CAR_Public/100422.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, April 22, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 78

                            Headlines

3COM CORP: Delaware Court Dismisses Consolidated Action
3COM CORP: Two Suits in Massachusetts Administratively Closed
3COM CORP: Discovery in Two Suits Stayed by Mass. State Court
ADOBE SYSTEMS: Wants Consolidated Amended Complaint Dismissed
ALLIED DEFENSE: Consolidated Suit Against Directors Dismissed

ALLSCRIPTS-MISYS: Motion to Dismiss "Plumbers" Suit Pending
AMBAC FINANCIAL: Wants Certification of Order Denying Dismissal
AMBAC FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss "Tolin" Suit Remains Pending
BFC FINANCIAL: Unit Continues to Defend "Dance" Suit in Florida
BFC FINANCIAL: Wisconsin Suit Against Bluegreen Dismissed

BFC FINANCIAL: No Class Certified Yet in Georgia Suit vs. Unit
BFC FINANCIAL: BankAtlantic Defends Consolidated Suit in Florida
BFC FINANCIAL: BankAtlantic Defends "Hugo" Suit in Florida
BFC FINANCIAL: BankAtlantic Continues to Defend "Farrington"
BFC FINANCIAL: BankAtlantic Faces "Rothman" Suit in Florida

CINTAS CORP: Awaits Court Approval of Settlement Pact in Veliz
COMVERSE TECH: Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set for June 21
GENERAL MOTORS: Canadian Export Antitrust Suits Remain Pending
GENERAL MOTORS: No Certification Hearing Set in Ontario Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: GMCL Faces Suit by Canadian Dealers

GENERAL MOTORS: Discovery in OnStar Suit Ongoing
GENERAL MOTORS: Named as Co-Defendant in Two Suits vs. Toyota
GSI GROUP: Enters Agreement to Settle Shareholders' Suit
JABIL CIRCUIT: Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of Florida Suit
JENNIFER CONVERTIBLES: Still Reviewing Plaintiff's New Proposal

KB HOME: Court Gives Preliminary Not to "Bagley" Suit Settlement
LAWSON SOFTWARE: Seeks Dismissal of Remains "Cruz" Class Members
MARCUS CORP: Court Dismisses Suit Against Two Subsidiaries
MASSACHUSETTS: Suit Complains About Foster Care System
MEDICINOVA INC: Hearing for Settlement Final Approval on June 24

MICRON TECH: Appeal on Reversal of Quebec Ruling Still Pending
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: SRAM Antitrust Suits Still Pending in Canada
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Price-Fixing Lawsuits in Canada
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Consolidated Securities Suit Remains Pending
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Appeal in Calif. DRAM Antitrust Cases Pending

MONSANTO CO: Class Certification Hearing Set for November 15
NATIONAL BEEF: NBL Units Defends Two Suits Over Wastewater
NEVADA PROPERTY: Court Approves Settlement with Unit Purchasers
ORACLE CORP: Suit Against Oracle America Unit Dismissed
RAPTOR PHARMA: Second Circuit Upholds Dismissal of NY Suit

REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA: Opposes Preliminary Injunction Motion
SINOENERGY CORP: Enters MOU to Settle 4 Suits Over Skywide Sale
SYMYX TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit on Proposed Accelrys Merger
TARGET CORP: Accused in Minnesota of Not Paying Overtime
TECHNICOLOR: TCETVT Continues to Defend Suit in Taiwan

TECHWELL INC: Faces Suit Over Planned Intersil Merger
WD 40: "Drimmer" Suit in California Dismissed

                            *********

3COM CORP: Delaware Court Dismisses Consolidated Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware dismissed a
consolidated action against 3Com Corporation, according to the
company's April 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Feb. 26, 2010.

On Nov. 11, 2009, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger by and among 3Com, Hewlett-Packard Company, and
Colorado Acquisition Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of HP
(Merger Sub).  Upon the terms of the Merger Agreement and subject
to the terms set forth therein, Merger Sub will be merged with
and into 3Com, and as a result 3Com will continue as the
surviving corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of HP.

Between Nov. 12, 2009 and Nov. 24, 2009, eight purported class
action complaints were filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware against 3Com and all of the current members of
3Com's board of directors.

Seven of the complaints name Hewlett-Packard Company as a
defendant.  Four of the complaints also name Merger Sub as a
defendant.

The plaintiffs, David Shaev, Leonard Ahern, Richard Hall, Larry
McIntyre, Alan Kahn, Ashok Madan, County of York Employees
Retirement Plan, and Pipefitters Local No. 636 Defined Benefit
Plan, all claim that they were stockholders of 3Com and that they
filed their lawsuits on behalf of themselves and a class
consisting of all public stockholders of 3Com.

Among other things, the complaints, captioned:

     -- Shaev v. 3Com Corporation, et al., Civil Action
        No. 5067,

     -- Ahern v. Cote, et al., Civil Action No. 5068,

     -- Hall v. 3Com Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 5073,

     -- McIntyre v. 3Com Corporation, et al., Civil Action
        No. 5080,

     -- Kahn v. 3Com Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 5087,

     -- Madan v. 3Com Corporation, et al., Civil Action
        No. 5092,

     -- County of York Employees Retirement Plan v. 3Com
        Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 5098, and

     -- Pipefitters Local No. 636 Defined Benefit Plan v. Cote,
        et al., Civil Action No. 5103,

generally allege that the members of 3Com's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize
shareholder value in negotiating and approving the Merger.  Seven
of the complaints also generally allege that HP and, in four of
the complaints, Merger Sub, aided and abetted these alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties.

The complaints seek class certification, certain forms of
injunctive relief, including enjoining the consummation of the
Merger and rescission of the Merger Agreement, as well as
unspecified damages.

On Dec. 2, 2009, the Chancery Court consolidated the actions for
all purposes under the caption In re 3Com Shareholders
Litigation, Case No. C.A. No. 5067-CC.

On Dec. 11, 2009, the plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended
Complaint.  The Consolidated Amended Complaint includes the
allegations, defendants, and requested relief described above,
but does not name 3Com as a defendant and adds allegations that
the preliminary proxy statement failed to provide information
necessary for 3Com's shareholders to vote on the Merger,
including details of the financial analysis conducted by 3Com's
financial advisor, Goldman Sachs, and the Management Plan.

On Dec. 11, 2009, the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary
injunction and for expedited proceedings.  On Dec. 15, 2009, 3Com
and the members of its board filed an opposition to plaintiffs'
motion for expedited proceedings.

On Dec. 18, 2009, the Chancery Court issued an order denying
plaintiffs' motion for expedited proceedings on the ground that,
among other things, plaintiffs had failed to state a colorable
claim for relief.

On Dec. 28, 2009, 3Com and the members of the board moved to
dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint for, among other
things, failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.

On Jan. 6, 2010, the Chancery Court denied plaintiffs' request
for a hearing on their motion for a preliminary injunction.
On March 22, 2010, the Chancery Court so ordered the parties'
stipulation to dismiss the consolidated action without prejudice.

3Com Corporation is a $1.3 billion global enterprise networking
solutions provider that sets a new price/performance standard for
customers.  3Com has three global brands-H3C, 3Com, and
TippingPoint-that offer high-performance networking and security
solutions to enterprises large and small.  The H3C enterprise
networking portfolio-a market leader in China-includes products
that span from the data center to the edge of the network, while
TippingPoint network-based intrusion prevention systems and
network access control solutions deliver in-depth, no-compromise
application, infrastructure and performance protection.


3COM CORP: Two Suits in Massachusetts Administratively Closed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has
administratively closed two separate purported class action
complaints against 3Com Corporation until a response is filed,
according to the company's April 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Feb. 26, 2010.

On Nov. 11, 2009, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger by and among 3Com, Hewlett-Packard Company, and
Colorado Acquisition Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of HP
(Merger Sub).  Upon the terms of the Merger Agreement and subject
to the terms set forth therein, Merger Sub will be merged with
and into 3Com, and as a result 3Com will continue as the
surviving corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of HP.

On Nov. 12, 2009 and Nov. 25, 2009, two separate purported class
action complaints were filed by, respectively, plaintiffs Edward
Tansey and Robert Levine, et al., against 3Com and all of the
current members of 3Com's board of directors.

Like the plaintiffs in the Delaware actions, the plaintiffs in
these actions have asserted that they were stockholders of 3Com
and filed the lawsuit purportedly on behalf of themselves and a
class consisting of all other stockholders of 3Com.
Among other things, the complaints, captioned Tansey v. 3Com
Corporation, et al., Case No. 09-cv-11941, and Levine and Duncan
v. 3Com Corporation, et al., Case No. 09-cv-12027, generally
allege that the members of 3Com's board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize shareholder value
in negotiating and approving the Merger, and that 3Com aided and
abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

The complaints seek class certification and certain forms of
injunctive relief, including enjoining the consummation of the
Merger and rescission of the acquisition.

On Dec. 7, 2009, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the Court
adjourned sine die defendants' deadline for responding to the
Tansey complaint and administratively closed that action until a
response is filed.  On Dec. 15, 2009, pursuant to the parties'
stipulation, the Court adjourned sine die defendants' deadline
for responding to the Levine and Duncan complaint and, on Dec.
16, 2009, administratively closed that action until a response is
filed.

3Com Corporation is a $1.3 billion global enterprise networking
solutions provider that sets a new price/performance standard for
customers.  3Com has three global brands-H3C, 3Com, and
TippingPoint-that offer high-performance networking and security
solutions to enterprises large and small.  The H3C enterprise
networking portfolio-a market leader in China-includes products
that span from the data center to the edge of the network, while
TippingPoint network-based intrusion prevention systems and
network access control solutions deliver in-depth, no-compromise
application, infrastructure and performance protection.


3COM CORP: Discovery in Two Suits Stayed by Mass. State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in two purported class action complaints against 3Com
Corporation is stayed pending decision on the motions to dismiss
by the Superior Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
according to the company's April 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Feb. 26, 2010.

On Nov. 11, 2009, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger by and among 3Com, Hewlett-Packard Company, and
Colorado Acquisition Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of HP
(Merger Sub).  Upon the terms of the Merger Agreement and subject
to the terms set forth therein, Merger Sub will be merged with
and into 3Com, and as a result 3Com will continue as the
surviving corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of HP.

On Nov. 16, 2009, two purported class action complaints were
filed in the Superior Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
against 3Com, all of the current members of 3Com's board of
directors, HP, and Merger Sub.

Like the plaintiffs in the Delaware actions and the federal
actions in Massachusetts, the plaintiffs in these actions, Dean
Davenport and Stanley Tanzer, both claim that they were
stockholders of 3Com and that they filed their lawsuits on behalf
of themselves and a class consisting of all public stockholders
of 3Com.

Among other things, the complaints, captioned Davenport v.
Benhamou, et al., Case No. 09-4886, and Tanzer v. Benhamou, et
al., Case No. 09-4887, generally allege that the members of
3Com's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties by
failing to maximize shareholder value in negotiating and
approving the Merger, and that 3Com, HP and Merger Sub aided and
abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

On Nov. 25, 2009, 3Com and its board served a motion to dismiss
or stay the action on plaintiffs in both the Davenport and Tanzer
cases.

On Dec. 1, 2009, the plaintiffs in both Davenport and Tanzer
moved for expedited proceedings.  3Com and its board filed
oppositions to those motions on Dec. 3, 2009.  On Dec. 7, 2009,
the plaintiffs in both actions moved for consolidation.

On Dec. 17, 2009, 3Com and its board filed an opposition to that
motion.  On or about Dec. 24, 2009, the Court denied plaintiffs'
motions for expedited proceedings in both the Davenport and
Tanzer cases.

On Jan. 4, 2010, 3Com and its board moved for a protective order
to stay discovery in both actions until the Court rules on the
pending motions to dismiss or stay.  On Jan. 12, 2010, in return
for withdrawal of the motion for a protective order, plaintiffs
agreed to stay discovery pending decision on the motions to
dismiss or stay.

3Com Corporation is a $1.3 billion global enterprise networking
solutions provider that sets a new price/performance standard for
customers.  3Com has three global brands-H3C, 3Com, and
TippingPoint-that offer high-performance networking and security
solutions to enterprises large and small.  The H3C enterprise
networking portfolio-a market leader in China-includes products
that span from the data center to the edge of the network, while
TippingPoint network-based intrusion prevention systems and
network access control solutions deliver in-depth, no-compromise
application, infrastructure and performance protection.


ADOBE SYSTEMS: Wants Consolidated Amended Complaint Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adobe Systems Incorporated has filed a motion to dismiss a
consolidated amended complaint relating to its proposed
acquisition of Omniture, Inc., according to the company's April
9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 5, 2010.
  
On Sept. 23, 2009, Richard Miner on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated stockholders of Omniture, Inc. filed a class
action lawsuit captioned Miner v. Omniture, Inc.,  et. al., Case
No. 090403559 against Omniture, the members of Omniture's board
of directors and Adobe in the U.S. Fourth Judicial District Court
for Utah County, Provo Department, State of Utah seeking to
enjoin the proposed acquisition between Omniture and Adobe.

