CAR_Public/100427.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, April 27, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 81

                            Headlines

A.H. BELO: Settles Consolidated Lawsuit in Texas
A.H. BELO: Faces Four Suits by Independent Contractors
CCA INDUSTRIES: Seeks to Oppose Class Certification in "Wally"
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Plaintiffs Appeal of Dismissal Pending
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Defends Suit Over Roaming Service

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Opposes Certification in "Demmick" Suit
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: "Ruwe" Still Stayed Pending FCC Ruling
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Defends Suits Over Billing Practices
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Continues to Defend Wage-Related Suit
CHARLES SCHWAB: Inks $200 Mil. Schwab YieldPlus Fund Settlement

CHINA SHENGHUO: Defends Amended Consolidated Suit in New York
CITIFINANCIAL: Settles Loan Payoff Lawsuit for Up to $1.3 Million
COMPELLENT TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Suit in Minnesota
FRONTIER FINANCIAL: Accused in Wash. of Misleading Shareholders
IMMUNOSYN CORP: Seeks to Dismiss Texas "Campbell" Suit

JO-ANN STORES: Awaits Final Approval of $5 Million Settlement
KELLOGG USA: Sued for False Advertising and Misleading Labels
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Accused in Calif. Suit of Not Paying Overtime
KRISPY KREME: Enters Agreement to Settle Wage and Hour Suit
LINDEN RESEARCH: Accused in Pa. Suit of Misleading Game Players

MALCOLM S GERALD: Sued for Not Paying for All Hours Worked
MERIDIAN RESOURCE: Agrees to Settle Alta Merger-Related Suit
NEUROMETRIX INC: Plaintiffs Appealing Dismissal of Mass. Suit
ONTARIO: Asylum Resident Class Certified in $1 Billion Lawsuit
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Accused of Selling Defective Hormone Tests

SCORES HOLDING: Defends Third Amended Complaint in New York
TALEO CORP: California Court Dismisses Amended Complaint
THOMAS WEISEL: Remains Defendant in Bare Escentuals Suit
THOMAS WEISEL: Continues to Defend Suit Against GT Solar
THOMAS WEISEL: Discovery in Suit Against Merix in Oregon Ongoing

THOMAS WEISEL: Remains a Defendant in Suit vs. Noah Education
THOMAS WEISEL: Continues to Defend Orion Energy's Suit
THOMAS WEISEL: Suit Against Rigel in California Dismissed
THOMAS WEISEL: Defends Suit Against Mobile USA in New York
THOMAS WEISEL: Continues to Seek Dismissal of Suit v. Netlist

TIGRENT INC: Motion Challenging Class Claims Remains Pending
TOMOTHERAPY INC: Class Certification Motion Remains Pending
TYCOM LTD: Inks $79 Million Securities Litigation Settlement Pact
WELLS FARGO: Removes "Gustavo Reyes" Lawsuit to N.D. Calif.
WILLING HOLDING: Fees & Damages in "Hosking" Still Undetermined

YTB INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Suit Pending

                            *********

A.H. BELO: Settles Consolidated Lawsuit in Texas
------------------------------------------------
A. H. Belo Corporation has agreed to settle a consolidated
lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, according to the company's April 15, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Aug. 23, 2004, Aug. 26, 2004 and Oct. 5, 2004, three related
lawsuits, later consolidated, were filed by purported
shareholders of Belo Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas against Belo, Robert W. Decherd, and
Barry T. Peckham, a former executive officer of The Dallas
Morning News, arising out of the circulation overstatement at The
Dallas Morning News.  James M. Moroney III was added later as a
defendant.

The plaintiffs sought to represent a purported class of
shareholders who purchased Belo common stock between May 12, 2003
and Aug. 6, 2004, and alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On April 2, 2008, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.  On Aug. 12, 2009, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court's
denial of class certification.

On Nov. 9, 2009, Belo and other parties to the consolidated
lawsuit settled the lawsuit on terms that the company considers
favorable, without payment of any settlement amount that is
material to the company.

A. H. Belo Corporation -- http://www.ahbelo.com/-- is a  
distinguished newspaper publishing and local news and information
company that owns and operates four daily newspapers and a
diverse group of Web sites.  A. H. Belo publishes The Dallas
Morning News, Texas' leading newspaper and winner of nine
Pulitzer Prizes since 1986; The Providence Journal, the oldest
continuously-published daily newspaper in the U.S. and winner of
four Pulitzer Prizes; The Press-Enterprise (Riverside, CA),
serving southern California's Inland Empire region and winner of
one Pulitzer Prize; and the Denton Record-Chronicle.  The company
publishes various specialty publications targeting niche
audiences, and its partnerships and/or investments include the
Yahoo! Newspaper Consortium and Classified Ventures, owner of
cars.com.  A. H. Belo also owns direct mail and commercial
printing businesses.


