercrombie.com/-- is a  
specialty retailer that operates stores selling casual apparel,
such as knit shirts, graphic t-shirts, jeans, woven shirts,
shorts, as well as personal care and other accessories for men,
women and kids under the Abercrombie & Fitch, Abercrombie,
Hollister and RUEHL brands.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Continues to Face "Ross" Suit in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. continues to face a consolidated
securities fraud suit styled Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., et
al., Case No. 05-cv-00819 (S.D. Ohio.) (Sargus, J.).

The suit was filed on behalf of a purported class of all persons
who purchased or acquired shares of Class A Common Stock of the
company between June 2, 2005, and Aug. 16, 2005.

The first suit, "Robert Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., et al.,"
was filed on Sept. 2, 2005.  The suit also named as
defendants the company's officers.

In September and October of 2005, five other purported class-
action suits were filed against the company and other defendants
with the same court.

All six cases seek to allege claims under the federal securities
laws as a result of a decline in the price of the company's
Class A Common Stock in the summer of 2005.

On Nov. 1, 2005, a motion to consolidate all these purported
class-actions into the first case was filed by some of the
plaintiffs.  The company joined in that motion.

On March 22, 2006, the motions to consolidate were granted, and
these actions were consolidated for purposes of motion practice,
discovery and pretrial proceedings.

A consolidated amended securities class action complaint was
filed on Aug. 14, 2006.  On Oct. 13, 2006, all the defendants
moved to dismiss that complaint.

On Aug. 9, 2007, the Court denied the motions to dismiss.  On
Sept. 14, 2007, the defendants filed answers denying the
material allegations of the Complaint and asserting affirmative
defenses.

On Oct. 26, 2007, the plaintiffs moved to certify their purported
class.  After briefings and argument, the motion was
submitted on March 24, 2009, and granted on May 21, 2009.

On June 5, 2009, defendants petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit permission to appeal the class
certification order and on Aug. 24, 2009, the Sixth Circuit
granted leave to appeal.

No further developments were reported in the company's March 29,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 30, 2010.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Keith W. Schneider, Esq.
         MAGUIRE & SCHNEIDER
         250 Civic Center Drive, Suite 200
         Columbus, OH 43215
         Phone: 614-224-1222
         Fax: 614-224-1236
         E-mail: kwschneider@maguire-schneider.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Philip Albert Brown, Esq.
         VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR & PEASE
         52 East Gay Street
         Columbus, OH 43216-1008
         Phone: 614-464-6400
         Fax: 614-464-6400
         E-mail: pabrown@vssp.com

              - and -

         Roger Philip Sugarman, Esq.
         KEGLER BROWN HILL & RITTER
         65 E. State Street, Suite 1800
         Columbus, OH 43215-4294
         Phone: 614-462-5400
         Fax: 614-462-5422
         E-mail: rsugarman@keglerbrown.com

              - and -

         Michael Roy Szolosi, Sr., Esq.
         MCNAMARA AND MCNAMARA
         88 East Broad Street, Suite 1250
         Columbus, OH 43215
         Phone: 614-228-6131
         E-mail: mrs@mcnamaralaw.us


AGIO INT'L: Recalls 5,800 Patio Glow Outdoor Gas Fire Columns
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Agio International Co. of Hong Kong, announced a voluntary recall
of about 5,800 Patio Glow Outdoor Gas Fire Columns.  Consumers
should stop using the product immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

Gas can leak from connections in the column, posing a fire hazard
to consumers.

Agio has received five reports of fires.  No injuries have been
reported.

The recalled product is a propane gas fire column used for
outdoor ambiance.  The base of the column is rectangular with
brick styling.  The top has a bowl shape with lava rocks.  This
unit does not include ceramic logs.  Only products with serial
numbers running sequentially from 0081959SD through 0087754SD are
affected.  The model number GFP207 and the serial number is
printed on a label that is located inside the door on the base.  
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10728.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Costco from August 2009 through February 2010 for about $200.

Consumers should stop using the fire columns immediately and
return the columns to any Costco retail outlet to receive a full
refund.  For more information, call Agio-USA at (800) 598-6532
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday or e-mail the company at customerservice@va-cs.com or
visit Agio's recall Web site at http://www.va-cs.com/recall/


AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Violations Suit in Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc., faces a complaint styled Silverstrand
Investments v. AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al (Case No. 10 Civ.
10470), alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933,
according to the company's March 26, 2010, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On March 25, 2010, the company, was served with a complaint,
naming the company, its chief executive officer and its chief
financial officer as defendants in a purported class action
lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

The complaint alleges violations by the company and its chief
executive officer and its chief financial officer of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with the
company's January 2010 common stock offering.

AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.amagpharma.com/-- is a  
biopharmaceutical company, which utilizes the technology for the
development and commercialization of a therapeutic iron compound
to treat iron deficiency anemia and imaging agents to aid in the
diagnosis of cancer and cardiovascular disease.  The company
manufactures and sells two approved products, Feraheme
(ferumoxytol) Injection for intravenous (IV) and GastroMARK.  On
June 30, 2009, Feraheme was approved for marketing in the United
States by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA),
for use as an IV iron replacement therapy for the treatment of
iron deficiency anemia (IDA) in adult patients with chronic
kidney disease (CKD).


ARDICA TECHNOLOGIES: Recalls 2,600 Jackets and Vests
----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Ardica Technologies, of San Francisco, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of about 2,600 Ardica Technologies Jackets and
Vests with Moshi Power Systems.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

Electrical connections in the warming components in the jackets
and vest can overheat, posing a burn hazard to consumers.

Ardica Technologies has received five reports of overheating.  No
injuries have been reported.

The recalled jackets and vests are designed to work with the
Ardica Moshi Power system.  The Moshi Power System is marked with
"Ardica".  The pouch below the collar of each garment is marked
"Ardica Heat Power Charge."  Each jacket and vest also has a
power switch next to the logo on the front.  The following models
are affected by this recall: Ardica Enabled Mountain Hardwear
Radiance Jackets, Refugium Jackets and Sitka Dutch Oven Vests.  
The Mountain Hardwear jackets have the Ardica name and logo on
the right sleeve.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10186.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
sporting goods and outdoor equipment retailers from August 2009
through February 2010 for between $230 and $425.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled jackets and
vests, and contact Ardica for a full refund.  For additional
information, contact Ardica Technologies toll-free at
(877) 884-1921, 24 hours a day, seven days a week or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.ardica.com/


BAUER HOCKEY: Recalls 127,000 Youth and Junior Hockey Sticks
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Bauer Hockey Inc., of Greenland, N.H., announced
a voluntary recall of about 67,000 Youth and Junior Hockey
Sticks, Shafts, and Blades in the United States and 60,000 in
Canada.  Consumers should stop using products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

Paint and decals on the sticks, shafts and blades contain
excessive levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint
standard.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The hockey sticks, shafts and blades that are affected by these
recall:

  Description              Pieces                  Countries Sold
  -----------              ------                  --------------
  Nike Bauer Supreme       sticks, shafts and
  One50 Junior Stick       replacement blades      U.S. and Canada

  Nike Bauer Supreme
  One70 Junior Stick       player stick            U.S. and Canada
  
  Nike Bauer Supreme       player and goalie
  One75 Junior Stick       sticks                  U.S. and Canada

  Bauer Supreme
  One75 Junior Stick       player stick            U.S. and Canada

  Nike Bauer Supreme
  One90 Youth and Junior   sticks, shafts, and
  Stick                    replacement blades      U.S. and Canada

  Nike Bauer Vapor XVI
  Junior Stick             player stick            U.S. and Canada

  Nike Bauer Vapor XX      player and goalie
  Junior Stick             sticks                  U.S. and Canada

  Bauer Vapor XX Junior
  Stick                    player stick            U.S. and Canada

  Nike Bauer Apollo
  Junior Stick             player stick            U.S.

  Nike Bauer Supreme
  Force Junior Stick       player stick            U.S.

  Nike Bauer Supreme
  Accel Junior Stick       player stick            Canada

  Nike Bauer Supreme
  One40 Junior Stick       player stick            Canada

  Nike Bauer Supreme
  OneLTX Junior Stick      player stick            Canada

The hockey and goalie sticks, shafts and blades come in various
shapes, sizes and colors.  The name "Bauer" and the model
descriptions are on all of the sticks, shafts and blades.  Most
of the sticks also have the Nike symbol.  Junior player sticks
and replacement shafts are each identified by the markings
"JUNIOR," "52 Flex" or "JUNIOR Flex 52."  Youth player sticks are
identified by the marking "YOUTH Flex 42" or "YTH Flex 42."  
These markings appear on all models on the narrow side of the
stick shaft either near the top of the stick or near the blade.  
Junior replacement blades fit only the Junior sticks and are
identified by the markings "P92" or "PM9" followed by "JR", which
appear on the narrow side of the blade near where the shaft and
blade are joined.  Junior goal sticks are identified by the
markings "P31- JR-22 1/2" or "P31 JUNIOR-FLEX 52-22 1/2" which
appear on the narrow side of the stick shaft near the top of the
stick.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10189.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
sporting goods stores nationwide from February 2005 through March
2010 for about $80 to $200 for sticks, $30 for blades, and $40 to
$90 for shafts

Consumers should take the recalled sticks, shafts and blades away
from children immediately and contact Bauer for a replacement or
refund.  For additional information, call Bauer toll-free at
(888) 734-0443 between 8:00 a.m. and midnight, Eastern Time,
Sunday through Saturday or visit the company's Web site at
http://www.bauer.com/


BIOSCRIP INC: Settlement in Suit Against PBM Services Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Alabama Circuit Court for Barbour County has approved the
settlement in an amended complaint against BioScrip, Inc.'s
BioScrip PBM Services, according to the company's March 2, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Feb. 14, 2005, a complaint was filed in the Alabama Circuit
Court for Barbour County, captioned Eufaula Drugs, Inc. v.
ScriptSolutions [sic], one of approximately fourteen
substantially identical complaints commenced in Alabama courts
against various unrelated pharmacy benefit management companies.

On April 8, 2005, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
substituting the company's BioScrip PBM Services f/k/a
ScripSolutions as the defendant, seeking unspecified money
damages and injunctive relief, and alleging breach of contract
and related tort and equitable claims on behalf of a putative
nationwide class of pharmacies alleging insufficient
reimbursement for prescriptions dispensed by ScripSolutions,
principally on the theory that PBM Services was obligated to
update its prescription pricing files on a daily rather than
weekly basis.