In the event the acquisition is consummated, the plaintiff seeks
to recover an unspecified amount of damages.  The plaintiff
alleges that the members of Omniture's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Omniture's stockholders by
failing to seek the highest possible price for Omniture and that
Adobe induced or aided and abetted in the alleged breach of such
fiduciary duties.

Also on Sept. 23, 2009, Christopher R. Barrell filed a
substantially similar lawsuit to the Miner Lawsuit in the U.S.  
Fourth Judicial District Court for Utah County, Provo Department,
State of Utah, captioned Barrell v. Omniture, Inc. et. al., Case
No. 090403560.

The Barrell Lawsuit names the same defendants as the Miner
Lawsuit, and also names Snowbird Acquisition Corporation as an  
additional defendant.  Subsequently, on Sept. 24, 2009, the
plaintiff in the Barrell Lawsuit filed an amended complaint,  
which added allegations that the Schedule 14D-9
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement filed by Omniture on Sept.
24, 2009 contained inadequate disclosures and was materially
misleading.

On Sept. 25, 2009, the Omniture Defendants filed a motion
requesting that the court consolidate the Barrell Lawsuit, Miner  
Lawsuit and a substantially similar lawsuit captioned Lodhia v.
Omniture, Inc. et al., Case No. 090403499 in which the Omniture
Defendants, but not Adobe, were named.

Additionally, on Sept. 30, 2009, the plaintiff in the Lodhia
Lawsuit filed a response to defendants' motion to consolidate,  
agreeing consolidation is appropriate, and also filed a motion
seeking appointment as lead plaintiff in the consolidated action.  
Omniture moved for an order consolidating all three lawsuits.

The plaintiffs in the three lawsuits filed a joint motion seeking
preliminary injunction barring the consummation of the proposed
acquisition and requiring additional disclosures by Omniture in
its Schedule 14D-9.

At a hearing on Oct. 20, 2009, the court consolidated the Miner,
Barrell, and Lodhia cases into a single case under the Lodhia
caption and denied the plaintiffs' motion to preliminarily enjoin
the closing of the transaction.

On Dec. 30, 2009, the plaintiffs served the defendants with a
consolidated amended complaint for damages arising out of the
closing of the transaction.

In the consolidated amended complaint, plaintiffs allege that the
members of Omniture's board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Omniture's stockholders by failing to seek the highest
possible price for Omniture and that both Adobe and Omniture
induced or aided and abetted in the alleged breach.  The
plaintiffs also allege that the Schedule 14D-9
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement filed by Omniture on Sept.
24, 2009 in connection with the transaction contained inadequate
disclosures and was materially misleading.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of the former
public stockholders of Omniture.

On March 8, 2010, Adobe and the other defendants moved to dismiss
the complaint for failure to state a claim.

Adobe Systems Incorporated -- http://www.adobe.com/-- is a  
diversified software companies.  The company offers a line of
creative, business and mobile software and services used by
creative professionals, knowledge workers, consumers, original
equipment manufacturer (OEM) partners, developers and enterprises
for creating, managing, delivering and engaging with content and
experiences across multiple operating systems, devices and media.  
It distributes its products through a network of distributors,
value-added resellers (VARs), systems integrators, independent
software vendors (ISVs) and OEMs, direct to end users and through
its own Web site at www.adobe.com.  It also licenses its
technology to hardware manufacturers, software developers and
service providers, and offer integrated software solutions to
businesses of all sizes.  Adobe has operations in the Americas,
Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA) and Asia.


ALLIED DEFENSE: Consolidated Suit Against Directors Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated action against The Allied Defense Group, Inc.'s
directors has been dismissed by Delaware Court of Chancery,
according to the company's April 7, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

On Jan. 18, 2010, the company signed a definitive Merger
agreement with Chemring Group PLC.

Two putative stockholder class action lawsuits related to the
Merger were filed since the announcement of the execution of the
Merger agreement.

On Feb. 19, 2010, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered an order
consolidating the two actions.

On March 3, 2010, following the filing of the company's
preliminary proxy statement with the SEC, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended class-action compliant, which names as
defendants, each of the company's directors and a Chemring
subsidiary.

The consolidated action was dismissed without prejudice effective
April 1, 2010.

The Allied Defense Group, Inc. --
http://www.allieddefensegroup.com/-- is a multinational defense  
company focused on the manufacture, sale and distribution of
ammunition and ammunition-related products for use by the U.S.
and foreign governments.


ALLSCRIPTS-MISYS: Motion to Dismiss "Plumbers" Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Allscripts-Misys Healthcare Solutions Inc.'s motion to dismiss an
amended complaint filed by the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local
Union No. 630 Pension-Annuity Trust Fund, remains pending,
according to the company's April 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Feb. 28, 2010.

On Aug. 4, 2009, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois against the company, Glen
Tullman and William Davis by the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local
Union No. 630 Pension-Annuity Trust Fund on behalf of a purported
class consisting of stockholders who purchased Allscripts common
stock between May 8, 2007 and Feb. 13, 2008.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, the company,
Glen Tullman and William Davis made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's financial condition
and prospects, and on that basis the complaint asserts violations
of federal securities laws.

The plaintiff seeks to recover the price declines in Allscripts'
common stock that occurred on Nov. 8, 2007, when the company
released its third quarter 2007 financial results, and on Feb.
13, 2008, when the company released full year 2007 results.

On Oct. 5, 2009, David Robb moved for appointment as Lead
Plaintiff and for approval of selection of lead and liaison
counsel.  On Oct. 13, 2009, David Robb was appointed lead
plaintiff , and on Nov. 25, 2009, an amended complaint was filed.

On Jan. 11, 2010, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit.  The motion is fully briefed and awaiting ruling.

Headquartered in Chicago, Allscripts-Misys Healthcare Solutions
Inc. -- http://www.allscripts.com/-- uses innovation technology  
to bring health to healthcare.  More than 160,000 physicians, 800
hospitals and nearly 8,000 post-acute and homecare organizations
utilize Allscripts to improve the health of their patients and
their bottom line.  The company's award-winning solutions include
electronic health records, electronic prescribing, revenue cycle
management, practice management, document management, hospital
care management, emergency department information systems and
homecare automation.  Allscripts is the brand name of Allscripts-
Misys Healthcare Solutions, Inc.


AMBAC FINANCIAL: Wants Certification of Order Denying Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ambac Financial Group, Inc., has moved for certification of the
order denying in part the motion to dismiss a consolidated
securities action for interlocutory appeal and moved for
reconsideration of the order to the extent reconsideration of any
aspect of the order is necessary in order to provide appropriate
relief, according to the company's April 9, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Ambac and certain of its present or former officers or directors
have been named in lawsuits that allege violations of the federal
securities laws and/or state law.  Various putative class action
suits alleging violations of the federal securities laws have
been filed against the company and certain of its present or
former directors or officers.  These suits include four class
actions filed in January and February of 2008 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York that were
consolidated on May 9, 2008 under the caption In re Ambac
Financial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 08 CV
411.

On July 25, 2008, another suit, Painting Industry Insurance and
Annuity Funds v. Ambac Assurance Corporation, et al., case No. 08
CV 6602, was filed in the U.S. District for the Southern District
of New York.  On or about Aug. 22, 2008, a consolidated amended
complaint was filed in the consolidated action.

The consolidated amended complaint includes the allegations
presented by the original four class actions, the allegations
presented by the Painting Industry action, and additional
allegations.  The consolidated amended complaint purports to be
brought on behalf of purchasers of Ambac's common stock from Oct.
25, 2006 to April 22, 2008, on behalf of purchasers of Ambac's
"DISCS", issued in February of 2007, and on behalf of purchasers
of equity units and common stock in Ambac's March 2008 offerings.

The suit names as defendants the company, the underwriters for
the three offerings, the company's independent Certified Public
Accountants and certain present and former directors and officers
of the company.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding
Ambac's business and financial results and guarantees of CDO and
MBS transactions and that the Registration Statements pursuant to
which the three offerings were made contained material
misstatements and omissions in violation of the securities laws.

On August 27, 2009, the company and the individual defendants
named in the consolidated securities action moved to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  On Feb. 22, 2010, the Court
dismissed the claims arising out of the March 2008 equity units
and common stock offering which resutlted in the dismissal of the
company's independent Certified Public Accountants from the
action, and otherwise denied the motions to dismiss.

On March 8, 2010, the company and the individual defendants moved
for certification of the order denying in part the motion to
dismiss for interlocutory appeal and moved for reconsideration of
the order to the extent reconsideration of any aspect of the
order is necessary in order to provide appropriate relief.

The suit is In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-00411-NRB, (S.D.N.Y.)(Buchwald, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq.
         Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         58 South Service Road, Suite 200
         Melville, NY 11747
         Phone: 631-367-7100
         Fax: 631-367-1173
         Email: drosenfeld@csgrr.com

         Jill Sharyn Abrams, Esq.
         Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP
         212 East 39th Street
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-889-3700
         Fax: 212-684-5191
         Email: jabrams@abbeyspanier.com

              - and -

         Aviah Cohen-Pierson, Esq.
         Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
         850 Third Avenue
         14th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-687-1980
         Fax: 212-687-7714
         Email: acohenpierson@kaplanfox.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Peter C. Hein, Esq.
         Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
         51 West 52nd Street
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: 212-403-1237
         Fax: 212-403-2000
         Email: PCHein@wlrk.com


AMBAC FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss "Tolin" Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss a putative class-action suit, entitled
Stanley Tolin et al. v. Ambac Financial Group, Inc. et al., is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, according to the company's April 9, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Dec. 24, 2008, a complaint in a putative class action entitled
Stanley Tolin et al. v. Ambac Financial Group, Inc. et al.,
asserting alleged violations of the federal securities laws was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York against Ambac, and one former officer and director and one
former officer, Case No. 08 CV 11241.

An amended complaint was subsequently filed on Jan. 20, 2009.

This action is brought on behalf of all purchasers of Structured
Repackaged Asset-Backed Trust Securities, Callable Class A
Certificates, Series 2007-1, STRATS(SM) Trust for Ambac Financial
Group, Inc. Securities 2007-1 ("STRATS") from June 29, 2007
through April 22, 2008.  The STRATS are asset-backed securities
that were allegedly issued by a subsidiary of Wachovia
Corporation and are allegedly collateralized solely by Ambac's
DISCS.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding
Ambac's business and financial results and Ambac's guarantees of
CDO and MBS transactions, in violation of the securities laws.

On April 15, 2009, the company and the individual defendants
named in Tolin moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

On Dec. 23, 2009, the Court initially denied defendants' motion
to dismiss, but later recalled that decision and requested
further briefing from parties in the case before it rendered a
decision on the motion to dismiss.

The additional briefing was completed on March 5, 2010.

Ambac Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.ambac.com/-- is a  
primarily a holding company.  The company, through its
subsidiaries, provides financial guarantees and financial
services to clients in both the public and private sectors
worldwide.  Ambac's activities are divided into two business
segments. The Financial Guarantee segment provides financial
guarantees (including credit derivatives) for public finance,
structured finance and other obligations.


BFC FINANCIAL: Unit Continues to Defend "Dance" Suit in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
BFC Financial Corp.'s subsidiary, Woodbridge Holdings Corp. f/k/a
Levitt Corp., continues to defend a purported
class-action complaint filed by Robert D. Dance in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Robert D. Dance, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Woodbridge Holdings Corp. (formerly known
as Levitt Corp.), Alan B. Levan, and George P. Scanlon, Case No.
08-60111-Civ-Graham/O'Sullivan, Southern District of Florida

On Jan. 25, 2008, plaintiff Robert D. Dance filed a purported
class action complaint as a putative purchaser of the company's
securities against the company and certain of its officers and
directors, asserting claims under the federal securities law and
seeking damages.

This action was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida and is captioned Dance v. Levitt
Corp. et al., No. 08-CV-60111-DLG.

The securities litigation purports to be brought on behalf of all
purchasers of the company's securities beginning on Jan. 31, 2007
and ending on Aug. 14, 2007.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by issuing a series of false and/or misleading
statements concerning our financial results, prospects and
condition.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 13, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

BFC Financial Corp. -- http://www.bfcfinancial.com/-- is a  
holding company.  Its ownership interests include direct and
indirect interests in businesses in a variety of sectors,
including consumer and commercial banking, master-planned
community development, time-share and vacation ownership, an
Asian-themed restaurant chain and various real estate and
venture capital investments.  BFC's holdings consist of direct
controlling interests in BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and Levitt
Corporation.  BFC owns a direct investment in Benihana, Inc. BFC
itself has no significant operations other than activities
relating to the monitoring of existing investments.  BFC operates
through six segments: BFC Activities, Financial
Services and four segments within its Real Estate Development
Division.


BFC FINANCIAL: Wisconsin Suit Against Bluegreen Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
A suit against Bluegreen Corporation has been dismissed after a
$1.5 million settlement was paid, according to BFC Financial
Corp.'s April 13, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

BFC Financial has a controlling interest in Bluegreen.

In Cause No. 08-cv-401-bbc, styled Steven Craig Kelly and Jack
Clark, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Bluegreen Corporation, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin, two former sales representatives brought a
lawsuit on July 28, 2008 in the Western District of Wisconsin on
behalf of themselves and putative class members who are or were
employed by Bluegreen as sales associates and compensated on a
commission-only basis.