A.H. BELO: Faces Four Suits by Independent Contractors
------------------------------------------------------
A. H. Belo Corporation faces a purported class-action lawsuit
filed by four former independent contractor newspaper carriers of
The Press-Enterprise, according to the company's April 15, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On April 13, 2009, four former independent contractor newspaper
carriers of The Press-Enterprise, on behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated individuals, filed a purported class-
action lawsuit against A. H. Belo, Belo, Press Enterprise
Company, and as yet unidentified defendants in the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Riverside.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated California
laws by allegedly improperly categorizing the plaintiffs and the
purported class members as independent contractors rather than
employees, and in doing so, allegedly failed to pay minimum,
hourly and overtime wages to the purported class members and
allegedly failed to comply with other laws and regulations
applicable to an employer-employee relationship.

Plaintiffs and purported class members are seeking minimum wages,
unpaid regular and overtime wages, unpaid rest break and meal
period compensation, reimbursement of expenses and losses
incurred by them in discharging their duties, payment of minimum
wage to all employees who failed to receive minimum wage for all
hours worked in each payroll period, penalties, injunctive and
other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

A. H. Belo Corporation -- http://www.ahbelo.com/-- is a  
distinguished newspaper publishing and local news and information
company that owns and operates four daily newspapers and a
diverse group of Web sites.  A. H. Belo publishes The Dallas
Morning News, Texas' leading newspaper and winner of nine
Pulitzer Prizes since 1986; The Providence Journal, the oldest
continuously-published daily newspaper in the U.S. and winner of
four Pulitzer Prizes; The Press-Enterprise (Riverside, CA),
serving southern California's Inland Empire region and winner of
one Pulitzer Prize; and the Denton Record-Chronicle.  The company
publishes various specialty publications targeting niche
audiences, and its partnerships and/or investments include the
Yahoo! Newspaper Consortium and Classified Ventures, owner of
cars.com.  A. H. Belo also owns direct mail and commercial
printing businesses.


CCA INDUSTRIES: Seeks to Oppose Class Certification in "Wally"
--------------------------------------------------------------
CCA Industries Inc., intends to oppose the class certification in
the litigation Denise Wally v. CCA Industries pending in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
according to the company's April 14, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Feb. 28, 2010.

"Wally" filed a class action on Sept. 29, 2009, on her own behalf
and for all others similarly situated alleging four causes of
action: Violations of Business & Professional Code 17200 and
17500 and the Cal. Civil Code 1750 et seq; and advertising Fraud.

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court authorized by the
complaint alleging that the company sold in excess of $5,000,000
of all SKU's of Mega-T throughout the country over the last 5
years.

The plaintiff then amended their complaint limiting the violation
to one specific SKU only sold in California.  Since the sales of
the SKU sold in California were less than $5,000,000, the case
was remanded back to the state court.

As part of its defense, the company intends to oppose Wally's
application to certify the class.  In order to have a class
certified under California law, it must be established, among
other items that an "ascertainable class" and "commonality of
interest" among purported class members exists.  The company's
position is that there are factual issues with the individual
purchasers of the company's dietary supplement that preclude
class certification.  There is also a body of law in California
that supports the company's position on class certification.  
Should the court deny class certification, it is possible that
the pending action may not continue.

Should the court grant class certification then the issues to be
tried will include the merits of the plaintiff's claim that the
product did not provide the service it was advertised to perform
to the purchasers of its product and that its advertising was
misleading.  The company believes that it has marketed a product
[green tea] that has been consumed by the public for centuries.  
The company provides a product that contains a green tea extract
caplet together with a diet and exercise plan.  The company
contends that it has marketed its product in compliance with all
applicable federal and state requirements.

CCA Industries Inc., manufactures and markets health and beauty
aids, each under its individual brand name.  The products
include, principally, "Plus+White" toothpastes and teeth
whiteners, "Mega-T" Green Tea diet supplements, "Mega-T" Green
Tea gum and mint products, "Bikini Zone", medicated topical and
shave gels, "Nutra Nail" nail care treatments, "Scar Zone" scar
treatment products, "Sudden Change" anti-aging skin care
products, "Parfume de Vanille" fragrances, "Solar Sense" sun
protection products, "Hair Off" hair removal and depilatory
products, "Wash 'N Curl" shampoos and conditioners and Pain Bust
RII, an analgesic product.


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Plaintiffs Appeal of Dismissal Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of a statewide
class action relating to wireless phone use remains pending in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, according to the
company's March 12, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

The company and various other wireless service providers and
phone manufacturers are defendants in a statewide class action
relating to wireless phone use, Farina, et al. v. Nokia Inc., et
al., U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, filed
April 19, 2001.

Plaintiff alleges that wireless phones are defective because
defendants fail to include a proper warning about alleged adverse
health effects, fail to encourage the use of a headset and fail
to include a headset with the phone.

Plaintiff also alleges that the sale of wireless phones without a
hands-free device facilitates the violation of certain state laws
restricting the use of wireless phones without a hands-free
device while operating a motor vehicle.

Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief requiring
defendants to provide headsets to all class members.

On Sept. 2, 2008, the District Court dismissed all claims on
preemption grounds.

Plaintiff's appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit is pending.

Cellco Partnership is a Delaware general partnership formed on
Oct. 4, 1994.  Cellco Partnership does business as Verizon
Wireless.  The company's partners include subsidiaries of Verizon
Communications Inc., which own 55% of the partnership, and U.S.
subsidiaries of Vodafone Group Plc, which own 45% of the
partnership.  Verizon Communications and Vodafone are among the
world's leading telecommunications providers.