Following preliminary proceedings and class discovery, the
parties reached a settlement agreement on Aug. 6, 2009, in which
the company continued to deny liability, with a class of
pharmacies which was certified solely for settlement purposes,
and class members were entitled to receive $0.065 for each
branded prescription filled during the settlement class period.

The court approved the settlement on Nov. 4, 2009 and a final
judgment dismissing the action has been entered in the action,
the time to appeal which has expired.  The costs of the
settlement are covered by insurance.

BioScrip, Inc. -- http://www.bioscrip.com/-- is a specialty  
pharmaceutical healthcare organization that partners with
patients, physicians, healthcare payors and pharmaceutical
manufacturers to provide access to medications and management
solutions to optimize outcomes for chronic and other complex
healthcare conditions.  The company operates in two business
segments: Specialty Pharmacy Services and Traditional Pharmacy
Services.  The Specialty Pharmacy Services segment includes
support, dispensing and distribution, patient care management,
data reporting, as well as a range of other complex therapy
management services for certain chronic and acute health
conditions.  The Traditional Pharmacy Services segment consists
of traditional mail service pharmacy fulfillment, and to a lesser
extent, prescription discount card programs and funded pharmacy
benefit management (PBM) services.


BLUEKNIGHT ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Blueknight Energy Partners, L.P., fka SemGroup Energy Partners,
L.P.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated amended complaint remains
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma, according to the company's Form 10-Q/A filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2009.

Between July 21, 2008 and Sept. 4, 2008, these class action
complaints were filed:

     1. Poelman v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P., et al., Civil
        Action No. 08-CV-6477, in the United States District
        Court for the Southern District of New York (filed
        July 21, 2008).  The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed
        this case on Aug. 26, 2008;

     2. Carson v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al., Civil
        Action No. 08-cv-425, in the Northern District of
        Oklahoma (filed July 22, 2008);

     3. Charles D. Maurer SIMP Profit Sharing Plan f/b/o Charles
        D. Maurer v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al.,
        Civil Action No. 08-cv-6598, in the U.S. District Court
        for the Southern District of New York (filed July 25,
        2008);

     4. Michael Rubin v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al.,
        Civil Action No. 08-cv-7063, in the U.S. District Court
        for the Southern District of New York (filed Aug. 8,
        2008);

     5. Dharam V. Jain v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al.,
        Civil Action No. 08-cv-7510, in the U.S. District Court
        for the Southern District of New York  (filed Aug. 25,
        2008); and

     6. William L. Hickman v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P.
        et al., Civil Action No. 08-cv-7749, in the U.S.
        District Court for the Southern District of New York
        (filed Sept. 4, 2008).

Pursuant to a motion filed with the MDL Panel, the Maurer case
has been transferred to the Northern District of Oklahoma and
consolidated with the Carson case.  The Rubin, Jain, and Hickman
cases have also been transferred to the Northern District of
Oklahoma.

A hearing on motions for appointment as lead plaintiff was held
in the Carson case on Oct. 17, 2008.  At that hearing, the court
granted a motion to consolidate the Carson and Maurer cases for
pretrial proceedings, and the consolidated litigation is now
pending as In Re: SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. Securities
Litigation , Case No. 08-CV-425-GKF-PJC.

The court entered an order on Oct. 27, 2008, granting the motion
of Harvest Fund Advisors LLC to be appointed lead plaintiff in
the consolidated litigation.  On Jan. 23, 2009, the court entered
a Scheduling Order providing, among other things, that the lead
plaintiff may file a consolidated amended complaint within 70
days of the date of the order, and that defendants may answer or
otherwise respond within 60 days of the date of the filing of a
consolidated amended complaint.

On Jan. 30, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a motion to modify the
stay of discovery provided for under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act.  The court granted Plaintiff's motion, and
the company and certain other defendants filed a Petition for
Writ of Mandamus in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals that was
denied after oral argument on April 24, 2009.

The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on
May 4, 2009.

In that complaint, filed as a putative class action on behalf of
all purchasers of the company's units from July 17, 2007 to
July 17, 2008, lead plaintiff asserts claims under the federal
securities laws against the company, its general partner, certain
of its current and former officers and directors, certain
underwriters in the company's initial and secondary public
offerings, and certain entities who were investors in the Private
Company and their individual representatives who served on the
Private Company's management committee.

Among other allegations, the amended complaint alleges that the
company's financial condition throughout the class period was
dependent upon speculative commodities trading by the Private
Company and its Chief Executive Officer, Thomas L. Kivisto, and
that defendants negligently and intentionally failed to disclose
this speculative trading in our public filings during the class
period.  The amended complaint further alleges there were other
material omissions and misrepresentations contained in the
company's filings during the class period.  The amended complaint
alleges claims for violations of sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 for damages and rescission with
respect to all persons who purchased the company's units in the
initial and secondary offerings, and also asserts claims under
section 10b, Rule 10b-5, and section 20(a) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934.  The amended complaint seeks certification
as a class action under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
compensatory and rescissory damages for class members, pre-
judgment interest, costs of court, and attorneys' fees.

On July 22, 2009, all of the defendants filed motions to dismiss
the amended complaint.  The lead plaintiff filed a response in
opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss on Sept. 1, 2009.  
On Oct. 8, 2009, the defendants filed a reply in support of their
motion to dismiss.  The lead plaintiff filed a supplemental
opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss on Oct. 29, 2009.

Blueknight Energy Partners, L.P., fka SemGroup Energy Partners,
L.P. -- http://www.sglpenergy.com/-- owns, operates and develops  
a portfolio of midstream energy assets.  The company provides
integrated terminalling, storage, processing, gathering and
transportation services for companies engaged in the production,
distribution and marketing of crude oil and liquid asphalt
cement.  It manages its operations through three operating
segments: crude oil terminalling and storage services, crude oil
gathering and transportation services and asphalt services.  The
company owns and operates two pipeline systems, the Mid-Continent
system and the Longview system, that gather crude oil purchased
by the Private Company and its other customers and transports it
to refiners, to common carrier pipelines for ultimate delivery to
refiners or to terminalling and storage facilities owned by the
company and others.


CANADA: Appellate Court Decertifies Agent Orange Class
------------------------------------------------------
Rosie Gillingham at the St. John's Telegram reports that a Court
of Appeal has decertified a class-action lawsuit relating to
Agent Orange at a former military base in New Brunswick.

More than 3,000 people from across Canada were involved in a
class-action lawsuit against the government and the chemical
manufacturers.

They were seeking compensation for being exposed to Agent Orange.

However, a decision by Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal
Justice Margaret Cameron to overturn a previous ruling by a lower
court means the claimants now have to file individual lawsuits.

That process would be more costly and time-consuming.

Retired Brig. Gen. Ed Ring of St. John's, who put his name
forward on behalf of all the claimants in the lawsuit, was
unavailable for comment.

However, last fall, when the merits of the appeal were being
argued, he told The St. John's Telegram that if those involved
have to file individual lawsuits, "98 per cent of them would walk
away from this, either because they can't afford it, don't have
the time or are too ill."

In the fall of 2007, the federal government announced a $95.6-
million compensation package for veterans and civilians who were
at the base in 1966 and 1967 and were affected by the U.S.
military's spraying of Agent Orange at the Gagetown base.

A one-time, lump sum payment of $20,000 each was paid to those
who qualified for compensation. Roughly 4,500 people were
eligible for the payment. But many believe it fell short of what
the veterans and their families deserve.

In December 2007, Newfoundland Justice Leo Barry ruled the class-
action lawsuit against the federal government would proceed in
Newfoundland.

Since then, the case had been dragging through the system as the
government and chemical companies filed various motions and
appeals.

Last fall, lawyers from both sides argued the merits of an
appeal, filed by the government and the chemical manufacturers
Pharmacia Corp. and Dow Chemical Group, seeking to halt the class
action.

At that time, several people involved in the class action also
came to court.

Their fight was all about people who were affected by the U.S.
military's spraying of Agent Orange at the Canadian Forces Base
Gagetown in New Brunswick.

Agent Orange -- a herbicide used by the military to control
vegetation and clear dense brush -- was used in Gagetown between
1956 and 2004.

The powerful and toxic defoliant was proved to have caused
serious long-term health effects on those who were exposed to it.

Used by the U.S. military in the Vietnam War, Agent Orange was
recognized to have caused such illnesses as Hodgkin's disease,
lymphoma, respiratory cancers, prostate cancer and Type 2
diabetes.

David Eaton, who represents Dow Chemical Group, had told the
appeal panel that because of the large numbers involved, the
diversity of the group and the specific circumstances of each, it
would be difficult to deal with it as one case.

Eaton declined to comment Wednesday.

Ring, who served 34 years in the military and was diagnosed with
cancer in 1996, had said they have a right to a fair hearing,
despite the complexities of the case.

"This is a significant effort by large companies and the federal
government to deny us that right.

"There's a common issue involved here. It's all about what
happened in Gagetown."

But the appeal panel agreed with Eaton and didn't believe there
was enough to establish the criteria for certification.

For example, Cameron noted that the class may have been too
broad, and that it is difficult to narrow its scope.

One issue she had was with the wording of the class: it's defined
as "all individuals who were at CFB Gagetown between 1956 and the
present and who claim they were exposed to dangerous levels of
dioxin or hexachlorobenzene while on the base."

"While various numbers have been used to estimate the potential
size of the class," Cameron pointed out, "it is generally agreed
that it is in excess of 400,000 people and, thus defined,
includes everyone who was at CFB Gagetown, for any period of
time, between 1956 and the present, whether exposed to herbicides
or not.

"It lacks the rational connection to the causes of action and
common issues identified by the plaintiffs. Given the pattern of
spraying, its time frame and size of the base, not every one of
the 400,000 plus potential claimants in fact have a claim."

She said as it's worded, it "limits class members to those who
'claim they were exposed' rather than those who 'were exposed.' "

Cameron also questioned real common issue in the class.

"The trial division judge did not address the question of whether
the (primary) common issue is a common issue for the whole of the
class or a series of common issues to be determined for various
subclasses," Cameron said.

"Unless the relationship between various chemicals and all types
of lymphomas is the same, the determination will have to be made
for each type of lymphoma."

The lack of criteria for certification in this case, Cameron
said, "undermines the trial division judge's decision that a
class action is the preferable procedure."


CEPHALON INC: E.D. Pa. Refuses to Dismiss Provigil Antitrust Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Duffy at The Legal Intelligencer reports that in one of
the most closely watched antitrust cases on the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania's docket, a federal judge has refused to dismiss
claims that biopharmaceutical giant Cephalon Inc. established an
illegal monopoly for its profitable drug Provigil by paying more
than $200 million in settlements to four generic manufacturers in
return for agreements that they would delay going to market with
cheaper versions of the drug.