Plaintiffs alleged that Bluegreen violated the FLSA and that they
and the collective class are or were covered, non-exempt
employees under federal wage and hour laws, and were entitled to
minimum wage and overtime pay consistent with the FLSA.

On July 10, 2009, the parties settled the case and Bluegreen
agreed to pay approximately $1.5 million (including attorney's
fees and costs) without admitting any wrongdoing.  As of Dec. 31,
2009, the settlement was paid and the case dismissed.

BFC Financial Corp. -- http://www.bfcfinancial.com/-- is a  
holding company.  Its ownership interests include direct and
indirect interests in businesses in a variety of sectors,
including consumer and commercial banking, master-planned
community development, time-share and vacation ownership, an
Asian-themed restaurant chain and various real estate and
venture capital investments.  BFC's holdings consist of direct
controlling interests in BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and Levitt
Corporation.  BFC owns a direct investment in Benihana, Inc. BFC
itself has no significant operations other than activities
relating to the monitoring of existing investments.  BFC operates
through six segments: BFC Activities, Financial
Services and four segments within its Real Estate Development
Division.


BFC FINANCIAL: No Class Certified Yet in Georgia Suit vs. Unit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District Court of
Georgia has yet to certify a class in a second complaint against
Bluegreen Corporation, according to BFC Financial Corp.'s April
13, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

BFC Financial has a controlling interest in Bluegreen.

Our Real Estate and Other business activities include four
business segments: BFC Activities, Real Estate Operations, and
Bluegreen's two business segments; Bluegreen Resorts and
Bluegreen Communities.

On Sept. 18, 2008, in Cause No. 2008-5U-CV-1358-WI, styled Paul
A. Schwarz and Barbara S. Schwarz v. Bluegreen Communities of
Georgia, LLC and Bluegreen Corporation, Plaintiffs brought suit
against Bluegreen alleging fraud and misrepresentation with
regards to the construction of a marina at the Sanctuary Cove
subdivision located in Camden County, Georgia.

Plaintiff subsequently withdrew the fraud and misrepresentation
counts and replaced them with a count alleging violation of
racketeering laws, including mail fraud and wire fraud.

On Jan. 25, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a second complaint seeking
approval to proceed with the lawsuit as a class action
representing more than 100 persons who were harmed by the alleged
racketeering activities in a similar manner as Plaintiffs.

No decision has yet been made by the Court as to whether a class
will be certified.

BFC Financial Corp. -- http://www.bfcfinancial.com/-- is a  
holding company.  Its ownership interests include direct and
indirect interests in businesses in a variety of sectors,
including consumer and commercial banking, master-planned
community development, time-share and vacation ownership, an
Asian-themed restaurant chain and various real estate and
venture capital investments.  BFC's holdings consist of direct
controlling interests in BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and Levitt
Corporation.  BFC owns a direct investment in Benihana, Inc. BFC
itself has no significant operations other than activities
relating to the monitoring of existing investments.  BFC operates
through six segments: BFC Activities, Financial
Services and four segments within its Real Estate Development
Division.


BFC FINANCIAL: BankAtlantic Defends Consolidated Suit in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
BFC Financial Corp.'s subsidiary, BankAtlantic Bancorp, continues
to defend a consolidated suit captioned In re BankAtlantic
Bancorp, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 0:07-cv-61542-UU,
pending in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida,
according to the company's April 13, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

On Oct. 29, 2007, Joseph C. Hubbard filed a purported class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida against BankAtlantic Bancorp and four of its current or
former officers.  The Defendants in this action are BankAtlantic
Bancorp, Inc., James A. White, Valerie C. Toalson, Jarett S.
Levan, and Alan B. Levan.

The Complaint, which was later amended, alleges that during the
purported class period of Nov. 9, 2005 through Oct. 25, 2007,
BankAtlantic Bancorp and the named officers knowingly and/or
recklessly made misrepresentations of material fact regarding
BankAtlantic and specifically BankAtlantic's loan portfolio and
allowance for loan losses.

The Complaint seeks to assert claims for violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and seeks unspecified damages.

On De. 12, 2007, the Court consolidated into Hubbard a separately
filed action captioned Alarm Specialties, Inc. v. BankAtlantic
Bancorp, Inc., No. 0:07-cv-61623-WPD.  On Feb. 5, 2008, the Court
appointed State-Boston Retirement System lead plaintiff and
Lubaton Sucharow LLP to serve as lead counsel pursuant to the
provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

BFC Financial Corp. -- http://www.bfcfinancial.com/-- is a  
holding company.  Its ownership interests include direct and
indirect interests in businesses in a variety of sectors,
including consumer and commercial banking, master-planned
community development, time-share and vacation ownership, an
Asian-themed restaurant chain and various real estate and
venture capital investments.  BFC's holdings consist of direct
controlling interests in BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and Levitt
Corporation.  BFC owns a direct investment in Benihana, Inc. BFC
itself has no significant operations other than activities
relating to the monitoring of existing investments.  BFC operates
through six segments: BFC Activities, Financial
Services and four segments within its Real Estate Development
Division.


BFC FINANCIAL: BankAtlantic Defends "Hugo" Suit in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
BFC Financial Corp.'s subsidiary, BankAtlantic Bancorp, continues
to defend a suit captioned D.W. Hugo, individually and on behalf
of Nominal Defendant BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. vs. BankAtlantic
Bancorp, Inc., Alan B. Levan, Jarett S. Levan, Jay C. McClung,
Marcia K. Snyder, Valerie Toalson, James A. White, John E. Abdo,
D. Keith Cobb, Steven M. Coldren, and David A. Lieberman, Case
No. 0:08-cv-61018-UU, pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, according to the company's April
13, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On July 2, 2008, D.W. Hugo filed a purported class action which
was brought as a derivative action on behalf of BankAtlantic
Bancorp pursuant to Florida laws in the United States District
Court, Southern District of Florida against BankAtlantic Bancorp
and the above listed officers and directors.  The Complaint
alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by engaging in certain lending practices with respect to
BankAtlantic Bancorp's Commercial Real Estate Loan Portfolio.  
The Complaint further alleges that BankAtlantic Bancorp's public
filings and statements did not fully disclose the risks
associated with the Commercial Real Estate Loan Portfolio and
seeks damages on behalf of BankAtlantic Bancorp.

On Dec. 2, 2008, the Circuit Court for Broward County stayed a
separately filed action captioned Albert R. Feldman, Derivatively
on behalf of Nominal Defendant BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. vs.
Alan B. Levan, et al., Case No. 0846795 07.  The court granted
the motion to stay the action pending further order of the court
and allowing any party to move for relief from the stay, provided
the moving party gives at least thirty days' written notice to
all of the non-moving parties. BankAtlantic Bancorp believes the
claims to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend the
actions.

BFC Financial Corp. -- http://www.bfcfinancial.com/-- is a  
holding company.  Its ownership interests include direct and
indirect interests in businesses in a variety of sectors,
including consumer and commercial banking, master-planned
community development, time-share and vacation ownership, an
Asian-themed restaurant chain and various real estate and
venture capital investments.  BFC's holdings consist of direct
controlling interests in BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and Levitt
Corporation.  BFC owns a direct investment in Benihana, Inc. BFC
itself has no significant operations other than activities
relating to the monitoring of existing investments.  BFC operates
through six segments: BFC Activities, Financial
Services and four segments within its Real Estate Development
Division.


BFC FINANCIAL: BankAtlantic Continues to Defend "Farrington"
------------------------------------------------------------
BFC Financial Corp.'s subsidiary, BankAtlantic Bancorp, continues
to defend a suit captioned Lashelle Farrington, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BankAtlantic, a
Federal Savings Bank, Case No. 09-006210 (11), pending in the
Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for
Broward County, Florida, according to the company's April 13,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The original Farrington complaint was filed on Feb. 2, 2009
against BankAtlantic and several of BankAtlantic's affiliates
(namely, BA Financial Services, LLC, BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc.,
BFC Financial Corporation, and Joe Does 1-10), and the Plaintiff
subsequently amended the complaint to drop the non-BankAtlantic
defendants.

The Amended Complaint alleges that BankAtlantic breached its
Personal Account Depositor's Agreement by charging overdraft fees
for certain debit card purchases when the customer allegedly had
sufficient funds in her account at the time that the items were
paid even though the account was overdrawn at the close of
business.

The Plaintiff seeks to establish a class comprised of all persons
or entities with accounts that incurred these allegedly improper
overdraft fees on debit card transactions in the previous 5
years.  The Plaintiff has not yet moved to certify a class.

BFC Financial Corp. -- http://www.bfcfinancial.com/-- is a  
holding company.  Its ownership interests include direct and
indirect interests in businesses in a variety of sectors,
including consumer and commercial banking, master-planned
community development, time-share and vacation ownership, an
Asian-themed restaurant chain and various real estate and
venture capital investments.  BFC's holdings consist of direct
controlling interests in BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and Levitt
Corporation.  BFC owns a direct investment in Benihana, Inc. BFC
itself has no significant operations other than activities
relating to the monitoring of existing investments.  BFC operates
through six segments: BFC Activities, Financial
Services and four segments within its Real Estate Development
Division.


BFC FINANCIAL: BankAtlantic Faces "Rothman" Suit in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
BFC Financial Corp.'s subsidiary, BankAtlantic Bancorp, faces a
suit styled Joel and Elizabeth Rothman, on behalf of themselves
and all persons similarly situated vs. BankAtlantic, Case No. 09-
059341 (07), pending in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial
Circuit for Broward County, Florida, according to the company's
April 13, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Nov. 2, 2009, Joel and Elizabeth Rothman filed a purported
class action against BankAtlantic in Florida state court.

The Complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, breach of
duty of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment,
conversion, and usury.  Each of these counts is related to
BankAtlantic's collection of overdraft fees.

The Complaint alleges that BankAtlantic failed to adequately warn
its customers about overdrafts, failed to give its customers the
ability to opt out of an automatic overdraft protection program
and improperly manipulated debit card transactions.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent three classes of BankAtlantic
customers in the State of Florida who were assessed overdraft
fees.

BFC Financial Corp. -- http://www.bfcfinancial.com/-- is a  
holding company.  Its ownership interests include direct and
indirect interests in businesses in a variety of sectors,
including consumer and commercial banking, master-planned
community development, time-share and vacation ownership, an
Asian-themed restaurant chain and various real estate and
venture capital investments.  BFC's holdings consist of direct
controlling interests in BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and Levitt
Corporation.  BFC owns a direct investment in Benihana, Inc. BFC
itself has no significant operations other than activities
relating to the monitoring of existing investments.  BFC operates
through six segments: BFC Activities, Financial
Services and four segments within its Real Estate Development
Division.


CINTAS CORP: Awaits Court Approval of Settlement Pact in Veliz
--------------------------------------------------------------
The approval of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of
California, Oakland Division, on the proposed settlement of class
action claims in Paul Veliz, et al. v. Cintas Corp., et al., Case
No. 03-cv-1180, remains pending, according to the company's April
8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended
Feb. 28, 2010.

Cintas is a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit filed
on March 19, 2003, alleging that Cintas violated certain federal
and state wage and hour laws applicable to its service sales
representatives, whom Cintas considers exempt employees, and
asserting additional related ERISA claims.

On April 5, 2004 and Feb. 14, 2006, the Court stayed the claims
of all plaintiffs with valid arbitration agreements
pending arbitration of those claims.  Claims made in the Veliz
action therefore are pending before the U.S. District Court,
Northern District of California and Judge Bruce Meyerson (Ret.),
an Arbitrator selected by the parties.

On Aug. 5, 2009, the parties in the Veliz action reached a
settlement in principle.

When the settlement is fully documented and approved by the
Court, the settlement will resolve all claims now pending or that
could have been brought relating to the subject matter of the
case before the Court and the Arbitrator.

Cintas expects that the approval process will take several
months.

The principal terms of the settlement provide for an aggregate
cash payment of approximately $23,950,000 which is accrued in
current accrued liabilities at Feb. 28, 2010.  The pre-tax
impact, net of insurance proceeds, was $19,477.000.

Cintas Corp. -- http://www.cintas.com/-- provides specialized  
products and services to businesses of all types primarily
throughout the United States and Canada.  The company is a
provider of corporate identity uniforms through rental and sales
programs, as well as a significant provider of related business
services, including entrance mats, restroom products and
services, first aid, safety and fire protection products and
services, document management services and branded promotional
products.  Cintas classifies its businesses into four operating
segments: Rental Uniforms and Ancillary Products; Uniform Direct
Sales; First Aid, Safety and Fire Protection Services, and
Document Management Services.  The company provides its products
and services to approximately 800,000 businesses of all types,
from small service and manufacturing companies to corporations.


COMVERSE TECH: Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set for June 21
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York has
scheduled a hearing for June 21, 2010, to consider final approval
of the settlement agreement in a consolidated shareholder class
action captioned In re Comverse Technology, Inc. Sec. Litig., No.
06-CV-1825, according to the company's April 7, 2010, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The suit was filed the company and certain of its former officers
and directors alleging that such defendants had violated federal
securities laws in connection with prior statements made by the
company with respect to, among other things, its accounting
treatment of stock options.

The company also entered into an agreement to settle consolidated
shareholder derivative actions: In re Comverse Technology, Inc.
Derivative Litigation, No. 601272/2006 and In re Comverse
Technology, Inc. Derivative Litigation, No. 06-CV-1849, which are
pending in the New York Supreme Court for New York County and the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
respectively. The suits were filed against certain of the
company's former officers and directors and, in the state court
action, the company's independent registered public accounting
firm, alleging that the defendants breached certain duties to the
company and that certain former officers and directors were
unjustly enriched (and, in the federal action, alleging violation
of federal securities laws).

In connection with such settlements, the company agreed to
dismiss its direct lawsuits under the captions Comverse
Technology, Inc. v. Alexander, No. 08/600142 and Comverse
Technology, Inc. v. Kreinberg, No. 09/600052 in the Supreme Court
of the State of New York against Jacob "Kobi" Alexander, the
company's former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, David
Kreinberg, the company's former Chief Financial Officer, and
William Sorin, the company's former General Counsel, and Messrs.
Alexander, Sorin and Kreinberg agreed to dismiss their
counterclaims against the company.

As part of the settlement of the consolidated shareholder class
action, the company agreed to make payments to a class action
settlement fund in the aggregate amount of $165.0 million as
follows:

     -- $1.0 million paid upon signing of this settlement
        agreement;

     -- $51.5 million on or before Aug.15, 2010;

     -- $30.0 million on or before Feb. 15, 2011; and

     -- $82.5 million on or before Aug. 15, 2011.

The company intends to fund the $51.5 million due on or before
Aug. 15, 2010 with proceeds from the sale of certain auction rate
securities to UBS AG.  UBS AG has previously agreed to purchase
$51.5 million face amount of such securities for a purchase price
equal to such face amount at the Company's election between June
30, 2010 and July 2, 2012.

The $30.0 million due on or before Feb. 15, 2011 and the $82.5
million due on or before August 15, 2011 are payable in cash or,
at the company's election, in shares of the company's common
stock valued using the ten day average of the closing price of
the company's common stock prior to such election.

In addition, as part of the settlement of the consolidated
shareholder class action and the derivative actions, Mr.
Alexander agreed to pay $60.0 million to the company which will
be deposited into the derivative settlement fund and then
transferred into the class action settlement fund.

The other defendants in the derivative actions agreed to pay to
the company an aggregate of $1.35 million and certain former
directors agreed to relinquish certain unexercised stock options.

The company's settlement of claims against it in the class action
for aggregate consideration of $165.0 million is not contingent
upon Mr. Alexander satisfying his payment obligations.

The Court has also preliminarily approved the settlement and has
scheduled a hearing for June 21, 2010 to determine whether to
finally approve the settlement.

Notice of the settlement of the Class Action and the hearing will
be mailed to members of the class and a summary notice will also
be published in the Wall Street Journal and posted on a national
business wire in the United States and Israel.

Comverse Technology, Inc. -- http://www.cmvt.com/-- through its  
subsidiary, Comverse, Inc., is a provider of software and systems
enabling network-based multimedia enhanced communication and
billing services.


GENERAL MOTORS: Canadian Export Antitrust Suits Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corp. continues to face consolidated Canadian
export antitrust class action lawsuits in the California Superior
Court in San Francisco County, according to the company's April
7, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Approximately 80 purported class actions on behalf of all
purchasers of new motor vehicles in the United States since
Jan. 1, 2001, have been filed in various state and federal courts
against General Motors Corporation, General Motors of Canada
Limited, Ford Motor Company, Chrysler, LLC, Toyota Motor
Corporation, Honda Motor Co., Ltd., Nissan Motor Company,
Limited, and Bavarian Motor Works and their Canadian affiliates,
the National Automobile Dealers Association, and the Canadian
Automobile Dealers Association.

The federal court actions have been consolidated for coordinated
pretrial proceedings under the caption In re New Market Vehicle
Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation Cases in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maine, and the more than 30 California
cases have been consolidated in the California Superior Court in
San Francisco County under the case captions Belch v. Toyota
Corporation, et al. and Bell v. General Motors Corporation.

General Motors Corporation's liability in these matters was not
transferred to General Motors Company as part of the 363 Sale.  
GMCL was not part of the General Motors Corporation bankruptcy
proceeding and potentially remains liable in all matters.

In the California state court cases, oral arguments on the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification and defendants'
motion in limine will be heard on April 21, 2009.  The court
ruled that it would certify a class.

Defendants written appeal to the appropriate California court was
denied.  Defendants are preparing other substantive motions for
summary judgment.  

                            Maine Action

The nearly identical complaints alleged that the defendant
manufacturers, aided by the association defendants, conspired
among themselves and with their dealers to prevent the sale to
U.S. citizens of vehicles produced for the Canadian market and
sold by dealers in Canada.  The complaints alleged that new
vehicle prices in Canada are 10% to 30% lower than those in the
United States, and that preventing the sale of these vehicles to
U.S. citizens resulted in the payment of higher than competitive
prices by U.S. consumers.  The complaints, as amended, sought
injunctive relief under U.S. antitrust law and treble damages
under U.S. and state antitrust laws, but did not specify damages.  
The complaints further alleged unjust enrichment and violations
of state unfair trade practices act.

On March 5, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maine issued a decision holding that the purported indirect
purchaser classes failed to state a claim for damages under
federal antitrust law but allowed a separate claim seeking to
enjoin future alleged violations to continue.  The U.S. District
Court for the District of Maine on March 10, 2006, certified a
nationwide class of buyers and lessees under Federal Rule
23(b)(2) solely for injunctive relief, and on March 21, 2007,
stated that it would certify 20 separate statewide class actions
for damages under various state law theories under Federal Rule
23(b)(3), covering the period from Jan. 1, 2001 to April 30,
2003.  

On Oct. 3, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
heard oral arguments on the company's consolidated appeal of both
class certification orders.

On March 28, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit reversed the certification of the injunctive class and
ordered dismissal of the injunctive claim.  The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit also vacated the certification of
the damages class and remanded to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maine for determination of several issues concerning
federal jurisdiction and, if such jurisdiction still exists, for
reconsideration of that class certification on a more complete
record.

On remand, plaintiffs again moved to certify a damages class, and
defendants again moved for summary judgment and to strike
plaintiffs' economic expert.  

On July 2, 2009, the court granted one of defendants' summary
judgment motions.  Plaintiffs did not appeal.  As a result, the
only issues remaining in the federal actions relate to
disposition of the funds paid by Toyota in a settlement years
ago.

General Motors Corp. n/k/a Motors Liquidation Company --
http://www.gm.com/-- is primarily engaged in the worldwide  
development, production and marketing of cars, trucks and parts.  
The Company develops, manufactures and markets its vehicles
worldwide through its four automotive regions: GM North America,
GM Europe, GM Latin America/Africa/Mid-East and GM Asia Pacific.


GENERAL MOTORS: No Certification Hearing Set in Ontario Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A certification has not yet been scheduled in an antitrust class
action against General Motors of Canada Limited (GMCL) and Motors
Liquidation Company (MLC), formerly known as General Motors
Corporation, according to the company's April 7, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Sept. 25, 2007, a claim was filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice against GMCL and MLC on behalf of a purported
class of actual and intended purchasers of vehicles in Canada
claiming that a similar alleged conspiracy was now preventing
lower-cost U.S. vehicles from being sold to Canadians.

The Plaintiffs have delivered their certification materials.  An
order staying claims against MLC was granted in November 2009.

A certification hearing has not yet been scheduled.

No determination has been made that the case may be maintained as
a class action, and it is not possible to determine the
likelihood of liability or reasonably ascertain the amount of any
damages.

General Motors Corp. n/k/a Motors Liquidation Company --
http://www.gm.com/-- is primarily engaged in the worldwide  
development, production and marketing of cars, trucks and parts.  
The Company develops, manufactures and markets its vehicles
worldwide through its four automotive regions: GM North America,
GM Europe, GM Latin America/Africa/Mid-East and GM Asia Pacific.






GENERAL MOTORS: GMCL Faces Suit by Canadian Dealers
---------------------------------------------------
General Motors of Canada Limited faces a class action in relation
to its GM Dealer Sales and Service Agreements, according to
General Motor Corp.'s April 7, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec.
31, 2009.

On Jan. 21, 2010, a claim was filed in the Ontario Superior Court
of Justice against GMCL for damages on behalf of a purported
class of 215 Canadian General Motors dealers which entered into
wind-down agreements with GMCL in May 2009.

GMCL offered the Plaintiff dealers the wind-down agreements to
assist the Plaintiffs' exit from the GMCL Canadian dealer network
upon the expiration of their GM Dealer Sales and Service
Agreements (DSSAs) on Oct. 31, 2010, and to assist the Plaintiffs
in winding down their dealer operations in an orderly fashion.

The Plaintiff dealers allege that the DSSAs have been wrongly
terminated by GMCL and that GMCL failed to comply with franchise
disclosure obligations, breached its statutory duty of fair
dealing and unlawfully interfered with the dealers' statutory
right to associate in an attempt to coerce the class member
dealers into accepting the wind-down agreements. The Plaintiff
dealers claim that the wind-down agreements are void.

A certification hearing has not yet been scheduled.  No
determination has been made that the case may be maintained as a
class action, and it is not possible to determine the likelihood
of liability or reasonably ascertain the amount of any damages.

General Motors Corp. n/k/a Motors Liquidation Company --
http://www.gm.com/-- is primarily engaged in the worldwide  
development, production and marketing of cars, trucks and parts.  
The Company develops, manufactures and markets its vehicles
worldwide through its four automotive regions: GM North America,
GM Europe, GM Latin America/Africa/Mid-East and GM Asia Pacific.


GENERAL MOTORS: Discovery in OnStar Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------
Class Discovery in a consolidated class action against General
Motors Corp.'s wholly owned subsidiary, OnStar Corporation, is
nearly complete, according to the company's April 7, 2010, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

OnStar is party to more than 20 putative class actions filed in
various states, including Michigan, Ohio, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania and California.

All of these cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes
in a multi-district proceeding under the caption In re OnStar
Contract Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan.

The litigation arises out of the discontinuation by OnStar of
services to vehicles equipped with analog hardware.  OnStar was
unable to provide services to such vehicles because the cellular
carriers which provide communication service to OnStar
terminated analog service beginning in February 2008.  In the
various cases, the plaintiffs are seeking certification of
nationwide or statewide classes of owners of vehicles currently
equipped with analog equipment, alleging various breaches of
contract, misrepresentation and unfair trade practices.

This proceeding has not reached the class certification motion
stage, though class discovery is nearly complete.

General Motors Corp. n/k/a Motors Liquidation Company --
http://www.gm.com/-- is primarily engaged in the worldwide  
development, production and marketing of cars, trucks and parts.  
The Company develops, manufactures and markets its vehicles
worldwide through its four automotive regions: GM North America,
GM Europe, GM Latin America/Africa/Mid-East and GM Asia Pacific.


GENERAL MOTORS: Named as Co-Defendant in Two Suits vs. Toyota
-------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corp. has been named as a co-defendant in two of
the many class action lawsuits brought against Toyota arising
from Toyota's recall of certain vehicles related to reports of
unintended acceleration, according to the company's April 7,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The two cases are:

     (1) Nimishabahen Patel v. Toyota Motors North America,
         Inc., et al (filed in the U.S. District Court for the
         District of Connecticut on Feb. 9, 2010) and

     (2) Darshak Shah v. Toyota Motors North America, Inc. et al
         (filed in the U.S. District court for the District of
         Massachusetts on or about Feb. 16, 2010).

The 2009 and 2010 model year Pontiac Vibe, which was manufactured
by a joint venture between Toyota and Old GM, included components
that were common with those addressed by the Toyota recall and
were accordingly the subject of a parallel recall by the company.

Each case makes allegations regarding Toyota's conduct related to
the condition addressed by the recall and asserts breaches of
implied and express warranty, unjust enrichment and violation of
consumer protection statutes and seeks actual damages, multiple
damages, attorneys fees, costs and injunctive relief on behalf of
classes of vehicle owners which include owners of 2009 and 2010
model year Pontiac Vibes.

The cases are in their earliest stage, with no determination that
class treatment is appropriate.

Although a comprehensive assessment of the cases is not possible
at this time, we believe that, with respect to the overwhelming
majority of Pontiac vehicles addressed by the two cases, the
claims asserted are barred by the Sale Approval Order entered by
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York
on July 5, 2009.

General Motors Corp. n/k/a Motors Liquidation Company --
http://www.gm.com/-- is primarily engaged in the worldwide  
development, production and marketing of cars, trucks and parts.  
The Company develops, manufactures and markets its vehicles
worldwide through its four automotive regions: GM North America,
GM Europe, GM Latin America/Africa/Mid-East and GM Asia Pacific.


GSI GROUP: Enters Agreement to Settle Shareholders' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
GSI Group, Inc., has entered into a settlement agreement to
resolve a putative shareholder class action in connection with
the delayed filing of its financial results, according to the
company's April 13, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2008.