The Provigil settlements sparked a wave of lawsuits -- including
one brought by the Federal Trade Commission -- that accused
Cephalon of conspiring with the four generic manufacturers to
form classic anti-competitive horizontal agreements.

The suits alleged that Cephalon concocted a "reverse payment"
scheme in which it filed patent suits against the four generic
firms and then, instead of pressing those claims, opted to make a
series of hefty payments to the defendants to preserve its
monopoly.

But lawyers for Cephalon and the four generic firms insisted that
the law was on their side and that such settlements are precisely
what Congress envisioned when it revamped the process for
bringing generic drugs to market in the Hatch-Waxman Act.

The four generic firms named as defendants are: Barr
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ranbaxy
Laboratories Ltd. and Mylan Laboratories Inc.

In court papers, defense lawyers argued that courts have
consistently approved of such Hatch-Waxman settlements -- even
those with "reverse payments" -- so long as the settlements do
not restrict competition to any greater extent than the patent
itself.

But plaintiffs lawyers pointed to a decision by the 6th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals that declared reverse payment schemes to
be per se illegal.

Now U.S. District Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg has declared in King
Drug of Florence, Inc., et al. v. Cephalon, Inc., et al., Case
No. 06-cv-01797 (E.D. Pa.), Vista Helthplan, Inc., et al. v.
Cephalon, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-cv-01833 (E.D. Pa.), Apotex,
Inc. v. Cephalon, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-cv-02768 (E.D. Pa.),
and Federal Trade Commission v. Cephalon, Inc., Case No.
08-cv-02141 (E.D. Pa.), that the law is somewhere in between the
extreme positions urged by both sides and that the case must
proceed to discovery.

Reviewing the legal landscape, Judge Goldberg noted that the
Third Circuit has never addressed the issue of reverse payment
schemes, but that the Sixth Circuit's position has never been
adopted by another circuit. Later decisions from the 11th, 2nd
and Federal circuits, Judge Goldberg found, called for a more
nuanced approach in which courts scrutinize the particular facts
of the reverse settlement agreements with a focus on whether they
extend beyond the patent and whether they have anti-competitive
effects.

"A reflexive conclusion that the agreements in question are per
se antitrust violations, as urged by plaintiffs, and in
particular the FTC, ignores the 'exclusionary' patent rights
afforded to Cephalon," Judge Goldberg wrote.

A patent, Judge Goldberg said, "grants its owner the lawful right
to exclude others."

Judge Goldberg found that his task was to "strike the proper
balance between competing patent and antitrust principles."

As a result, Judge Goldberg found that the Eleventh Circuit's
focus on the scope of the patent was the best starting place for
the analysis because it allows plaintiffs to pursue claims that
the patent in question was procured by fraud or that the
litigation that led to the reverse payment settlements was
actually sham litigation brought solely for the purpose of
delaying generic versions from coming to market.

Applying that test, Judge Goldberg found that the plaintiffs
survived the motion to dismiss.

"We find that sufficient facts have been alleged to establish
that the agreements in question grant greater rights than those
conferred under the patent," Judge Goldberg wrote.

The complaints allege fraud and misrepresentations to the Patent
and Trademark Office, Judge Goldberg noted, as well as non-
infringement, patent invalidity, "sham litigation," and the
creation of a "bottleneck" in which the settling generic firms
would have the power to effectively block any other generic
version of the drug from coming to market by agreeing not to
trigger the 180-day exclusivity provisions awarded to them by the
Food & Drug Administration.

Cephalon is represented by:

          Nancy J. Gellman, Esq.
          John A. Guernsey, Esq.
          Frank R. Emmerich, Jr., Esq.
          CONRAD O'BRIEN PC
          1515 Market Street, 16th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA  19102
          Telephone: 215-864-9600
          E-mail: ngellman@conradobrien.com
                  jguernsey@conradobrien.com
                  femmerich@conradobrien.com

               - and -  

          James C. Burling, Esq.
          Peter J. Kolovos, Esq.
          Gregory P. Teran, Esq.
          Peter A. Spaeth, Esq.
          Mark A. Ford, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP
          60 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: 617-526-6000
          E-mail: james.burling@wilmerhale.com
                  peter.kolovos@wilmerhale.com
                  gregory.teran@wilmerhale.com
                  peter.spaeth@wilmerhale.com
                  mark.ford@wilmerhale.com

A proposed class of direct purchasers is represented by:

          David F. Sorensen, Esq.
          Daniel Berger, Esq.
          Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 1-800-424-6690
          E-mail: dsorensen@bm.net
                  danberger@bm.net
                  ecramer@bm.net
                  
               - and -  

          Bruce E. Gerstein, Esq.
          Joseph Opper, Esq.
          GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER, LLP
          501 Broadway
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: 212-398-0055
          E-mail: bgerstein@garwingerstein.com
                  jopper@garwingerstein.com

A group of drug store chain plaintiffs including CVS, Rite Aid
Corp. and Eckerd Corp. is represented by:

          Steve D. Shadowen, Esq.
          Monica L. Rebuck, Esq.
          HANGLEY ARONCHICK SEGAL & PUDLIN
          30 North Third Street, Suite 700
          Harrisburg, PA 17101-1701
          Telephone: 717-364-1010
          E-mail: sshadowen@hangley.com
                  mrebuck@hangley.com

Apotex Inc., the generic manufacturer that says it was harmed by
the alleged antitrust conspiracy, is represented by:

          Howard Langer, Esq.
          LANGER GROGAN & DIVER P.C.
          1717 Arch Street, Suite 4130
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 215-320-5660
          E-mail: hlanger@langergrogan.com

The FTC is represented by in-house attorneys Markus H. Meier,
Esq., Bradley S. Albert, Esq., Elizabeth R. Hilder, Esq.,
Saralisa C. Brau, Esq., and Mark J. Woodward, Esq.


CHILDREN'S PLACE: "Ruggiero" Settlement Gets Preliminary Okay
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio preliminarily
approved the settlement in the suit Meghan Ruggiero
against The Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc., according to
the company's March 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan.
30, 2010.

On or about Sept. 28, 2007, Meghan Ruggiero filed a complaint
against the company and its subsidiary, Hoop Retail Stores, LLC,
in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio on behalf
of herself and other similarly situated individuals.  

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act and seeks class certification, an award of
statutory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and
injunctive relief.

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Jan. 25, 2008.

Effective as of March 26, 2008, the prosecution of this lawsuit
against Hoop was stayed under the automatic stay provisions of
the U.S. Bankruptcy Code by reason of Hoop's petition for relief
filed that same day.

On March 2, 2009, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion to
dismiss the company as a defendant and to replace the company
with its subsidiary, The Children's Place Services Company, LLC.

On Oct. 8, 2009, the parties reached a tentative settlement in
the amount of $300,000, and the parties are negotiating the terms
of the settlement agreement.

On March 4, 2010, the Court preliminarily approved the
settlement, authorized the dissemination of notice of the
settlement to the company's shareholders and scheduled a hearing
to consider the fairness and final approval of the settlement.  
The company has accrued for the cost of this settlement and the
related expense was charged to discontinued operations.

The Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc. --
http://www.childrensplace.com/-- is a specialty retailer of  
children's apparel and accessories, ages newborn to 14 years old.  
The company designs, contract to manufacture and sells
merchandise under the The Children's Place brand name.  The
company offers current fashion trends in a color palette as
coordinated outfits specifically designed for children.


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Settlement in "Fong" Suit Gets Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, gave its
final preliminary approval to the settlement on a putative class
action suit by Joy Fong against The Children's Place Retail
Stores, Inc., according to the company's March 26, 2010, Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Jan. 30, 2010.

On or about July 12, 2006, Ms. Fong, a former Disney Store
manager in the San Francisco district, filed a lawsuit against
the company and its subsidiary Hoop Retail Stores, LLC in the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the California Labor Code and
California Business and Professions Code and sought class action
certification on behalf of Ms. Fong and other individuals
similarly situated.

The company filed its answer on Aug. 11, 2006 denying any and all
liability, and on Jan. 14, 2007, Ms. Fong filed an amended
complaint, adding Disney as a defendant.

Effective as of March 26, 2008, the prosecution of this lawsuit
against Hoop was stayed under the automatic stay provisions of
the U.S. Bankruptcy Code by reason of Hoop's petition for relief
filed that same day.

The case is currently proceeding against the other defendants
and, on Dec. 18, 2008, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion
for class certification on the misclassification claim.

The company has reached a tentative settlement in the amount of
$600,000, which was preliminarily approved by the Court on
Oct. 6, 2009.  The settlement obtained final approval from the
Court on March 10, 2010.

The Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc. --
http://www.childrensplace.com/-- is a specialty retailer of  
children's apparel and accessories, ages newborn to 14 years old.  
The company designs, contract to manufacture and sells
merchandise under the The Children's Place brand name.  The
company offers current fashion trends in a color palette as
coordinated outfits specifically designed for children.


CRATE & BARREL: Recalls 44,200 Glass Water Bottles
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Crate and Barrel, a division of Euromarket
Designs Inc., of Northbrook, Ill., announced a voluntary recall
of about 42,000 Glass Water Bottles in the United States and
2,200 in Canada.  Consumers should stop using products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The glass beverage bottles can shatter when the consumer is
removing or inserting the stopper, posing a laceration hazard to
consumers.

Crate and Barrel has received seven reports of the recalled water
bottles shattering, including four reports of hand lacerations.

The recall involves clear glass water bottles including 22-ounce
bottles with SKU number 437-151 and 50-ounce bottles with SKU
number 437-169.  The SKU numbers are listed on a white bar code
label on the bottom of the item.  A picture of the recalled
product is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10187.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Crate and Barrel stores, Crate and Barrel's catalog and on the
Web at http://www.crateandbarrel.com/between December 2008 and  
February 2010 for between $9 and $17.

Consumers should immediately stop using the glass water bottles
and return them to any Crate and Barrel store for a full refund.
Consumers who purchased the recalled water bottles through Crate
and Barrel's catalog or on the firm's Web site should contact
Crate and Barrel to arrange to return the water bottles for a
full refund.  For additional information, contact Crate and
Barrel at (800) 451-8217 between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., Central
Time, Monday through Saturday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.crateandbarrel.com/


CRYSTAL RIVER: Faces Three Suits Over Brookfield Merger
-------------------------------------------------------
Crystal River Capital, Inc., faces three lawsuits in relation to
its merger agreement with Brookfield Asset Management Inc.,
according to the company's March 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

Three lawsuits have been filed by alleged Crystal River
shareholders challenging the company's proposed merger with
Brookfield and naming as defendants Crystal River, the Board of
Directors, and in some instances, Brookfield and B Merger Sub,
Inc.