On Dec. 12, 2008, in connection with the delayed filing of its
results for the quarter ended Sept. 26, 2008, and the
announcement of a review of revenue transactions, a putative
shareholder class action alleging federal securities violations
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against the company, a former officer and a current
officer and director.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the company and the
individual defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and seeks recovery of damages in an unspecified
amount.  The action was brought on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders who purchased the company's stock between April 30,
2008 and Dec. 3, 2008.

A lead plaintiff, Mason Tenders District Council Trust Funds, was
appointed on May 8, 2009.  On July 1, 2009, the Court ordered
lead plaintiff to file a consolidated or amended complaint within
30 days of the company's filing of restatements for certain of
its historical financial results with the SEC.

During the last several months, the parties have been in
settlement discussions and the parties have reached an agreement
in principle to settle this lawsuit.  The settlement would, in
general, cover purchasers of the common stock of the company
between Feb. 27, 2007 and June 30, 2009.

The agreement in principle is subject to a number of
contingencies including confirmatory discovery by the Lead
Plaintiff, after which Lead Plaintiff may affirm or void the
agreement in principle, preliminary and final approval by the
District Court, and to the extent required by law, approval by
the Bankruptcy Court.  Although the agreement in principle is not
final, the total settlement amount is well within the company's
insurance policy limits; the company's contribution to the
settlement amount would be limited to the balance of the
company's self-insured retention.

GSI Group, Inc. -- http://www.gsig.com/-- develops and delivers  
the enabling technology solutions that bring our customers'
advanced manufacturing applications to life.  The company's
leading brands include precision motion products, lasers, and
laser systems, and are used to boost efficiency and productivity
in the global medical, semiconductor, electronics, and industrial
markets.


JABIL CIRCUIT: Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of Florida Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has affirmed the
dismissal of a second amended class action complaint against
Jabil Circuit, Inc., according to the company's April 6, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Feb. 28, 2010.

On Sept. 18, 2006, a putative shareholder class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Tampa Division against the company and various present and former
officers and directors, including:

    1. Forbes I.J. Alexander,
    2. Scott D. Brown,
    3. Laurence S. Grafstein,
    4. Mel S. Lavitt,
    5. Chris Lewis,
    6. Timothy Main,
    7. Mark T. Mondello,
    8. William D. Morean,
    9. Lawrence J. Murphy,
   10. Frank A. Newman,
   11. Steven A. Raymund,
   12. Thomas A. Sansone, and
   13. Kathleen A. Walters.

on behalf of a proposed class of plaintiffs comprised of persons
that purchased the company's shares between Sept. 19, 2001 and
June 21, 2006.

A second putative class action, containing virtually identical
legal claims and allegations of fact was filed on Oct. 12, 2006.

The two actions were consolidated into a single proceeding and on
Jan. 18, 2007, the Court appointed The Laborers Pension Trust
Fund for Northern California and Pension Trust Fund for Operating
Engineers as lead plaintiffs in the action.

On March 5, 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class
action complaint.

The Consolidated Class Action Complaint is purported to be
brought on behalf of all persons who purchased the company's
publicly traded securities between Sept. 19, 2001 and Dec. 21,
2006, and names the company and certain of its current and former
officers, including Forbes I.J. Alexander, Scott D. Brown, Wesley
B. Edwards, Chris A. Lewis, Mark T. Mondello, Robert L. Paver and
Ronald J. Rapp, as well as certain of our directors, Mel S.
Lavitt, William D. Morean, Frank A. Newman, Laurence S.
Grafstein, Steven A. Raymund, Lawrence J. Murphy, Kathleen A.
Walters and Thomas A. Sansone, as defendants.

The Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleged violations of
Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 14(a) of the Exchange Act and the
rules promulgated thereunder.

The Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleged that the
defendants engaged in a scheme to fraudulently backdate the grant
dates of options for various senior officers and directors,
causing the company's consolidated financial statements to
understate management compensation and overstate net earnings,
thereby inflating the stock price.

In addition, the complaint alleged that the company's proxy
statements falsely stated that the company had adhered to its
option grant policy of granting options at the closing price of
the company's shares on the trading date immediately prior to the
date of the grant.  Also, the complaint alleged that the
defendants failed to timely disclose the facts and circumstances
that led the company, on June 12, 2006, to announce that it was
lowering its prior guidance for net earnings for the third
quarter of fiscal year 2006.

On April 30, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint asserting claims
substantially similar to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint
it replaced but adding additional allegations relating to the
restatement of earnings previously announced in connection with
the correction of errors in the calculation of compensation
expense for certain stock option grants.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint on June 29, 2007.

The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss, and
the company then filed a reply memorandum in further support of
its motion to dismiss on Sept. 28, 2007.

On April 9, 2008, the Court dismissed the First Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint without prejudice and with
leave to amend such complaint on or before May 12, 2008.

On May 12, 2008, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class Action
Complaint.

The Second Amended Class Action Complaint asserts substantially
the same causes of action against the same defendants, predicated
largely on the same allegations of fact as in the First Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint except insofar as the
plaintiffs added KPMG LLP, the company's independent registered
public accounting firm, as a defendant and added additional
allegations with respect to:

    (a) pre-class period option grants,

    (b) the professional background of certain defendants,

    (c) option grants to non-executive employees,

    (d) the restatement of our financial results for certain
        periods between 1996 and 2005 and

    (e) trading by the named plaintiffs and certain of the
        defendants during the class period.

The Second Amended Class Action Complaint also includes an
additional claim for insider trading against certain defendants
pursuant to Rules 10b-5 and 10b5-1 promulgated pursuant to the
Exchange Act.  The company filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Class Action Complaint.

On Jan. 26, 2009, the Court dismissed the Second Amended Class
Action Complaint with prejudice.

The plaintiffs appealed this dismissal on Feb. 20, 2009, and oral
arguments occurred in December 2009.

On Jan. 19, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit affirmed the Court's prior dismissal with prejudice of
the Second Amended Class Action Complaint.  The plaintiffs
subsequently moved for a re-hearing on the matter, which motion
was denied.

The only remaining avenue of potential relief for the plaintiffs
is to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari by
May 24, 2010.

The suit is Edward J. Goodman Life Income Trust v. Jabil Circuit,
Inc. et al., Case No. 06-cv-01716 (M.D. Fla.) (Merryday, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         William E. Hoese
         Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.
         1101 Market St., Suite 2400
         Philadelphia, PA 19107-3389
         Phone: 215-238-1700
         E-mail: whoese@kohnswift.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael L. Chapman, Esq.
         Holland & Knight, LLP
         100 N. Tampa St., Ste. 4100, PO Box 1288
         Tampa, FL 33601-1288
         Phone: 813-227-8500
         Fax: 813-229-0134
         E-mail: michael.chapman@hklaw.com


JENNIFER CONVERTIBLES: Still Reviewing Plaintiff's New Proposal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Convertibles, Inc., is still reviewing the new proposal
offered by the plaintiff to settle a putative class action.

On July 16, 2009, a complaint styled as a putative class action
was filed against the company in the U.S. District Court of the
Northern District of California by an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages for alleged violations of
the California Labor Code sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 226,
226.7, 510, 512, 515, 1174, 1198 and 2802, violations of Section
17200 et seq. of the California Business and Professions Code and
violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

Such alleged violations include, among other things, failure to
pay overtime, failure to reimburse certain expenses, failure to
provide adequate rest and meal periods and other labor related
complaints.  Before engaging in discovery and extensive pre-trial
proceedings, the parties participated in an early mediation.

The plaintiff offered to settle for 20% of the company's
outstanding common stock in an amount guaranteed to be worth at
least $2,000,000 on the date of distribution.  If the value of
the stock as of the date of distribution is less than $2,000,000
we would distribute cash to make up the difference between the
value of the stock and $2,000,000.

In addition, the company would pay $400,000 over a five-year
period.  During November 2009, the company proposed a counter
offer for $300,000 in cash over a five-year period, with $100,000
to be paid up front and the balance to be secured by the
company's assets, and between 600,000 and 800,000 shares of
stock.

The number of shares to be issued would be shares sufficient to
reach a value of $1,000,000 as of the time of issuance, subject
to a cap of 800,000 shares and a minimum distribution of 600,000
shares, regardless of the actual value at the time of issuance.  
The plaintiff rejected our counter offer but made a new proposal,
which included the stock component proposed by us, but increased
the cash component to a total of $1,500,000 paid in equal
installments over a five-year period, with $300,000 to be paid up
front and the balance to be secured.

The company has determined that it is probable that the company
has some liability.  Based on the offer and counter offer, the
company estimates the liability ranges between $1,300,000 and
$2,500,000 with no amount within that range a better estimate
than any other amount. There is no assurance, notwithstanding the
proposals, that the litigation will be settled or, if settled,
that it will be settled within the parameters of the two offers.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 13, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Feb. 27, 2010.

Jennifer Convertibles, Inc. -- http://www.jenniferfurniture.com/
-- is an owner and licensor of a group of sofabed specialty
retail stores and leather specialty retail stores in the United
States, with stores located throughout the Eastern seaboard, in
the Midwest, on the West Coast and in the Southwest.  As of Aug.
30, 2008, its stores included 157 Jennifer Convertibles stores
and 14 Jennifer Leather stores.  Of these 171 stores, the company
owned 149 and licensed 22, including 21 owned and operated by a
related private company, the related company, and one owned by a
third party operated by the related company. Its operations are
classified into two operating segments: Jennifer and Ashley.  The
Jennifer segment owns and licenses the sofabed specialty retail
stores.  The Ashley segment is a big box, full-line home
furniture retail store.


KB HOME: Court Gives Preliminary Not to "Bagley" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
gave its preliminary approval to the settlement in the suit
captioned Bagley et al., v. KB Home, et al., according to the
company's April 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Feb. 28,
2010.

On March 16, 2007, plaintiffs Reba Bagley and Scott Silver filed
an action brought under Section 502 of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 1132.  The action was
brought against the company, its directors, certain of its
current and former officers, and the board of directors committee
that oversees the KB Home 401(k) Savings Plan.

After the court allowed leave to file an amended complaint,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding Tolan Beck and Rod
Hughes as additional plaintiffs and dismissing certain
individuals as defendants.  All four plaintiffs claim to be
former employees of KB Home who participated in the 401(k) Plan.

Plaintiffs allege on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all
others similarly situated that all defendants breached fiduciary
duties owed to plaintiffs and purported class members under ERISA
by failing to disclose information to and providing misleading
information to participants in the 401(k) Plan about the
company's alleged prior stock option backdating practices and by
failing to remove our stock as an investment option under the
401(k) Plan.  Plaintiffs allege that this breach of fiduciary
duties caused plaintiffs to earn less on their 401(k) Plan
accounts than they would have earned but for defendants' alleged
breach of duties.

The parties to the litigation executed a settlement agreement on
Feb. 26, 2010.

On March 1, 2010, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary
Approval of the Settlement, Certification of a Settlement Class,
Approval of Notice Plan and To Set a Time for Fairness Hearing.

On March 15, 2010, the court held a hearing on the motion at
which it granted preliminary approval of the settlement and
requested that the parties make certain revisions to the
settlement papers.

A hearing to decide the fairness of the settlement has not yet
been scheduled.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Stephen J Fearon, Jr., Esq.
         Squitieri & Fearon LLP
         32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-421-6492
         E-mail: stephen@sfclasslaw.com

              - and -

         Stephen M. Fishback, Esq.  
         Keller Fishback and Jackson LLP
         18425 Burbank Boulevard Suite 610
         Tarzana, CA 91356-6918
         Phone: 818-342-7442
         Fax: 818-342-7616
         E-mail: sfishback@kfjlegal.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Marc T.G. Dworsky, Esq.  
         Munger Tolles & Olson
         355 S. Grand Ave., 35th Fl.
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
         Phone: 213-683-9100
         E-mail: marc.dworsky@mto.com

              - and -

         Michael M. Farhang, Esq.
         Gibson Dunn and Crutcher
         333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4600
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
         Phone: 213-229-7005
         E-mail: mfarhang@gibsondunn.com


LAWSON SOFTWARE: Seeks Dismissal of Remains "Cruz" Class Members
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawson Software, Inc., intends to seek the dismissal of remaining
class members in a lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota, according to the company's April 9,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended
Feb. 28, 2010.

On May 20, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of current and former business,
systems, and technical consultants.

The suit, Cruz, et. al., v. Lawson Software, Inc. et. al.,
alleges that the company failed to pay overtime wages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and state law, and alleges
violations of state record-keeping requirements.  The suit also
alleges certain violations of ERISA and unjust enrichment.

Relief sought includes back wages, corresponding 401(k) plan
credits, liquidated damages, penalties, interest and attorneys'
fees.

The company successfully moved the case from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York to the District of
Minnesota.  The Minnesota Federal District Court has
conditionally certified the case under the FLSA as a collective
action and granted the company's motion to dismiss the two ERISA
counts and the state wage and hour claims, but the state wage and
hour claims were later re-instated in another motion.

Plaintiffs moved to treat the case as a class action for their
Minnesota state law claims, and that motion was denied on Jan. 5,
2010.

At the present time, the size of the class is limited to the 72
consultants who elected to participate in the lawsuit by filing
opt-in forms.  As permitted by the present scheduling order, the
company plans to file a motion for summary judgment asking for
dismissal of remaining class members based on their performance
of exempt duties and/or making more than $100,000 per year.


Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Llezlie Lloren Green, Esq.
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC
          1100 New York Ave., N.W.
          Suite 500, West Tower
          Washington, D.C., DC 20005
          Phone: 202-408-4600
          Fax: 202-408-4699
          E-mail: lgreen@cmht.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Loretta Mae Gastwirth, Esq.
          Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP
          190 Willis Avenue
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Phone: 516-747-0300
          Fax: 516-747-0653
          E-mail: lgastwirth@meltzerlippe.com

               - and -

          Sara Gullickson McGrane, Esq.
          Felhaber, Larson, Fenlon & Vogt, P.A.
          220 S. Sixth Street, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: 612-373-8511
          Fax: 612-338-0535
          E-mail: smcgrane@felhaber.com


MARCUS CORP: Court Dismisses Suit Against Two Subsidiaries
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada has dismissed
most of the claims in an amended complaint against Platinum
Condominium Development, LLC, and Marcus Management Las Vegas,
LLC, subsidiaries of The Marcus Corporation, according to the
company's April 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Feb. 25, 2010.

On Dec. 5, 2008, a class action complaint captioned Goodman, et
al. v. Platinum Condominium Development, LLC, Case No. 09-CV-957,
was filed in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada for
Clark County against Platinum Condominium Development, LLC, one
of the company's subsidiaries.

On April 30, 2009, Platinum LLC was served with a summons and a
copy of an amended complaint.

The amended complaint also named another one of the company's
subsidiaries, Marcus Management LV, as a defendant.

Subsequently, Platinum LLC and Marcus Management LV removed the
case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, where
it is currently pending.

The amended complaint in Goodman seeks an unspecified amount of
damages and alleges violations of federal and Nevada law, and
that Platinum LLC and Marcus Management LV made various
representations in connection with the Platinum Hotel & Spa
development in Las Vegas, Nevada.

On June 29, 2009, both Platinum LLC and Marcus Management LV
moved to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety.  On March
29, 2010, the District of Nevada granted in part and denied in
part the motion to dismiss, and dismissed most of the claims
against Platinum LLC and Marcus Management LV without prejudice.

The District of Nevada has granted Goodman 30 days to file a
second amended complaint with respect to the claims dismissed
without prejudice.

The Marcus Corporation -- http://www.marcuscorp.com/-- is a  
leader in the lodging and entertainment industries.  The Marcus
Corporation's movie theatre division, Marcus Theatres(R),
currently owns or manages 668 screens at 54 locations in
Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and
Ohio, and one family entertainment center in Wisconsin.  The
company's lodging division, Marcus Hotels and Resorts, owns or
manages 19 hotels, resorts and other properties in ten states.


MASSACHUSETTS: Suit Complains About Foster Care System
------------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts routinely violated the
constitutional rights of foster children by placing them in life-
threatening situations, six children say in a federal class
action.  The children's attorneys, New York-based Children's
Rights, says children in foster care in Massachusetts are abused
at nearly four times the national rate.

Children's Rights says 8,500 children are in foster care
statewide.

Among the horror stories detailed in the 78-page complaint are
those of Dontel Jeffers, who died at 4, allegedly after his
foster mother tied him to a radiator and kicked him until his
bladder burst; Acia Johnson, who died at 14, allegedly after her
mother's boyfriend lit their house on fire; Isaiah Barboza, 4,
who was hospitalized for second-degree burns from being scalded
with boiling water; and an unidentified 4-year-old, who needed
skin graft surgery after his foster bother burned him with a
hair-straightening iron.

The complaint claims that this horrific abuse is often only the
beginning of the dangers to which the children are exposed.  In
many cases, children are further harmed by being shuttled between
foster homes.

Among these sufferers is named plaintiff Connor B., 9, who was
sexually abused in his first foster care placement and has since
been moved at least six times, according to the complaint.  
Connor B. also spent 4 1/2 months in a locked psychiatric unit
when he was 6, the complaint states.

The attorneys say children are placed in foster homes that the
state fails to monitor, and that this practice has been common
for decades.

Children's Rights seeks a permanent injunction barring the state
from continuing to violate the children's rights under the First,
Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, and the Adoption Assistance and
Child Welfare act of 1980.

It also seeks remedial relief limiting the caseload of foster
care case workers, enhanced education and training, a top-to-
bottom review of the state's child-care system to determine the
need for additional services and placements, stepped up
monitoring of the safety of children in foster care placements,
and creation of a new child-parent and sibling visitation
program, and other measures.

Named as defendants are Gov. Deval Patrick, state Health and
Human Services Secretary Judyann Bigby, and Angelo McClain,
commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Children and
Families.

A copy of the Complaint in B., et al. v. Patrick, et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-30073 (W.D. Mass.) (Ponsor, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/19/MassFoster.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marcia Robinson Lowry, Esq.
          Susan Lambiase, Esq.
          Sara Michelle Bartosz, Esq.
          Laurence D. Borten, Esq.
          Kara Morrow, Esq.
          CHILDREN'S RIGHTS
          330 Seventh Ave., Fourth Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: 212-683-2210
          E-mail: mlowry@childrensrights.org
                  slambiase@childrensrights.org

               - and -

          Daniel J. Gleason, Esq.
          Mary K. Ryan, Esq.
          Jonathan D. Persky, Esq.
          NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH, LLP
          Seaport West
          155 Seaport Blvd.
          Boston, MA 02210-2604
          Telephone: 617-439-2000
          E-mail: dgleason@nutter.com
                  mryan@nutter.com
                  jpersky@nutter.com


MEDICINOVA INC: Hearing for Settlement Final Approval on June 24
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the State of California for the County of
Alameda has set a June 24, 2010, hearing to consider final
approval of a settlement in a complaint against MediciNova, Inc.,
and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Avigen, Inc., according to the
company's April 12, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On Aug. 24, 2009, The Pennsylvania Avenue Funds, an Avigen
stockholder, filed a complaint in Alameda County Superior Court
alleging that Avigen's directors breached their fiduciary duties
in connection with the proposed transaction with us.

On Oct. 15, 2009, The Pennsylvania Avenue Funds filed an amended
complaint adding the company as a defendant.  In the amended
complaint, The Pennsylvania Avenue funds alleged, among other
things, that the company aided and abetted the alleged breach of
fiduciary duties by the Avigen directors.

Avigen and Pennsylvania Avenue Funds have signed a stipulation of
settlement agreement and moved the court for preliminary
approval.  The Court heard oral argument on the Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Settlement and held a case management
conference on March 8, 2010, during which the Court raised a few
issues regarding the settlement provisions.

On April 6, 2010, the Superior Court for the State of California
for the County of Alameda approved the preliminary settlement in
the case set a final settlement hearing for June 24, 2010.

Under the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement, Avigen, has
agreed not to oppose a fee motion by counsel to The Pennsylvania
Avenue Funds for fees and expenses in the amount of $140,000 and
a petition by The Pennsylvania Avenue Funds for an incentive
award of up to $2,500.  Under the Order Preliminarily Approving
Settlement and Providing for Notice preliminarily certifies a
class and states that such class is all persons or entities who
held common stock of Avigen, Inc., either of record or
beneficially, between Aug. 20, 2009, through and including Dec.
18, 2009.

Members of the class may request exclusion from the class by June
7, 2010.

MediciNova, Inc. -- http://www.medicinova.com/-- is a publicly-
traded biopharmaceutical company focused on acquiring and
developing novel, small-molecule therapeutics for the treatment
of diseases with unmet need with a specific focus on the U.S.
market.  Through strategic alliances primarily with Japanese
pharmaceutical companies, MediciNova holds rights to a
diversified portfolio of clinical and preclinical product
candidates, each of which MediciNova believes has a well-
characterized and differentiated therapeutic profile, attractive
commercial potential and patent assets having claims of
commercially adequate scope.  MediciNova's pipeline includes six
clinical-stage compounds for the treatment of acute exacerbations
of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations,
multiple sclerosis and other neurologic conditions, asthma,
interstitial cystitis, solid tumor cancers, Generalized Anxiety
Disorder, preterm labor and urinary incontinence and two
preclinical-stage compounds for the treatment of thrombotic
disorders.  MediciNova's current strategy is to focus its
resources on its two prioritized product candidates, MN-221 for
the treatment of acute exacerbations of asthma and chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations and MN-166 for the
treatment of multiple sclerosis and other neurologic conditions,
and either pursue development independently in the United States,
in the case of MN-221, or establish a strategic collaboration to
support further development, in the case of MN-166.  MediciNova
will seek to monetize its other product candidates.


MICRON TECH: Appeal on Reversal of Quebec Ruling Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc.'s appeal on the decision of the British
Columbia Court of Appeal reversing the decision of the Superior
Court, District of Montreal, Province of Quebec, remains pending,
according to the company's April 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 4, 2010.

Three purported class-action lawsuits over DRAM have been filed
in Canada, on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers, alleging
violations of the Canadian Competition Act.

The three cases have been filed in these Canadian courts:
Superior Court, District of Montreal, Province of Quebec;
Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Ontario; and Supreme Court of
British Columbia, Vancouver Registry, British Columbia.

The suits allege violations of the various jurisdictions'
antitrust, consumer protection and unfair competition laws
relating to the sale and pricing of DRAM products and seek treble
monetary damages, restitution, costs, interest and
attorneys' fees.

In May and June 2008 respectively, the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification was denied in the British Columbia and
Quebec cases.  The plaintiffs have filed an appeal of those
decisions.

On Nov. 12, 2009, the British Columbia Court of Appeal reversed
the denial of class certification and remanded the case for
further proceedings.  

The appeal of the Quebec case is still pending.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a  
provider of advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its
worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs, NAND
flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor
components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge computing,
consumer, networking and mobile products.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: SRAM Antitrust Suits Still Pending in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc., along with other Static Random Access
Memory (SRAM) suppliers, continues to face a number of purported
antitrust class-action lawsuits in Canada over the sale of SRAM.

Three purported class action lawsuits alleging price-fixing of
SRAM products were filed in Canada, asserting violations of the
Canadian Competition Act.  These cases assert claims on behalf of
a purported class of individuals and entities that purchased SRAM
products directly or indirectly from various SRAM suppliers.

The company reported no developments in the matter in its April
9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 4, 2010.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a  
provider of advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its
worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs, NAND
flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor
components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge computing,
consumer, networking and mobile products.

  
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Price-Fixing Lawsuits in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc. continues to face three purported class-
action lawsuits filed in Canada that allege price-fixing of
Flash products.

The suits assert violations of the Canadian Competition Act.

These cases assert claims on behalf of a purported class of
individuals and entities that purchased Flash memory directly
and indirectly from various Flash memory suppliers.

The company reported no developments in the matter in its April
9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 4, 2010.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a  
provider of advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its
worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs, NAND
flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor
components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge computing,
consumer, networking and mobile products.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Consolidated Securities Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated securities fraud class-action suit against
Micron Technology, Inc. is still pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Idaho.

On Feb. 24, 2006, a putative class-action complaint was filed
against the company and certain of its officers in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Idaho, alleging claims under
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Four
substantially similar complaints subsequently were filed in the
same court.

The cases purport to be brought on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the company's stock from Feb. 24, 2001, to Feb. 13,
2003.

The five lawsuits have been consolidated and a consolidated
amended class action complaint was filed on July 24, 2006.

The complaint generally alleges violations of federal securities
laws based on, among other things, claimed misstatements or
omissions regarding alleged illegal price-fixing conduct.  It
seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses.

On Dec. 19, 2007, the Court issued an order certifying the class
but reducing the class period to purchasers of the company's
stock during the period from Feb. 24, 2001, to Sept. 18, 2002

No further updates regarding the case were reported by the
company in its April 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 4,
2010.

The suit is City of Roseville et al. v. Micron Technology, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 06-cv-00085 (D. Idaho) (Lynn Winmill, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Bruce S. Bistline, Esq.
         Gordon Law Offices
         623 W. Hays
         Boise, ID 83702-5512
         Phone: (208) 345-7100
         Fax: 1-208-345-0050
         E-mail: bbistline@gordonlawoffices.com  

              - and -

         Mary Blasy, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         100 Pine St., Suite 2600
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: (415) 288-4545
         Fax: 415-288-4534
         E-mail: maryb@lerachlaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Douglas W. Greene, Esq.
         Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
         701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
         Seattle, WA 98104
         Phone: 206-883-2529
         Fax: 208-883-2699
         E-mail: dgreene@wsgr.com

              - and -

         Richard H. Greener Esq.
         Greener Banducci Shoemaker, P.A.
         950 W. Bannock St. 900
         Boise, ID 83702
         Phone: (208) 319-2600
         E-mail: rgreener@greenerlaw.com


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Appeal in Calif. DRAM Antitrust Cases Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' interlocutory appeal in connection to several
purported antitrust class-action lawsuits against Micron
Technology, Inc., and other suppliers of dynamic random access
memories (DRAM) that were transferred to California for
consolidated proceedings remains pending.

A number of purported class action price-fixing lawsuits have
been filed against the company and other DRAM suppliers.