On or around March 2, 2010, plaintiff Fazal Mahmood filed a
complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland
against Crystal River and our Board of Directors asserting claims
on behalf of a putative class of company shareholders.

On March 2, 2010, plaintiffs Milton P. Silva and Shaher Tadros
filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of New York, against Crystal River, the company's Board of
Directors, Brookfield, and B Merger Sub, Inc. asserting claims on
behalf of a putative class of Crystal River shareholders as well
as derivative claims ostensibly on behalf of Crystal River.

On March 5, 2010, plaintiff Gary P. Klahr filed a complaint in
the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland against Crystal
River, the company's Board of Directors, Brookfield, and B Merger
Sub, Inc. asserting claims on behalf of a putative class of
Crystal River shareholders.

In each of these lawsuits, the plaintiffs generally allege, among
other things, that the members of the company's Board of
Directors breached their fiduciary duties towards the plaintiffs
and the other public stockholders of Crystal River in connection
with the proposed sale of Crystal River to Brookfield and Merger
Sub.  Plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek, among other relief,
certification of the lawsuits as class actions, an injunction
preventing the Merger from closing, an award of unspecified
damages to the plaintiffs and the class, and an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses, along with such other relief as the
courts deem just and proper.

Crystal River Capital, Inc. -- http://www.crystalriverreit.com/
-- is engaged in investing in commercial real estate, real estate
loans and instruments, real estate-related securities, such as
commercial and residential mortgage-backed securities, and
various other asset classes.  The company is investing primarily
in commercial real estate, whole mortgage loans, mezzanine loans,
commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS), and non-Agency
residential mortgage-backed securities (non-Agency RMBS).  The
company also has invested in junior interests in mortgage loans
known as B Notes, mortgage-backed securities issued by United
States Government sponsored agencies (Agency MBS), diversified
asset-backed securities (ABS), including consumer obligations,
and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs).


DISH NETWORK: Dismissal of Channel Bundling Suit Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a purported class action against DISH Network
Corporation are appealing the dismissal ruling of the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, according
to the company's March 1, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

During 2007, a purported class of cable and satellite subscribers
filed an antitrust action against the company.  The suit also
names as defendants DirecTV, Comcast, Cablevision, Cox, Charter,
Time Warner, Inc., Time Warner Cable, NBC Universal, Viacom, Fox
Entertainment Group, and Walt Disney Company.

The suit alleges, among other things, that the defendants engaged
in a conspiracy to provide customers with access only to bundled
channel offerings as opposed to giving customers the ability to
purchase channels on an "a la carte" basis.

On Oct. 16, 2009, the District Court granted defendants' motion
to dismiss with prejudice.

The plaintiffs have appealed.

DISH Network Corporation -- http://www.dishnetwork.com/-- is a  
pay-television provider across the United States.  The company
provides programming, which includes more than 280 basic video
channels, 60 Sirius Satellite Radio music channels, 30 movie
channels, 35 regional and specialty sports channels, 2,500 local
channels, 220 Latino and international channels, and 50 channels
of pay-per-view content.  As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company
provided local channel coverage to markets covering about 97% of
United States television households.  In addition, it provided
high definition (HD) local channels to markets representing
approximately 93% of United States television households.


DISH NETWORK: Continues to Defend Retailers' Suit in Colorado
-------------------------------------------------------------
DISH Network Corporation continues to defend a class suit in
Colorado filed by retailers.

During 2000, lawsuits were filed by retailers in Colorado state
and federal courts attempting to certify nationwide classes on
behalf of certain of the company's retailers.  The plaintiffs are
requesting the Courts declare certain provisions of, and changes
to, alleged agreements between us and the retailers invalid and
unenforceable, and to award damages for lost incentives and
payments, charge backs, and other compensation.

The company has asserted a variety of counterclaims.  The federal
court action has been stayed during the pendency of the state
court action.

The company filed a motion for summary judgment on all counts and
against all plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs filed a motion for
additional time to conduct discovery to enable them to respond to
the company's motion.  The state court granted limited discovery
which ended during 2004.

The plaintiffs claimed the company did not provide adequate
disclosure during the discovery process.  The state court agreed,
and denied the company's motion for summary judgment as a result.

In April 2008, the state court granted plaintiff's class
certification motion and in January 2009, the state court entered
an order excluding certain evidence that the company can present
at trial based on the prior discovery issues.  The state court
also denied plaintiffs' request to dismiss our counterclaims.  
The final impact of the court's evidentiary ruling cannot be
fully assessed at this time.

In May 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for default judgment based
on new allegations of discovery misconduct.

No further updates were reported in the company's March 1, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

DISH Network Corporation -- http://www.dishnetwork.com/-- is a  
pay-television provider across the United States.  The company
provides programming, which includes more than 280 basic video
channels, 60 Sirius Satellite Radio music channels, 30 movie
channels, 35 regional and specialty sports channels, 2,500 local
channels, 220 Latino and international channels, and 50 channels
of pay-per-view content.  As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company
provided local channel coverage to markets covering about 97% of
United States television households.  In addition, it provided
high definition (HD) local channels to markets representing
approximately 93% of United States television households.


HOWARD BERGER: Recalls 12,000 Extension Cords and Power Strips
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Howard Berger Co. Inc., of Cranbury, N.J., announced a voluntary
recall of about 12,000 Indoor and Outdoor Extension Cords and
Power Strips.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The extension cords and power strips have inadequate coating
material around the cords and copper conductors that are smaller
than required, posing a fire hazard to consumers.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recall involves Brightway heavy duty outdoor extension cords
and Brightway indoor household extension cords and power strips.
Model numbers involved in the recall are R2600 through R2615
(outdoor extension cords), EE6 through EE20 (indoor extension
cords) and MP6DG (power strips).  "Brightway" is printed on the
cords.  Model numbers are printed on the product's packaging.  
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10184.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
hardware and discount stores nationwide from August 2009 through
October 2009 for between $1 and $20.

Consumers should immediately stop using the extension cords and
power strips and return them to the place of purchase for a full
refund.  For additional information, contact Howard Berger at
(800) 221-6895 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Pacific Time,
Monday through Friday, visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.hberger.com/or e-mail the firm at  
http://robertwinterstein@hberger.com/


INTERNAP NETWORK: Wants Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Internap Network Services Corp.'s motion to dismiss a putative
securities fraud class action lawsuit remains pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, according to
the company's March 2, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

On Nov. 12, 2008, a putative securities fraud class action
lawsuit was filed against the company and its former chief
executive officer, James P. DeBlasio, captioned Catherine
Anastasio and Stephen Anastasio v. Internap Network Services
Corp. and James P. DeBlasio, Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-3462-JOF.
The complaint alleges that the company and the individual
defendant violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and that the
individual defendant also violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act as a "control person" of Internap.  Plaintiffs purport to
bring these claims on behalf of a class of the company's
investors who purchased the company's stock between March 28,
2007 and March 18, 2008.

Plaintiffs allege generally that, during the putative class
period, we made misleading statements and omitted material
information regarding (a) integration of VitalStream, (b)
customer issues and related credits due to services outages, and
(c) our previously reported 2007 revenue that we subsequently
reduced in 2008 as announced on March 18, 2008.  Plaintiffs
assert that the company and the individual defendant made these
misstatements and omissions in order to keep our stock price
high. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief.

On Aug. 12, 2009, the Court granted plaintiffs leave to file an
Amended Class Action Complaint.  The Amended Complaint added a
claim for violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act based on
alleged misrepresentations in the company's proxy statement in
connection with its acquisition of VitalStream.  The Amended
Complaint also added former Chief Financial Officer, David A.
Buckel, as a defendant and lengthened the putative class period.

On Sept. 11, 2009, the company and the individual defendants
filed motions to dismiss.  Those motions are currently pending
before the Court.

On Nov. 6, 2009, plaintiffs filed a Corrected Amended Class
Action Complaint.  On Dec. 7, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for
leave to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint to add
allegations regarding, inter alia, an alleged failure to conduct
due diligence in connection with the VitalStream acquisition and
additional statements from purported confidential witnesses.  The
company opposed plaintiffs' motion for leave to file the Second
Amended Class Action Complaint and that motion is also currently
pending before the Court.

Internap Network Services Corporation -- http://www.internap.com/
-- is an Internet solutions and data center company providing a
suite of network optimization and delivery services and products
that manage, deliver and distribute applications.  Internap
provides services through 73 Internet protocol (IP) service
points, which include 20 content delivery network (CDN) points of
presences (POPs) and 47 data centers.  The company also has two
additional international standalone CDN POPs and two additional
domestic standalone data center locations through, which it
provides IP services by extension. Its private network access
points (P-NAPs) feature multiple direct high-speed connections to
major Internet backbones, also referred to as network service
providers (NSPs), such as Verizon Communications Inc., Global
Crossing Limited, Level 3 Communications, Inc., XO Holdings Inc.
and Cogent Communications Group, Inc. The Company operates in two
segments: IP services and data center services.


KING LONG: Recalls 6,800 Chrome Shelving Units
----------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
King Long Metal Industrial Company, Ltd., of Trumbull, Conn.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 6,800 Six Tier Chrome
Shelving Units.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

Shelving unit casters can break at the stem causing the unit to
collapse or fall, posing an injury hazard.

King Long Metal has received one reported incident.  No injuries
have been reported.

The six-tier chrome shelving unit Model # 392360 can be
identified by an NSF King Long Industrial imprint on the corner
collar on the side.  Pictures of the recalled items are available
at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10188.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Costco Wholesale Club locations nationwide from December 2009
through January 2010 for about $90.

Consumers should immediately remove the casters and use the
shelving unit with the adjustable feet levelers included in the
original package.  Replacement casters are available from the
firm.  For additional information, contact King Long Customer
Service toll free at (888) 445-9355 between 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or send an e-mail
to customerservicegsm@sbcglobal.net


LIMITED BRANDS: Faces Suit by IBEW Local 697 in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------
Limited Brands, Inc., faces a class action captioned
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 697 Pension
Fund v. Limited Brands, Inc. et al., filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, according to the
company's March 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan.
30, 2010  

The suit was filed on Nov. 6, 2009, against the company and
certain of its officers on behalf of a purported class of all
persons who purchased or acquired shares of Limited Brands common
stock between Aug. 22, 2007 and Feb. 28, 2008.