Four cases have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California asserting claims on behalf of a
purported class of individuals and entities that indirectly
purchased DRAM and/or products containing DRAM from various DRAM
suppliers during the time period from April 1, 1999 through at
least June 30, 2002.

The complaints allege price fixing in violation of federal
antitrust laws and various state antitrust and unfair competition
laws and seek treble monetary damages, restitution, costs,
interest and attorneys' fees.

In addition, at least sixty-four cases have been filed in various
state courts asserting claims on behalf of a purported class of
indirect purchasers of DRAM.

Cases have been filed in these states:  Arkansas, Arizona,
California, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Maine,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada,
New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah,
Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, and West Virginia, and also in the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

The complaints purport to be on behalf of a class of individuals
and entities that indirectly purchased DRAM and/or products
containing DRAM in the respective jurisdictions during various
time periods ranging from April 1999 through at least June 2002.

The complaints allege violations of the various jurisdictions'
antitrust, consumer protection and/or unfair competition laws
relating to the sale and pricing of DRAM products and seek joint
and several damages, trebled, as well as restitution, costs,
interest and attorneys' fees.

A number of these cases have been removed to federal court and
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Francisco) for consolidated pre-trial
proceedings.

On Jan. 29, 2008, the Northern District of California Court
granted in part and denied in part the company's motion to
dismiss plaintiff's second amended consolidated complaint.

Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion seeking certification for
interlocutory appeal of the decision.

On Feb. 27, 2008, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint.

On June 26, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit agreed to consider plaintiffs' interlocutory
appeal.

No further developments in the matter were reported in the
company's April 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 4, 2010.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a  
provider of advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its
worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs, NAND
flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor
components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge computing,
consumer, networking and mobile products.


MONSANTO CO: Class Certification Hearing Set for November 15
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri has
set a Nov. 15, 2010, hearing to consider class certification in a
consolidated suit against Monsanto Company, according to the
company's April 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Feb. 28, 2010.

Starting the week of March 7, 2004, a series of purported class
action cases were filed in 14 different state courts against
Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., and the company.

The suits allege that the company conspired with Pioneer to
violate various state competition and consumer protection laws by
fixing and artificially inflating the prices and fees for our
various biotechnology traits and seeds containing those traits
and imposing certain use restrictions.  All of these cases have
been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri and consolidated, except for one case that
was pending in state court in Tennessee, which has been
dismissed.

The Court set a Nov. 15, 2010, date for hearing to determine
class certification.  Pioneer has entered a stipulated settlement
agreement with individual plaintiffs with no settlement class
being certified.

Monsanto Company -- http:://www.monsanto.com/ -- is a leading
global provider of technology-based solutions and agricultural
products that improve farm productivity and food quality.  
Monsanto remains focused on enabling both small-holder and large-
scale farmers to produce more from their land while conserving
more of our world's natural resources such as water and energy.


NATIONAL BEEF: NBL Units Defends Two Suits Over Wastewater
----------------------------------------------------------
National Beef Packing Company, LLC's wholly-owned subsidiary,
National Beef Leathers LLC, continues to defend two purported
class actions alleging that it spread wastewater sludge
containing hexavalent chromium in four counties in northwest
Missouri, according to the company's April 9, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Feb. 27, 2010.

NBL was named as a defendant in seventeen currently pending
lawsuits involving NBL's tannery located in St. Joseph, Missouri.  
NBL purchased certain assets of the tannery from Prime Tanning in
March 2009.  The lawsuits are pending in the Circuit Courts of
Buchanan County, Clinton County, Ray County, and DeKalb County,
Missouri and in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Missouri and were filed between April 22, 2009 and March 12,
2010.

The lawsuits allege that Prime and NBL spread wastewater sludge
containing hexavalent chromium in four counties in northwest
Missouri.  The lawsuits currently include fifteen actions filed
by individual plaintiffs and two purported class actions.
The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages for
wrongful death, personal injury, pain and suffering, economic
damages, punitive damages, diminished property values and medical
monitoring.

National Beef Packing Company, LLC --
http://www.nationalbeef.com/-- has operations in Liberal and  
Dodge City, Kansas; Brawley, California; Hummels Wharf,
Pennsylvania; Moultrie, Georgia, St. Joseph, Missouri and Kansas
City, Kansas.  National Beef processes and markets fresh beef,
case-ready beef and beef by-products for domestic and
international markets.  In fiscal year 2008, National Beef
generated sales of $5.8 billion and processed 3.8 million head of
cattle. U.S. Premium Beef, LLC --http://www.uspremiumbeef.com/--  
is the majority owner of National Beef.


NEVADA PROPERTY: Court Approves Settlement with Unit Purchasers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Clark County, Nevada entered a final orders
approving a class action settlement between the Nevada Property 1
LLC and a settlement class comprised of 1,050 purchasers in the
West Tower and 427 unit purchasers in the East Tower of The
Cosmopolitan of Las Vegas, according to the company's April 9,
2010, Form 10-12G filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

During the period from 2005 to 2007, 3700 Associates, LLC, and
Cosmo Senior Borrower LLC, entered into binding purchase and sale
contracts for the purchase and sale of 1,821 condominium-hotel
units during the development and construction stage of The
Cosmopolitan.  These Purchase Contracts were acquired by the
company in connection with acquisition of The Cosmopolitan at the
foreclosure sale on Sept. 3, 2008.  The total sales proceeds
associated with the Purchase Contracts, if all of the Purchase
Contracts were to close pursuant to their terms, would be
approximately $1.4 billion.

Upon or shortly after signing the Purchase Contracts, the
purchasers deposited into escrow 20% of the applicable purchase
price as a non-refundable earnest money deposit, which totaled
approximately $307 million at Dec. 31, 2008, including interest
accrued thereon.

Beginning in late 2008, certain purchasers, both individually and
as part of several large-scale class actions, filed legal actions
and arbitrations against the company seeking to rescind the
Purchase Contracts and receive a return of their earnest money
deposits.  The purchasers claimed, among other things, that the
opening of The Cosmopolitan had been unreasonably delayed, which
was alleged to be a breach by the company of the Purchase
Contracts.

Despite the company's continued position that these claims are
without merit, the company entered into settlement discussions
with class counsel and various purchasers and their respective
counsel in an effort to avoid costly and time-consuming
litigation, gain a measure of certainty around completion and
operation of The Cosmopolitan and address the stated desire of
the majority of the purchasers to cancel their Purchase
Contracts.

On Dec. 14, 2009, the District Court of Clark County, Nevada
entered a final order approving a class settlement between the
company and a settlement class comprised of 1,050 purchasers in
the West Tower of The Cosmopolitan, whereby such purchasers
received a return of 74.4% of their earnest money deposit, less
attorneys' fees, with the company retaining the remaining 25.6%
of the earnest money deposits, plus 100% of the interest accrued
thereon.  Purchasers of 267 West Tower units elected to "opt out"
of the class action settlement, and thus remain bound by their
Purchase Contracts.  Many of these West Tower purchasers continue
to pursue their claims against the company seeking a full refund
of their earnest money deposits.

On April 6, 2010, the District Court of Clark County, Nevada
entered a final order approving a class action settlement between
the company and a settlement class comprised of 427 unit
purchasers in the East Tower of the Property.  Under the approved
terms, the unit purchasers will receive a refund of 68% of their
earnest money deposits, less attorneys' fees, and the Company
will retain the remaining 32% of the earnest money deposits, plus
all interest accrued thereon.  63 East Tower purchasers elected
to opt-out of, and not participate in the settlement, thus
preserving their legal and contractual rights.   

Nevada Property 1 LLC owns "The Cosmopolitan of Las Vegas," an
integrated resort currently being constructed.


ORACLE CORP: Suit Against Oracle America Unit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
The Santa Clara County Superior Court has dismissed the
consolidated putative shareholder class action against Sun
Microsystems, Inc., n/k/a Oracle America, Inc., according to
Oracle Corp.'s April 7, 2010, Form 8-K/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Three putative shareholder class actions were separately filed by
individual shareholders in April 2009, in Santa Clara County
Superior Court naming Sun and certain of the company's officers
and directors, as well as Oracle Corporation, as defendants.

The complaints, which are similar, seek to enjoin the proposed
acquisition of Sun by Oracle Corporation and allege claims for
breach of fiduciary duty against the individual defendants and
for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty against the
corporate defendants.

The complaints generally allege that the consideration offered in
the proposed transaction is unfair and inadequate.

On June 16, 2009, the three shareholder actions were consolidated
into a single action.

On July 2, 2009, plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a
motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the shareholders'
meeting scheduled for July 16, 2009.

On July 14, 2009, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion for a
preliminary injunction.

On Aug. 7, 2009, defendants filed a demurrer to the consolidated
complaint, and on August 24, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion to
award attorneys fees incurred in the case.

Sun opposed this motion, and on Oct. 8, 2009, the court denied
the plaintiffs' motion for fees and dismissed the case against
all defendants.

Oracle Corporation -- http://www.oracle.com/-- is the world's  
most complete, open, and integrated business software and
hardware systems company.


RAPTOR PHARMA: Second Circuit Upholds Dismissal of NY Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has upheld the
ruling dismissing a consolidated amended complaint against Raptor
Pharmaceutical Corp., according to the company's April 9, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Feb. 28, 2010.

Several lawsuits were filed against the company (as TorreyPines)
in February 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder on behalf of
a class of purchasers of the company's common stock during the
period from June 26, 2003, through and including Feb. 4, 2005,
referred to as the class period.

Dr. Marvin S. Hausman, M.D., a former director and a former Chief
Executive Officer, and Dr. Gosse B. Bruinsma, M.D., also a former
director and a former Chief Executive Officer, were also named as
defendants in the lawsuits.

These actions were consolidated into a single class action
lawsuit in January 2006.  On April 10, 2006, the class action
plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint.  The company
filed its answer to that complaint on May 26, 2006.

The company's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint was filed on May 26, 2006 and was submitted to the
Court for a decision in September 2006.  On March 31, 2009 the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed the proceedings.

On April 24, 2009, an appeal was filed with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit by the class action plaintiffs.  
The company's response to the appeal was filed on Oct. 23, 2009.  
The Second Circuit heard the plaintiffs' appeal of the order
dismissing the complaint on Jan. 14, 2010.

On March 23, 2010, the Second Circuit dismissed the plaintiffs'
complaint and upheld the original dismissal of the complaint by
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Raptor Pharmaceutical Corp. -- http://www.raptorpharma.com/-- is  
dedicated to speeding the delivery of new treatment options to
patients by working to improve existing therapeutics through the
application of highly specialized drug targeting platforms and
formulation expertise.


REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA: Opposes Preliminary Injunction Motion
------------------------------------------------------------
The Republic of Argentina continues to oppose the motion for a
preliminary injunction enjoining Argentina from making any
proposed debt exchange offer, according to its March 9, 2010,
Form 18-K/A filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The Republic of Argentina is also involved in class action
litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.  Currently, 18 class actions are pending or have
reached judgment.  On Jan. 9, 2009, the District Court granted
class judgments for eight cases in a total amount of
approximately U.S.$2.2 billion.  Argentina appealed these
judgments on the basis that both the class certification and the
entry of aggregate, class-wide judgments were improper; the
appeals are pending before the Court of Appeals.

These eight classes are:

     (1) Seijas v. The Republic of Argentina, 04 Civ. 400 (TPG)
         (purporting to represent holders of 11% bonds due
         Oct. 9, 2006);

     (2) Seijas v. The Republic of Argentina, 04 Civ. 401 (TPG)
         (purporting to represent holders of 7% bonds due
         Dec. 19, 2008);

     (3) Castro v. The Republic of Argentina, 04 Civ. 506 (TPG)
         purporting to represent holders of 9.75% bonds due
         Sept. 19, 2027);

     (4) Hickory Sec. Ltd. v. The Republic of Argentina,
         04 Civ. 936 (TPG) (purporting to represent holders of
         11.75% bonds due June 15, 2015);

     (5) Azza v. The Republic of Argentina, 04 Civ. 937 (TPG)
         (purporting to represent holders of 11% bonds due
         Dec. 4, 2005);

     (6) Azza v. The Republic of Argentina, 04 Civ. 1085 (TPG)
         (purporting to represent holders of 8.375% bonds due
         Dec. 20, 2003);

     (7) Puricelli v. The Republic of Argentina, 04 Civ. 2117
         (TPG) (purporting to represent holders of 12.375% bonds
         due Feb. 21, 2012); and

     (8) Chorny v. The Republic of Argentina, 04 Civ. 2118 (TPG)
         (purporting to represent holders of floating rate bonds
         due March 29, 2005)

Class certification has been granted in five further cases:

     (1) H.W. Urban GmbH v. The Republic of Argentina,
         02 Civ. 5899 (TPG) (purporting to represent holders of
         11.375% bonds due Jan. 30, 2017 and 11.75% bonds due
         April 7, 2009);

     (2) Scappini v. The Republic of Argentina, 04 Civ. 0401
         (TPG) (purporting to represent holders of 8.125% Global
         Euro bonds due April 21, 2008);

     (3) Daelli v. The Republic of Argentina, 05 Civ. 3095 (TPG)
         (purporting to represent holders of 11.375% bonds due
         March 15, 2010);

     (4) Barboni v. The Republic of Argentina, 06 Civ. 5157
         (TPG) (purporting to represent holders of floating rate
         European Medium Term Note bonds due May 27, 2004); and

     (5) Brecher v. The Republic of Argentina, 06 Civ. 15297
         (TPG) (purporting to represent holders of 9.25%
         European Medium Term Note bonds due July 20, 2004).

There are five putative class actions in which plaintiffs have
not yet sought class certification:

     (1) Lavaggi v. The Republic of Argentina, 04 Civ. 5068
         (TPG) (purporting to represent holders of 12.125% bonds
         due Feb. 25, 2019, 10% European Medium Term Note bonds
         due June 25, 2007, and 3.5% European Medium Term Note
         bonds due Aug. 11, 2009);

     (2) Daho v. The Republic of Argentina, 05 Civ. 1033 (TPG)
         (purporting to represent holders of the same bonds at
         issue in Azza v. The Republic of Argentina,
         04 Civ. 1085 (TPG));

     (3) Dussault v. The Republic of Argentina, 06 Civ. 13085
         (TPG) (purporting to represent holders of 11% bonds due
         Nov. 5, 2003, 10% bonds due Jan. 7, 2005, and 10% bonds
         due Feb. 22, 2007);

     (4) Newbadem Invest. S.A. v. The Republic of Argentina,
         07 Civ. 1938 (TPG) (purporting to represent holders of
         12.25% bonds due June 19, 2018); and

     (5) Cavero v. The Republic of Argentina, 07 Civ. 11591
         (TPG) (purporting to represent holders of 9.5% bonds
         due Nov. 30, 2002).

On Feb. 2, 2010, the plaintiffs and class representatives in two
certified class actions, Urban v. The Republic of Argentina, 02
Civ. 5899 (TPG), and Barboni v. The Republic of Argentina, 06
Civ. 5157 (TPG), filed a motion for a preliminary injunction
before the District Court.  The motion seeks to enjoin Argentina
from making any proposed debt exchange offer, or communication
regarding such an offer, to purported members of the Urban and
Barboni classes on the basis that such an offer or communication
would constitute an improper attempt to compromise or settle
class claims directly, rather than through class counsel.

Argentina has opposed this motion, including on the ground that
in 2004 the District Court denied a similar motion by the
plaintiff in Urban to enjoin the 2005 Debt Exchange as to
purported members of the Urban class.  The motion is pending
before the District Court.


SINOENERGY CORP: Enters MOU to Settle 4 Suits Over Skywide Sale
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sinoenergy Corp. has entered into a memorandum of understanding
to settle four putative class actions relating to the potential
sale of the company to Skywide Capital Management Limited,
according to the company's April 6, 2010, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On March 5, 2010, counsel for the company and the directors who
are members of the special committee entered into a memorandum of
understanding with respect to the settlement of the four putative
class actions commenced against the company and its directors.

The actions were commenced:

     (i) in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau
         County, by Stephen Trecaso and Linda Watts against the
         company and its directors and

    (ii) in the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of
         Nevada in and for Clark County against the company, its
         directors and Skywide.

The plaintiffs in the four Nevada actions are Johan L. Stoltz,
Robert E. Guzman, Carol Karch, and Robert Grabowski.  No parties
other than the company and Robert I. Adler, in all actions, and
Greg Marcinkowski, in the Nevada actions, were served.

The memorandum of understanding provides for the settlement of
all of the actions, subject to the satisfaction of customary
conditions, including the completion of appropriate documentation
and the issuance of all necessary court approvals.  The
memorandum of understanding does not require any change in the
economic terms of the merger.

Pursuant to the memorandum of understanding, the company will
include additional disclosure in its proxy material relating to
the approval of the merger.  The memorandum of understanding
provides that counsel for plaintiffs will make an application for
legal fees in an amount not exceeding $470,000.

Sinoenergy Corp. -- http://www.sinoenergycorporation.com/-- is a  
developer and operator of retail CNG stations as well as a
manufacturer of CNG transport truck trailers, CNG station
equipment, and natural gas fuel conversion kits for automobiles,
in China.  In addition to its CNG related products and services,
the company designs and manufactures a wide variety of customized
pressure containers for use in the petroleum and chemical
industries.


SYMYX TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit on Proposed Accelrys Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Symyx Technologies, Inc., faces a class action lawsuit in
relation to its proposed merger with Accelrys, Inc., according to
the company's April 14, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On April 7, 2010, Jason Price filed a class action lawsuit in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara,
purportedly on behalf of the stockholders of Symyx Technologies,
Inc., against Symyx Technologies and its directors and chief
financial officer, as well as Accelrys, Inc. and Alto Merger Sub,
Inc., alleging, among other things, that Symyx Technologies'
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the stockholders of
Symyx Technologies in connection with the proposed merger of
Symyx Technologies with Accelrys.

The complaint seeks, among other things, to enjoin the defendants
from completing the merger as currently contemplated.

Symyx Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.symyx.com/-- helps R&D-
based companies in life sciences, chemicals, energy, and consumer
and industrial products achieve breakthroughs in innovation,
productivity, and return on investment.  Symyx software and
scientific databases power laboratories with the information that
generates insight, enhances collaboration and drives
productivity.  Products include a market-leading electronic
laboratory notebook, decision support software, chemical
informatics and sourcing databases.


TARGET CORP: Accused in Minnesota of Not Paying Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Target assigned "group
leaders" nonmanagerial tasks that could not be completed without
substantial overtime, and refused to pay them for any of the
overtime hours, a class action claims in Minneapolis Federal
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Stroud, et al. v. Target Corporation,
Case No. 10-cv-01583 (D. Minn.), is available at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/19/TargetCA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Clayton D. Halunen, Esq.
          Shawn J. Wanta, Esq.
          1650 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth St.
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: 612-605-4098
          E-mail: halunen@halunenlaw.com
                  wanta@halunenlaw.com

               - and -

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          Arnold Levin, Esq.
          LEVIN FISHBEIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut St., Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: 215-592-1500
          E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
                  alevin@lfsblaw.com


TECHNICOLOR: TCETVT Continues to Defend Suit in Taiwan
------------------------------------------------------
Technicolor's subsidiary, TCE Television Taiwan Ltd., continues
to defend a purported class action filed by Taoyuan County Former
RCA Employees' Solicitude Association, according to the company's
April 7, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In April 2004, the Association filed a purported class action
under Article 41 of the Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure in the
Taipei District Court, Taiwan, Republic of China against TCETVT
and General Electric International, Inc.

The Association is alleging they were exposed to various
contaminants during the course of their employment and while
living at the facility, which allegedly:

     (1) caused them to suffer various diseases, including
         cancer, or

     (2) caused them emotional distress from fear that their
         employment increased their risk of contracting disease.

The Association claims damages in the amount of TWD 2.4 billion
(EUR52 million at Dec. 31, 2009 closing rate) to compensate the
members of the Association for the alleged injury suffered by the
former plant employees who worked at the facility from its
inception until its closure in 1992.

In 2005, the Association's complaint was dismissed by the Taipei
District Court based on the Association's failure to comply with
certain procedural aspects of Taiwan's class action statutes.  
Shortly thereafter, the Association appealed the dismissal, which
was upheld by the Taiwan Supreme Court in August 2005.  The case
has been remanded to the Taipei District Court for further
proceedings as to procedural compliance by the Association.

The parties have subsequently filed a number of briefs addressing
procedural and substantive issues.  The Association has attempted
to add TCE Bermuda, Thomson Inc., Technicolor S.A., and General
Electric Company as defendants in the lawsuit.

Hearings for the purpose of examining Association witnesses were
conducted on Nov. 11, 2009, Dec. 9, 2009, and Jan. 20, 2010.

At the Jan. 20, 2010 hearing, the Association revised its damages
claim from TWD 2.4 billion to TWD 2.7 billion (EUR59 million at
Dec. 31, 2009 closing rate).

Technicolor -- http://www.technicolor.com/-- serves an  
international base of entertainment, software, and gaming
customers. The company is a leading provider of production,
postproduction, and distribution services to content creators and
distributors.  Technicolor is one of the world's largest film
processors; the largest independent manufacturer and distributor
of DVDs (including Blu-ray Disc); and a leading global supplier
of set-top boxes and gateways.  The company also operates an
Intellectual Property and Licensing business unit.


TECHWELL INC: Faces Suit Over Planned Intersil Merger
-----------------------------------------------------
Techwell, Inc., faces a purported class action lawsuit in
relation to its plan of merger with Intersil Corporation,
according to the company's April 7, 2010, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On March 22, 2010, Techwell entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with Intersil and Navajo Merger Sub, Inc., an indirect
wholly-owned subsidiary of Intersil (Purchaser).

On April 1, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit, Mike
Tamashiro v. Techwell, Inc., et al., was filed in the Superior
Court of California, Santa Clara County against Techwell, current
members of Techwell's Board of Directors and certain officers of
Techwell, Intersil and Purchaser.

The action, brought by a purported stockholder of Techwell, seeks
certification of a class of all holders of Techwell's common
stock (except the defendants and their affiliates) and alleges,
among other things:

     (1) that the Merger Agreement is the product of "an unfair
         and uninformed process;"

     (2) that "Techwell favored Intersil to at least five other
         purchasers" by, among other things, providing Intersil
         an exclusivity period and during that exclusivity
         period providing Intersil information the other suitors
         did not have, as described in the Schedule 14D-9;

     (3) that the non-solicitation, break-up fee and top-up
         option provisions of the Merger Agreement, along with
         the Tender and Voting Agreements, as described in the
         Schedule 14D-9, deprive shareholders of their right to
         meaningfully evaluate the Offer and the Merger;

     (4) that the interests in certain persons in the
         transactions contemplated by the Merger, as described
         in the Schedule 14D-9, constitute self-dealing;

     (5) that the offer price of $18.50 per Share is unfair and
         inadequate;

     (6) that the Individual Defendants violated their fiduciary
         duties to Techwell's stockholders by approving the
         Offer and the Merger and by engaging in such alleged
         self-dealing; and

     (7) that Techwell, Intersil and Purchaser aided and abetted
         that breach.

The complaint seeks, among other things, an injunction
prohibiting consummation of the Offer and the Merger, rescission
or damages in the event the Offer and the Merger are consummated,
and attorneys' fees and expenses.

Techwell, Inc. -- http://www.techwellinc.com/-- is a fabless  
semiconductor company that designs, markets and sells mixed
signal video semiconductor solutions for the security
surveillance and automotive infotainment markets.  Headquartered
in San Jose, CA, Techwell currently has over 200 employees in the
U.S., China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.


WD 40: "Drimmer" Suit in California Dismissed
---------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
has agreed to dismiss the suit Drimmer v. WD-40 Company, with
prejudice, according to the company's April 8, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Feb. 28, 2010.

On April 19, 2006, a legal action was filed against the company.  
After several of the plaintiff's factual claims were dismissed by
way of motion, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Sept.
20, 2006, seeking class action status and alleging that the
company misrepresented that its 2000 Flushes Bleach and 2000
Flushes Blue Plus Bleach ATBCs are safe for plumbing systems and
unlawfully omitted to advise consumers regarding the allegedly
damaging effect the use of the ATBCs has on toilet parts made of
plastic and rubber.

The amended complaint sought to remedy such allegedly wrongful
conduct:

     (i) by requiring the company to identify all consumers who
         have purchased the ATBCs and to return money as may be
         ordered by the court; and

    (ii) by the granting of other equitable relief, interest,
         attorneys' fees and costs.

On Aug. 24, 2007, the company successfully defeated the
plaintiff's attempt to have the case certified as a class action.  
The plaintiff appealed the District Court's decision, and the
case was argued at the appellate level in April 2009.

On Aug. 19, 2009, the Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed
the District Court's certification decision, and on Sept. 10,
2009, the case was remanded to the District Court.

On Oct. 26, 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion to voluntarily
dismiss the case without prejudice.  The company opposed the
plaintiff's motion and sought dismissal with prejudice on Nov.
19, 2009.

The District Court agreed with the company's arguments and
dismissed the case with prejudice on March 29, 2010.

The plaintiff's legal counsel has indicated that it intends to
file another lawsuit against the company on the same grounds
seeking class action status.

WD-40 Company -- http://www.wd40company.com/-- is a global  
consumer product company dedicated to delivering unique, high-
value and easy-to-use solutions for a wide variety of maintenance
needs of "doer" and "on-the-job" users by leveraging and building
the brand fortress of the company.  The company markets three
multi-purpose maintenance product brands - WD-40(R), 3-IN-ONE(R)
and BLUE WORKS(TM) - and eight homecare and cleaning product
brands: X-14(R) mildew stain remover and automatic toilet bowl
cleaners, 2000 Flushes(R) automatic toilet bowl cleaners, Carpet
Fresh(R) and No Vac(R) rug and room deodorizers, Spot Shot(R)
aerosol and liquid carpet stain removers, 1001(R) carpet and
household cleaners and rug and room deodorizers, and Lava(R) and
Solvol(R) heavy-duty hand cleaners.  WD-40 Company markets its
products in more than 160 countries worldwide and recorded sales
of $292 million in fiscal year 2009.

                            *********

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  * * *