Limited Brands, Inc. -- http://www.limitedbrands.com/-- is a  
specialty retailer of women's intimate and other apparel, beauty
and personal care products and accessories under various trade
names.  The company sells its merchandise through the retail
stores in the United States and Canada, which are primarily mall-
based, and through its Websites and catalogues.  As of Jan. 31,
2009, the company conducted business in two segments: Victoria's
Secret and Bath & Body Works.  During the fiscal year ended Jan.
31, 2009 (fiscal 2008), the Victoria's Secret segment operated
1,043 stores in the United States and 322 stores in Canada.  The
Bath & Body Works operated 1,638 stores in the United States
during fiscal 2008.


NATIONAL SECURITY: Suits in Hurricanes' Aftermath Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
National Security Group, Inc.'s property & casualty subsidiaries
continue to defend a number of legal matters filed in the
aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in Mississippi,
Louisiana, and Alabama.

These actions include individual lawsuits and purported statewide
class actions, although to date no class has been certified in
any action.

These actions make a number of allegations of underpayment of
hurricane-related claims, including allegations that the flood
exclusion found in the Company's subsidiaries' policies, and in
certain actions other insurance companies' policies, is either
ambiguous, unenforceable as unconscionable or contrary to public
policy, or inapplicable to the damage sustained.

The various suits seek a variety of remedies, including actual
and/or punitive damages in unspecified amounts and/or
declaratory relief.

All of these matters are in various stages of development.

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

Elba, Alabama-headquartered National Security Group, Inc. --
http://www.nationalsecuritygroup.com/-- is an insurance holding  
company.  The company, through its property and casualty
subsidiaries, primarily writes personal lines coverage,
including dwelling fire and windstorm, homeowners, mobile
homeowners and personal non-standard automobile lines of
insurance in 11 states.  The company, through its life insurance
subsidiary, offers a basic line of life, and health and accident
insurance products in six states.


NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Amended Suit in AL
------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Financial Services, Inc., and its subsidiary,
Nationwide Life Insurance Company, continue defend an amended
class action complaint alleging breach of fiduciary duty.

On November 20, 2007, NRS and NLIC were named in a lawsuit filed
in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama entitled Ruth
A. Gwin and Sandra H. Turner, and a class of similarly situated
individuals v Nationwide Life Insurance Company, Nationwide
Retirement Solutions, Inc., Alabama State Employees Association,
PEBCO, Inc. and Fictitious Defendants A to Z.

On Dec. 2, 2008, NRS and NLIC were named in an Amended Class
Action Complaint filed in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County,
Alabama entitled Ruth A. Gwin, Steven E. Coker, Sandra H. Turner,
and a class of similarly situated individuals v. Nationwide Life
Insurance Company, Nationwide Retirement Solutions, Inc, Alabama
State Employees Association, Inc., PEBCO, Inc. and Fictitious
Defendants A to Z claiming to represent a class of all
participants in the Alabama State Employees Association (ASEA)
Plan, excluding members of the Deferred Compensation Committee,
members of the Board of Control, ASEA's directors, officers and
board members, and PEBCO directors, officers and board members.

The class period is from Nov. 20, 2001 to the date of trial.  In
the amended class action complaint, the plaintiffs allege breach
of fiduciary duty, wantonness and breach of contract.  The
amended class action complaint seeks a declaratory judgment, an
injunction, an appointment of an independent fiduciary to protect
Plan participants, disgorgement of amounts paid, reformation of
Plan documents, compensatory damages and punitive damages, plus
interest, attorneys' fees and costs and such other equitable and
legal relief to which plaintiffs and class members may be
entitled.

Also, on Dec. 2, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
preliminary injunction seeking an order requiring periodic
payments made by NRS and/or NLIC to ASEA or PEBCO to be held in a
trust account for the benefit of Plan participants.

On Dec. 16, 2008, the Companies filed their Answer.  On April 28,
2009, the court entered an order denying the plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary injunction. NRS and NLIC continue to defend this
case vigorously.

No further developments were reported in the company's March 2,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. -- http://www.nationwide.com/
-- is the holding company for Nationwide Life Insurance Co., and
other companies that comprise the domestic life insurance and
retirement savings operations of the Nationwide group of
companies.  This group includes Nationwide Financial Network,
which refers to Nationwide Life Insurance Co. of America and
subsidiaries, including the affiliated distribution network.  The
company is a provider of long-term savings and retirement
products in the U.S.


NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Appeal on Suit Against NLIC Unit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of a lawsuit
against Nationwide Financial Services, Inc.'s subsidiary,
Nationwide Life Insurance Company, remains pending, according to
the company's March 2, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

On July 11, 2007, NLIC was named in a lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington at Tacoma
entitled Jerre Daniels-Hall and David Hamblen, Individually and
on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. National Education
Association, NEA Member Benefits Corporation, Nationwide Life
Insurance Company, Security Benefit Life Insurance Company,
Security Benefit Group, Inc., Security Distributors, Inc., et.
al.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all current or former
National Education Association (NEA) members who participated in
the NEA Valuebuilder 403(b) program at any time between Jan. 1,
1991 and the present (and their heirs and/or beneficiaries).  The
plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended by failing to
prudently and loyally manage plan assets, by failing to provide
complete and accurate information, by engaging in prohibited
transactions, and by breaching their fiduciary duties when they
failed to prevent other fiduciaries from breaching their
fiduciary duties.

The complaint seeks to have the defendants restore all losses to
the plan, restoration of plan assets and profits to participants,
disgorgement of endorsement fees, disgorgement of service fee
payments, disgorgement of excessive fees charged to plan
participants, other unspecified relief for restitution,
declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.

On May 23, 2008, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss.

On June 19, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.  On
July 10, 2009, the Court of Appeals heard oral argument.

Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. -- http://www.nationwide.com/
-- is the holding company for Nationwide Life Insurance Co., and
other companies that comprise the domestic life insurance and
retirement savings operations of the Nationwide group of
companies.  This group includes Nationwide Financial Network,
which refers to Nationwide Life Insurance Co. of America and
subsidiaries, including the affiliated distribution network.  The
company is a provider of long-term savings and retirement
products in the U.S.


NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Dismissal of "Beary" Suit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the ruling
dismissing the suit against Nationwide Financial Services, Inc.,
Nationwide Life Insurance Company, and Nationwide Retirement
Solutions, Inc., according to the company's March 2, 2010, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Nov. 15, 2006, NFS, NLIC and NRS were named in a lawsuit filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
entitled Kevin Beary, Sheriff of Orange County, Florida, In His
Official Capacity, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Nationwide Life Insurance Co., Nationwide
Retirement Solutions, Inc. and Nationwide Financial Services,
Inc.

The plaintiff sought to represent a class of all sponsors of
457(b) deferred compensation plans in the United States that had
variable annuity contracts with the defendants at any time during
the class period, or in the alternative, all sponsors of 457(b)
deferred compensation plans in Florida that had variable annuity
contracts with the defendants during the class period.  The class
period is from Jan. 1, 1996 until the class notice is provided.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by arranging for and retaining service payments
from certain mutual funds.  The complaint sought an accounting, a
declaratory judgment, a permanent injunction and disgorgement or
restitution of the service fee payments allegedly received by the
defendants, including interest.

On Jan. 25, 2007, NFS, NLIC and NRS filed a motion to dismiss.  
On Sept. 17, 2007, the Court granted the motion to dismiss.
On Oct. 1, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion to vacate judgment
and for leave to file an amended complaint.  On Sept. 15, 2008,
the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to vacate judgment and
for leave to file an amended complaint.

On Feb. 3, 2010, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
District Court's dismissal of this case.

Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. -- http://www.nationwide.com/
-- is the holding company for Nationwide Life Insurance Co., and
other companies that comprise the domestic life insurance and
retirement savings operations of the Nationwide group of
companies.  This group includes Nationwide Financial Network,
which refers to Nationwide Life Insurance Co. of America and
subsidiaries, including the affiliated distribution network.  The
company is a provider of long-term savings and retirement
products in the U.S.


NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Haddock" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Financial Services, Inc., and its subsidiary,
Nationwide Life Insurance Company, continue defend the suit
captioned Lou Haddock, as trustee of the Flyte Tool & Die,
Incorporated Deferred Compensation Plan, et al v. Nationwide
Financial Services, Inc. and Nationwide Life Insurance Company,
according to the company's March 2, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

On Aug. 15, 2001, NFS and NLIC were named in a lawsuit filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.

In the plaintiffs' sixth amended complaint, filed Nov. 18, 2009,
they amended the list of named plaintiffs and claim to represent
a class of qualified retirement plan trustees under ERISA that
purchased variable annuities from NLIC.

The plaintiffs allege that they invested ERISA plan assets in
their variable annuity contracts and that NLIC and NFS breached
ERISA fiduciary duties by allegedly accepting service payments
from certain mutual funds.

The complaint seeks disgorgement of some or all of the payments
allegedly received by NFS and NLIC, other unspecified relief for
restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys'
fees.

On Nov. 6, 2009, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion for
class certification and certified a class of "All trustees of all
employee pension benefit plans covered by ERISA which had
variable annuity contracts with NFS and NLIC or whose
participant's had individual variable annuity contracts with NFS
and NLIC at any time from Jan. 1, 1996, or the first date NFS and
NLIC began receiving payments from mutual funds based on a
percentage of assets invested in the funds by NFS and NLIC,
whichever came first, to the date of Nov. 6, 2009".

Also on Nov. 6, 2009, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion to
strike NFS and NLIC's counterclaim for breach of fiduciary duty
against the Trustees, in the event NFS and NLIC are held to be a
fiduciary at trial, and granted H. Grady Chandler's motion to
intervene.

On Nov. 23, 2009, NFS and NLIC filed a rule 23(f) petition asking
the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to hear an appeal of the
District Court's order granting class certification.  On Dec. 2,
2009, NFS and NLIC filed an answer to the 6th Amended Complaint.

On January 29, 2010, the companies filed a motion for class
certification against the four named plaintiffs, as trustees of
their respective retirement plans and against the trustees of
other ERISA retirement plans who become members of the class
certified in this lawsuit, for breach of fiduciary duty to the
plans because the trustees approved and accepted the advantages
of the allegedly unlawful "revenue sharing" payments. NFS and
NLIC continue to defend this lawsuit vigorously.

Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. -- http://www.nationwide.com/
-- is the holding company for Nationwide Life Insurance Co., and
other companies that comprise the domestic life insurance and
retirement savings operations of the Nationwide group of
companies.  This group includes Nationwide Financial Network,
which refers to Nationwide Life Insurance Co. of America and
subsidiaries, including the affiliated distribution network.  The
company is a provider of long-term savings and retirement
products in the U.S.


NEW YORK: Contractors Prepare to Sue State After Payment Halt
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Bragg at City Hall News reports that in response to Gov.
David Paterson's decision on Wednesday to halt payments for
hundreds of state construction projects until a 2010-2011 budget
agreement is reached, three downstate contractors associations
are preparing to file a class action lawsuit against the state
seeking an award for economic damages.

The boards of the General Contracts Association of New York, the
Long Island Contractors' Association and the Construction
Industry Council met individually Thursday morning and decided to
go forward together with the lawsuit.

Denise Richardson, managing director of the General Contracts
Association of New York, said the groups will seek money for any
extra costs incurred by contractors because of the state freeze
on payments for current capital projects. The state has also
placed a freeze on awarding new capital construction projects
until a budget is hashed out and Richardson said the plaintiffs
would also seek an award for money lost because of this freeze,
which is happening just as construction season traditionally
begins.

"This is an arbitrary action to single out contractors while the
rest of the state vendors are being paid as usual," said
Richardson.

A spokeswoman for the governor's office declined comment on the
prospective lawsuit.

Contractors say they fear conflicting requirements will make them
foot the bill for state-funded projects during the freeze.

According to a letter sent by the Department of Transportation to
contractors on Wednesday, state reimbursements for contractor
expenses between now and whenever the state enacts a budget are
"not guaranteed."

But despite this, contractors argue that they will be forced to
continue work on previously state-funded projects during the
freeze. They say a clause in many of their contracts with the
state stipulates that they must adhere to an agreed up
construction schedule for projects, or risk defaulting.

Louis Coletti, president of the Building Trades Employer's
Association, said contractors have tried to get the clause waved
by DOT while state payments for capital projects are frozen.

But they have not heard anything back about their request,
Coletti said.

The state Department of Transportation did not return phone calls
seeking comment.

Mark Herbst, head of the Long Island Contractors' Association,
one of the three associations filing suit, added that contractors
are unable to borrow money to temporarily fund the state project
themselves, given the tight credit market.

"I think there could be a real cash flow issue," Herbst said.

The three contractors associations filing suit are still
consulting with their attorneys about which jurisdiction to file
in, Richardson said.

She also said that other contractors' associations from around
the state could be brought into the lawsuit once plans develop.
Richardson said the contractors had been left no other choice but
legal action.

"There doesn't seem to be anyone else doing anything about it,"
Richardson said. "The legislators are off on vacation -- which I
find highly entertaining -- and the governor has moved onto other
things. They've just left us high and dry."


NEXCEN BRANDS: Hearing on Dismissal Motion Set for May 5
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York has set
a May 5, 2010, hearing for NexCen Brands, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss an amended consolidated complaint alleging violations of
the federal securities laws, violations of the federal securities
laws.

A total of four putative securities class actions were filed in
May, June and July 2008 against NexCen Brands and certain of its
former officers and a current director for alleged violations of
the federal securities laws.

On March 5, 2009, the court consolidated the actions under the
caption, In re NexCen Brands, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 08-
cv-04906, and appointed Vincent Granatelli as lead plaintiff and
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC as lead counsel.

On Aug. 24, 2009, plaintiff filed an Amended Consolidated
Complaint.  Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by misleading investors in the Company's public
filings and statements during a putative class period that begins
on March 13, 2007, when the company announced the establishment
of the credit facility with BTMUCC, and ends on May 19, 2008,
when the company's stock fell in the wake of the company's
disclosure of the previously undisclosed terms of a January 2008
amendment to the credit facility, the substantial doubt about the
Company's ability to continue as a going concern, the Company's
inability to timely file its periodic report and the expected
restatement of its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2007, initially filed on March 21, 2008.

The amended complaint asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, and also asserts that the
individual defendants are liable as controlling persons under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Plaintiff seeks damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On Oct. 8, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  Plaintiff filed his opposition on Dec. 14,
2009, and the company filed a reply on January 27, 2010.

The court has scheduled a hearing on the motion to dismiss for
May 5, 2010.

NexCen Brands, Inc. -- http://www.nexcenbrands.com/-- is a brand  
management company that owns and manages a portfolio of seven
franchised brands.  Five of the company's brands (Great American
Cookies, Marble Slab Creamery, MaggieMoo's, Pretzel Time and
Pretzelmaker) are in the quick service restaurant (QSR) industry.  
The other two brands (The Athlete's Foot and Shoebox New York)
are in the retail footwear and accessories industry.  All seven
franchised brands are managed by NexCen Franchise Management,
Inc. (NFM), a wholly owned subsidiary of NexCen Brands.


NORTH-SPORTIF: Recalls 720 Vests and Hooded Jackets
----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
North-Sportif Inc., of New York, N.Y., announced a voluntary
recall of about 360 North-Sportif Hooded Jackets and 360
Reversible Vests.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The jackets have a drawstring through the hood and the vests have
a drawstring through the waist which can pose strangulation and
entanglement hazards to young children.  In February 1996, CPSC
issued guidelines (which were incorporated into an industry
voluntary standard in 1997) to help prevent children from
strangling or getting entangled on the neck and waist drawstrings
in upper garments, such as jackets and sweatshirts.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recall involves boys' black hooded jackets with a belt and an
elastic drawstring at the neck.  "North Sportif" is printed on
the jacket's belt.  The recalled vest is black and blue and is
reversible.  The vest has a drawstring around the waist.  The
garments were sold in sizes small (8-10) and medium (12-14).  
Both garments have a tag on the neck that reads North Sportif
Urban Expedition.  Pictures of the recalled items are available
at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10185.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Burlington Coat Factory stores nationwide from October 2002
through January 2010 for about $13.  Consumers should immediately
remove the drawstrings from the garment to eliminate the hazard
or return the garment to Burlington Coat Factory for a refund or
credit.  For additional information, contact North-Sportif
collect at (212) 643-9730 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, visit the store's Web site
at http://www.burlingtoncoatfactory.com/


NPC INTERNATIONAL: Seeks Dismissal of Second Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
NPC International, Inc., intends to file a motion to dismiss a
second amended complaint alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, according to the company's March 26, 2010, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 29, 2009.

Wass, et al. v. NPC International, Inc., Case No. 09-cv-02254 (D.
Kan.), was filed in May 12, 2009.

A First Amended Complaint was filed on July 2, 2009.  The
Complaint was brought by Plaintiffs Wass and Mark Smith
individually and on behalf of similarly situated employees who
work or previously worked as delivery drivers for NPC.  The First
Amended Complaint alleged a collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid wages and excessive
deductions owed to plaintiffs and similarly situated workers
employed by NPC in 28 states, and as a class action under
Colorado law on behalf of Plaintiff Smith and all other similarly
situated workers employed by NPC in Colorado to recover unpaid
minimum wages and excess payroll deductions and certain costs
relating to uniforms and special apparel.

The First Amended Complaint alleged among other things that NPC
deprived plaintiffs and other NPC delivery drivers of minimum
wages by providing insufficient reimbursements for automobile and
other job-related expenses incurred for the purposes of
delivering NPC's pizza and other food items.

On March 2, 2010, the Court entered an Order granting NPC's
motions for judgment on the pleadings as to all claims brought by
plaintiffs in the First Amended Complaint, with the exception of
a claim for the reimbursement of uniform costs under Colorado
law.  The Order provided that the claims failed to state a claim
under the FLSA and Colorado law and, therefore, would be
dismissed with prejudice unless plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Complaint that cured the deficiencies in the First Amended
Complaint.  The Order also operated to moot plaintiffs' then-
pending motion for conditional collective action certification.

Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on March 22, 2010,
which alleges a collective action under the FLSA on behalf of
plaintiffs and similarly situated workers employed by NPC in 28
states, and a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure on behalf of Plaintiff Smith and similarly
situated workers employed in states in which the state minimum
wage is higher than the federal minimum wage.  The Second Amended
Complaint contends that NPC deprived delivery drivers of minimum
wages by providing insufficient reimbursements for automobile
expenses incurred for the purposes of delivering NPC's pizza and
other food items.

NPC intends to file a motion to dismiss and for judgment on the
pleadings as to all claims set forth in the Second Amended
Complaint, which motion will be filed on or before April 8, 2010.

For more details, contact:

          George A. Hanson, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Phone: 816-714-7100X115
          Fax: 816-714-7101

               - and -

          Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
          WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
          11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
          St. Louis, MO 63141
          Phone: 314-997-9150
          Fax: 314-997-9170


PBTEEN: Williams-Sonoma Unit Recalls 3,000 PBteen Ottoman Beds
--------------------------------------------------------------
About 3,000 PBteen Ottoman Beds were voluntarily recalled by,
PBteen, a division of Williams-Sonoma Inc., of San Francisco,
Calif., in cooperation with the CPSC.  Consumers should stop
using the product immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The Ottoman Bed mattresses fail to meet the mandatory federal
open flame standard for mattresses, posing a fire hazard to
consumers.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recall involves mattresses sold as part of PBteen Ottoman
Beds with registration number CA -31586(TW).  These are
multifunctional ottomans that can be used to sit or sleep.  The
ottoman can be turned into a twin-sized bed.  They were sold with
a cover in stone, navy, ivory or pink.  The ottoman cover has a
tag that reads "PBteen" and a label with registration number CA-
31586(TW).  Pictures of the recalled items are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10727.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold
through the PBteen catalog and Web site from August 2008 through
November 2009 for about $300.

Consumers should immediately contact PBteen to receive a free
mattress cover that will bring the mattress into compliance with
the flammability standard.  For additional information, contact
PBteen toll-free at (866) 472-3010 from 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.,
Eastern Time, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.pbteen.com/


PUBLIC STORAGE: "Brinkley" Wage and Hour Suit Remains Deferred
--------------------------------------------------------------
Further action in the class-action matter captioned Brinkley v.
Public Storage, Inc., remains deferred.

The plaintiff sued PS on behalf of a purported class of
California non-exempt employees based on various California wage
and hour laws and seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief.

In May 2006, a motion for class certification was filed seeking
to certify five subclasses.  Plaintiff sought certification for
alleged meal period violations, rest period violations, failure
to pay for travel time, failure to pay for mileage
reimbursement, and for wage statement violations.

In October 2006, the Court declined to certify three out of the
five subclasses.  The Court did, however, certify subclasses
based on alleged meal period and wage statement violations.  
Subsequently, PS filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to
dismiss the matter in its entirety.

On June 22, 2007, the Court granted PS' summary judgment motion
as to the causes of action relating to the subclasses certified
and dismissed those claims.  The only surviving claims are those
relating to the named plaintiff.  The plaintiff has filed an
appeal to this ruling.

On Oct. 28, 2008, the Court of Appeals sustained the trial
court's ruling.  The plaintiff filed a petition for review with
the California Supreme Court, which was granted but further
action in this matter was deferred pending consideration and
disposition of a related issue in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v.
Superior Court, which is pending before the California Supreme
Court.

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

Public Storage -- http://www.publicstorage.com/-- is a real  
estate investment trust.  The business activities of the Trust
include the acquisition, development, ownership and operation of
self-storage facilities, which offer storage spaces for lease,
generally on a month-to-month basis, for personal and business
use. The  Trust operates in three business segments: self-
storage, Shurgard Europe and ancillary.  During the year ended
Dec. 31, 2008, the Trust had a direct and indirect ownership
interests in the 2,012 and 181 storage facilities located in the
38 states within the United States and seven Western European
nations.


RHI ENTERTAINMENT: Defends Shareholder Lawsuit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
RHI Entertainment, Inc., continues to defend a putative
shareholder class action alleging violations of federal
securities laws in connection with its June 2008 initial public
offering, according to the company's March 26, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Oct. 9, 2009, the company and two of its officers were named
as defendants in a putative shareholder class action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
alleging violations of federal securities laws by issuing a
registration statement in connection with the company's June 2008
initial public offering that contained untrue statements of
material facts and omitted other facts necessary to make certain
statements not misleading.

The central allegation of the lawsuit is that the registration
statement overstated the number of made-for-television (MFT)
movies and mini-series the company expected to develop, produce
and distribute in 2008, while it failed to disclose that the
company would not be able to complete the expected number of MFT
movies and miniseries in 2008 due to the declining state of the
credit markets and other negative factors then impacting the
company's business.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and interest.

An Amended Complaint was due to be filed on March 18, 2010.

RHI Entertainment, Inc. -- http://www.rhitv.com/-- develops,  
produces and distributes new made-for-television movies, mini-
series and other television programming worldwide.  The company
provides long-form television content, including domestic made-
for-television (MFT), movies and mini-series.  It also
selectively produces new episodic series programming for
television.  In addition to its development, production and
distribution of new content, it owns an library of existing long-
form television content, which the Company licenses primarily to
broadcast and cable networks worldwide.  RHI Entertainment, Inc's
business is comprised of the licensing of new film production and
the licensing of existing content from its film library in
territories worldwide.  Licensing rights in its film library
generate contractual accounts receivable.  The contractual
accounts receivable reflects license agreements it has entered
into with third parties for rights to its film content in future
periods.


RIGEL PHARMA: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Amended Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc., has filed a motion to dismiss a
consolidated amended complaint in connection with allegedly false
and misleading statements made by the company related to the
results of the Phase 2a clinical trial of its product candidate
R788.

On Feb. 6, 2009, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, naming as defendants the company and certain of its
officers, directors and underwriters for the company's February
2008 stock offering.

An additional purported securities class action lawsuit
containing similar allegations was subsequently filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on Feb.
20, 2009.

By order of the Court dated March 19, 2009, the two lawsuits were
consolidated into a single action.

On June 9, 2009, the Court issued an order naming the Inter-Local
Pension Fund GCC/IBT as lead plaintiff and Coughlin Stoia as lead
counsel.  The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on
July 24, 2009.

The company filed a motion to dismiss on Sept. 8, 2009.  On Dec.
21, 2009, the Court granted the company's motion and dismissed
the consolidated complaint with leave to amend.

Plaintiff filed its consolidated amended complaint on Jan. 27,
2010.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly
false and misleading statements made by the company related to
the results of the Phase 2a clinical trial of its product
candidate R788.  The plaintiffs seek damages, including
rescission or rescissory damages for purchasers in the stock
offering, an award of their costs and injunctive and/or equitable
relief for purchasers of its common stock during the period
between Dec. 13, 2007 and Feb. 9, 2009, including purchasers in
the stock offering.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on Feb. 16, 2010.

A hearing on that motion is set for April 9, 2010, according to
the company's March 2, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.rigel.com-- is a  
clinical-stage drug development company that discovers and
develops small molecule drugs for the treatment of inflammatory
and autoimmune diseases, cancer and viral diseases.  The
company's research focuses on intracellular signaling pathways
and related targets that are critical to disease mechanisms.  
Rigel has collaborations with pharmaceutical partners to develop
and market its product candidates.  The company has internal
product development programs in inflammatory and autoimmune
diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis and thrombocytopenia, and
cancer, as well as partnered product development programs
relating to asthma and cancer.


SBARRO INC: Final Approval of Settlement Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Final approval of a settlement in a purported class action
lawsuit where Sbarro, Inc., is a defendant, remains pending,
according to the company's March 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 27, 2009.

In March 2008, the company became a party to a purported class
action lawsuit, in the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Los Angeles, alleging that the company violated
regulations related to meal breaks, rest breaks and payroll
related matters.

The company has reached a settlement agreement, pending final
court approval, in an amount the company believes will be
approximately $550,000, which was accrued for in the company's
financial statements at Dec. 27, 2009.

Sbarro, Inc. -- http://www.sbarro.com/-- is the world's leading  
Italian quick service restaurant concept and the largest shopping
mall-focused restaurant concept in the world.  The company has
1,056 restaurants in 41 countries.


TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Riverside Unit Still Defends "Shellman" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Industries, Inc.'s subsidiary, Riverside Cement Co.,
continues to defend a purported class-action complaint, Virginia
Shellman, et al. v. Riverside Cement Holdings Company, et al.

The "Shellman" lawsuit was filed in late April 2008, in the
Riverside County Superior Court of the State of California.

The lawsuit purports to be a class action complaint for medical
monitoring for a putative class defined as individuals who were
allegedly exposed to chrome 6 emissions from the company's
Crestmore cement plant.

The complaint alleges an increased risk of future illness due to
the exposure to chrome 6 and other toxic chemicals.

The suit requests, among other things, establishment and funding
of a medical testing and monitoring program for the class until
their exposure to chrome 6 is no longer a threat to their health,
as well as punitive and exemplary damages.

Since the Shellman lawsuit was filed, five additional putative
class action lawsuits have been filed in the same court.  The
putative class in each of these cases is the same as or a subset
of the putative class in the Shellman case, and the allegations
and requests for relief are similar to those in the Shellman
case.

As a consequence, the court has stayed four of these lawsuits
until the Shellman lawsuit is finally determined.

No further developments were reported in the company's March 26,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Feb. 28, 2010.

Texas Industries, Inc. -- http://www.txi.com/-- is a supplier of  
heavy construction materials in the United States through its
three business segments: cement, aggregates and consumer
products.  The company's cement segment produces gray portland
cement and specialty cements.  Its cement production and
distribution facilities are concentrated primarily in Texas and
California.  The company's aggregates segment produces natural
aggregates, including sand, gravel and crushed limestone, and
specialty lightweight aggregates.  Its consumer products segment
produces primarily ready-mix concrete and, to a lesser extent,
packaged products.  The company is a supplier of natural
aggregates and ready-mix concrete in Texas and northern
Louisiana, and to a lesser extent, in Oklahoma and Arkansas.


UNITED FIRE: Continues to Defend Katrina-Related Suits
------------------------------------------------------
United Fire & Casualty Company continues to defend seven class
action cases relating to disputes arising from damages that
occurred as a result of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

The company has been named as a defendant in various lawsuits,
including actions seeking certification from the court to proceed
as a class action suit and actions filed by individual
policyholders, relating to disputes arising from damages that
occurred as a result of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

As of Dec. 31, 2009, there were approximately 215 individual
policyholder cases pending, and an additional seven class action
cases pending.  These cases have been filed in Louisiana state
courts and federal district courts and involve, among other
claims, disputes as to the amount of reimbursable claims in
particular cases, as well as the scope of insurance coverage
under homeowners and commercial property policies due to
flooding, civil authority actions, loss of use and business
interruption.

Certain of these cases also claim a breach of duty of good faith
or violations of Louisiana insurance claims-handling laws or
regulations and involve claims for punitive or exemplary damages.  
Other cases claim that under Louisiana's so-called "Valued Policy
Law," the insurers must pay the total insured value of a home
that is totally destroyed if any portion of such damage was
caused by a covered peril, even if the principal cause of the
loss was an excluded peril.  Other cases challenge the scope or
enforceability of the water damage exclusion in the policies.

No additional details were reported in the company's March 1,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

United Fire & Casualty Company -- http://www.unitedfiregroup.com/
-- is engaged in the business of writing property and casualty
insurance and life insurance and selling annuities.  It operates
in two business segments: property and casualty, and life
insurance.  The company's subsidiaries include United Fire and
United Life Insurance Company, Addison Insurance Company, United
Fire and Indemnity Company, United Fire Lloyds, and Texas General
Indemnity Company.


URS CORP: Unit Continues to Defend Suit on Industrial Canal Work
----------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Group International, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary
of URS Corp., continues to defend class action lawsuits resulting
from work done on the east bank of the Inner Harbor Navigation
Canal in New Orleans, Louisiana,

From July 1999 through May 2005, WGI, an Ohio company acquired by
the company on Nov. 15, 2007, performed demolition, site
preparation, and environmental remediation services for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers on the east bank of the Inner Harbor
Navigation Canal (Industrial Canal) in New Orleans, Louisiana.

On Aug. 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans.  The
storm surge created by the hurricane overtopped the Industrial
Canal levee and floodwall, flooding the Lower Ninth Ward and
other parts of the city.

Since September 2005, 59 personal injury, property damage and
class action lawsuits have been filed in Louisiana State and
federal court naming WGI Ohio as a defendant.

Other defendants include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the
Board for the Orleans Parish Levee District, and its insurer, St.
Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company.

Over 1,450 hurricane-related cases, including the WGI Ohio cases,
have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana.

The plaintiffs claim that defendants were negligent in their
design, construction and/or maintenance of the New Orleans
levees.

The plaintiffs are all residents and property owners who claim to
have incurred damages arising out of the breach and failure of
the hurricane protection levees and floodwalls in the wake of
Hurricane Katrina.

The allegation against the company is that the work performed
adjacent to the Industrial Canal damaged the levee and floodwall
and caused and/or contributed to breaches and flooding.  The
plaintiffs allege damages of $200 billion and demand attorneys'
fees and costs.

WGI Ohio did not design, construct, repair or maintain any of the
levees or the floodwalls that failed during or after Hurricane
Katrina.  WGI Ohio performed the work adjacent to the Industrial
Canal as a contractor for the federal government and has pursued
dismissal from the lawsuits on a motion for summary judgment on
the basis that government contractors are immune from liability.

On Dec. 15, 2008, the District Court granted WGI Ohio's motion
for summary judgment to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis that the
company's performed the work adjacent to the Industrial Canal as
a contractor for the federal government and are therefore immune
from liability, which was appealed by a number of the plaintiffs
on April 27, 2009 to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

No further updates were reported in URS Corp.'s March 2, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
fiscal year ended Jan. 1, 2010.

URS Corporation -- http://www.urscorp.com/-- is a provider of  
engineering, construction and technical services.  The company
offers a range of program management, planning, design,
engineering, construction and construction management, operations
and maintenance, and decommissioning and closure services to
public agencies and private sector clients worldwide.  The
company is focused on four market sectors: power, infrastructure,
federal, and industrial and commercial.  It has three divisions:
the URS Division, the EG&G Division and the Washington Division.  
Through its network of offices across the United States and in
more than 30 countries, the company provides services to a range
of domestic and international clients, including the United
States federal government agencies, national governments of other
countries, and state and local government agencies both in the
United States and in international locations.  In August 2008, it
acquired LopezGarcia Group, Inc. and most of the assets of Tryck
Nyman Hayes, Inc.


WAL-MART STORES: Injured Worker Class Certified in Colorado
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tresa Baldas at The National Law Journal reports that a federal
judge in Colorado has certified a class of Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
employees who allege that the retailer, its insurer and others
conspired to interfere with the medical treatment received by
workers injured on the job.

U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn approved the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification last week.  As many as 6,900 Wal-
Mart employees in Colorado could be affected.

It was almost exactly a year ago -- March 24, 2009 -- that the
plaintiffs filed their lawsuit over the medical treatment
provided to Wal-Mart employees in Colorado. In Gianzero, et al.
v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-cv-00656 (D. Colo.)
(Blackburn, J.), several injured workers contend that the company
conspired with its insurance carrier and claims adjuster to
"dictate, withhold, delay, deny and/or interfere with" the type
and duration of their medical care. The complaint alleges
violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act and the state's Consumer Protection Act.

The lawsuit was filed against Wal-Mart, Concentra Health
Services, Claims Management Inc. and Home Assurance Co., the
workers' compensation insurance carrier.

In certifying the class, Judge Blackburn rejected Wal-Mart's
claims that the class definition was overbroad.

According to court documents, Wal-Mart argued that some members
of the class had "obtained treatment, suffered no denial or delay
in treatment, and suffered no harm caused by the allegedly
unlawful policies." Wal-Mart also argued that the policies
challenged by the plaintiffs were modified, effective in January
2008, and that the plaintiffs' claims "are not relevant to the
defendants after the policies were modified." Moreover, Walmart
argued that the class definition included employees who had seen
physicians who were not subject to the policies in question.

The plaintiffs' lawyer:

          Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
          GOLD BENNETT CERA & SIDENER LLP
          595 Market Street, Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2835
          Telephone: 415.777.2230
          E-mail: scera@gbcslaw.com

called the class certification "a preliminary, very important
stage in the case."

"The court was able to see that the case was really about the
overall policy and procedure that Wal-Mart employed," Mr. Cera
said. "It's a violation of the law for the employer to involve
itself -- in any way -- in dictating the care of injured workers
in Colorado."

Wal-Mart is being represented by:

          Naomi G. Beer, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          1200 17th Street, Suite 2400
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: 303.572.6500
          E-mail: beern@gtlaw.com


WASHINGTON POST: Approval of Settlement Agreement Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement agreement in a class action antitrust lawsuit
against Kaplan Inc., remains pending, according to Washington
Post Company's March 2, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan.
3, 2010.

Kaplan is a subsidiary of The Washington Post Company.

Kaplan, is a party to a class action antitrust lawsuit filed on
April 29, 2005, by purchasers of BAR/BRI bar review courses from
fall 1997 through July 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

On Feb. 2, 2007, the parties filed a settlement agreement with
the court, together with documents setting forth a procedure for
class notice.  The court approved the terms of the settlement on
July 9, 2007.

Certain class members filed an appeal to the case to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  On April 23, 2009, the
Ninth Circuit affirmed the approval of the settlement.  The Ninth
Circuit also vacated the district court's award of attorney's
fees to class counsel and counsel to various objectors to the
settlement and remanded to the U.S. District Court to consider
the attorney's fees issue anew.

That issue continues to be litigated; however, the attorney's
fees award will be paid from the escrowed settlement funds, so
Kaplan should not be affected by the ultimate determination of
the attorney's fees issue. Effectiveness of the settlement is
subject to court approval.

The Washington Post Company -- http://www.washpostco.com/-- is a  
diversified education and media company.  The company's Kaplan,
Inc., subsidiary provides a variety of educational services, both
domestically and outside the United States.  The company's media
operations consist of the ownership and operation of cable
television systems, newspaper publishing (principally The
Washington Post), television broadcasting (through the ownership
and operation of six television broadcast stations) and magazine
publishing (Newsweek).  The company's operations in geographic
areas outside the United States consist primarily of Kaplan's
foreign operations and the publication of the international
editions of Newsweek.  During the fiscal year ended Jan. 3, 2010
(fiscal 2009), these operations accounted for approximately 12%
of the company's consolidated revenues, and the identifiable
assets attributable to foreign operations represented
approximately 13% of the company's consolidated assets.


WASHINGTON POST: Kaplan Unit Agrees to Settle California Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington Post Company's subsidiary, Kaplan Inc., has
entered into a stipulation of settlement to resolve a purported
class action lawsuit in relation to its bar review course,
according to the company's March 2, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Jan. 3, 2010.

On Feb. 6, 2008, Kaplan was served with a purported class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California alleging claims substantially similar to those alleged
in a previously settled lawsuit but on behalf of a putative class
that included all persons who purchased a bar review course from
BAR/BRI in the United States after the July 2006 cut-off for
class membership in the prior action.

West Publishing Corporation, which owns BAR/BRI, is a co-
defendant.

On April 15, 2008, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss.  On May 20, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an appeal.

The appeal is pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

On Nov. 20, 2009, Kaplan entered into a stipulation of settlement
with the plaintiffs that would resolve the case as to Kaplan on a
class-wide basis.

The Washington Post Company -- http://www.washpostco.com/-- is a  
diversified education and media company.  The company's Kaplan,
Inc., subsidiary provides a variety of educational services, both
domestically and outside the United States.  The company's media
operations consist of the ownership and operation of cable
television systems, newspaper publishing (principally The
Washington Post), television broadcasting (through the ownership
and operation of six television broadcast stations) and magazine
publishing (Newsweek).  The company's operations in geographic
areas outside the United States consist primarily of Kaplan's
foreign operations and the publication of the international
editions of Newsweek.  During the fiscal year ended Jan. 3, 2010
(fiscal 2009), these operations accounted for approximately 12%
of the company's consolidated revenues, and the identifiable
assets attributable to foreign operations represented
approximately 13% of the company's consolidated assets.


WASHINGTON POST: Kaplan Seeks to Dismiss Suit Over LSAT
-------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Inc., has moved to dismiss a purported class action
lawsuit filed by a purchaser of Kaplan's LSAT preparation course,
according to Washington Post Company's March 2, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Jan. 3, 2010.

Kaplan is a subsidiary of The Washington Post Company.

On April 29, 2009, Kaplan was served with a purported class
action lawsuit by a purchaser of Kaplan's LSAT preparation
course, alleging that in 1997, BAR/BRI and Kaplan entered into a
market allocation agreement in violation of U.S. antitrust laws.  
Kaplan has moved to dismiss this complaint.

The Washington Post Company -- http://www.washpostco.com/-- is a  
diversified education and media company.  The company's Kaplan,
Inc., subsidiary provides a variety of educational services, both
domestically and outside the United States.  The company's media
operations consist of the ownership and operation of cable
television systems, newspaper publishing (principally The
Washington Post), television broadcasting (through the ownership
and operation of six television broadcast stations) and magazine
publishing (Newsweek).  The company's operations in geographic
areas outside the United States consist primarily of Kaplan's
foreign operations and the publication of the international
editions of Newsweek.  During the fiscal year ended Jan. 3, 2010
(fiscal 2009), these operations accounted for approximately 12%
of the company's consolidated revenues, and the identifiable
assets attributable to foreign operations represented
approximately 13% of the company's consolidated assets.


WASHINGTON POST: Settlement Pact in Wage Violations Suit Okayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement agreement in a complaint against Kaplan Inc.,
alleging wage and hour violations has received preliminary
approval from the California Superior Court, according to
Washington Post Company's March 2, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Jan. 3, 2010.

Kaplan is a subsidiary of The Washington Post Company.

On June 17, 2008, teachers at Kaplan Aspect, which is now
operated within Kaplan International Colleges, filed a complaint
in California Superior Court in San Francisco against Kaplan,
Inc. and Aspect Education, Inc. alleging wage and hour violations
on behalf of a putative class of California teachers.

In January 2009, the parties reached an agreement to settle the
claims in the action, as well as similar claims for a class of
Kaplan Aspect teachers in states outside California.

On Jan. 21, 2010, the parties received preliminary approval of
that settlement in the California Superior Court and will seek
approval of the non-California claims in a separate action that
has not yet been filed.

The Washington Post Company -- http://www.washpostco.com/-- is a  
diversified education and media company.  The company's Kaplan,
Inc., subsidiary provides a variety of educational services, both
domestically and outside the United States.  The company's media
operations consist of the ownership and operation of cable
television systems, newspaper publishing (principally The
Washington Post), television broadcasting (through the ownership
and operation of six television broadcast stations) and magazine
publishing (Newsweek).  The company's operations in geographic
areas outside the United States consist primarily of Kaplan's
foreign operations and the publication of the international
editions of Newsweek.  During the fiscal year ended Jan. 3, 2010
(fiscal 2009), these operations accounted for approximately 12%
of the company's consolidated revenues, and the identifiable
assets attributable to foreign operations represented
approximately 13% of the company's consolidated assets.

                            *********

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  * * *