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Defends Suit Over Roaming Service
-----------------------------------------------------
Cellco Partnership continues to defend a class action relating to
the company's roaming service advertised as free.

The company is a defendant in a putative nationwide class action,
Cowit et al. v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, filed
July 22, 2005, in the Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County,
Ohio, alleging that all roaming charges assessed by the company
under the America's Choice I plan were improper; that the company
improperly charge roaming for in-network calls advertised as
"free"; and that the company failed to disclose that roaming
service is unavailable under the America's Choice II plan.

The second amended complaint asserts claims of breach of
contract, fraud, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment,
conversion, negligent misrepresentation and violations of the
Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Ohio Consumer Sales
Practice Act.

The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys'
fees and injunctive relief.

On Sept. 11, 2007, the trial court denied the company's motion to
dismiss the breach of contract claims.

On July 7, 2008, the court certified a nationwide class of
America's Choice II subscribers who allegedly were promised but
did not receive "free" roaming service, but denied certification
of the remaining putative classes.

The parties appealed the trial court's class certification order.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order on
April 3, 2009, and the Ohio Supreme Court denied the parties'
petitions for review.

No further updates were reported in the company's March 12, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Cellco Partnership is a Delaware general partnership formed on
Oct. 4, 1994.  Cellco Partnership does business as Verizon
Wireless.  The company's partners include subsidiaries of Verizon
Communications Inc., which own 55% of the partnership, and U.S.
subsidiaries of Vodafone Group Plc, which own 45% of the
partnership.  Verizon Communications and Vodafone are among the
world's leading telecommunications providers.


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Opposes Certification in "Demmick" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cellco Partnership continues to oppose class certification in the
matter Demmick, et al. v. Cellco Partnership.

The company is a defendant in a putative nationwide class action,
Demmick, et al. v. Cellco Partnership, filed May 11, 2006, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging
that:

     (i) while the company charge one rate for after-allowance
         minutes on the primary line in its Family SharePlan and
         a different, higher rate on the secondary lines, the
         company has an undisclosed policy of billing all after-
         allowance minutes at the higher per minute rate
         applicable to the secondary lines, and

    (ii) the company improperly billed for in-network calls that
         should have been provided without charge to certain
         subscribers.

Plaintiffs assert violations of the Federal Communications Act,
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the Maryland Consumer
Protection Act, as well as claims of breach of contract and
fraud.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages and
attorneys' fees.

The parties have completed class discovery.

Plaintiffs have moved for, and the company has opposed, class
certification.

No further updates were reported in the company's March 12, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Cellco Partnership is a Delaware general partnership formed on
Oct. 4, 1994.  Cellco Partnership does business as Verizon
Wireless.  The company's partners include subsidiaries of Verizon
Communications Inc., which own 55% of the partnership, and U.S.
subsidiaries of Vodafone Group Plc, which own 45% of the
partnership.  Verizon Communications and Vodafone are among the
world's leading telecommunications providers.


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: "Ruwe" Still Stayed Pending FCC Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
A putative statewide class action against Cellco Partnership
remains stayed pending the outcome of proceedings before the
Federal Communications Commission.

The company is a defendant in a putative statewide class action,
Ruwe v. Cellco Partnership, et al. (formerly Gellis v. Cellco
Partnership, et al.), filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on June 12, 2007.

Plaintiff in Ruwe challenges the legality of the company's $5
minimum late payment fee and $15 reconnect fee on behalf of a
class of California subscribers.

Plaintiff asserts violation of California Civil Code Section
1671, claims of deceptive practices under California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act, unfair business practices under California
Business and Professional Code Section 17200 and unjust
enrichment.

Plaintiff seeks money damages, injunctive relief and attorneys'
fees.

The court has denied the company's motions to dismiss the
complaint on the ground that state regulation of the late fee and
reconnect fee are preempted by federal law.

On May 27, 2009, the company moved the court to stay the action
pending proceedings before the FCC.

The court granted the company's motion to stay the matter pending
the outcome of proceedings before the FCC on whether state-law
challenges to late fees are preempted by federal law.

No further updates were reported in the company's March 12, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Cellco Partnership is a Delaware general partnership formed on
Oct. 4, 1994.  Cellco Partnership does business as Verizon
Wireless.  The company's partners include subsidiaries of Verizon
Communications Inc., which own 55% of the partnership, and U.S.
subsidiaries of Vodafone Group Plc, which own 45% of the
partnership.  Verizon Communications and Vodafone are among the
world's leading telecommunications providers.


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Defends Suits Over Billing Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
Cellco Partnership remains a defendant in various purported
consumer class actions, brought on behalf of customers throughout
the country, relating to its advertising, sales, billing and
collection practices, as well as Attorney General investigations
regarding such issues.

No additional information were disclosed in the company's March
12, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Cellco Partnership is a Delaware general partnership formed on
Oct. 4, 1994.  Cellco Partnership does business as Verizon
Wireless.  The company's partners include subsidiaries of Verizon
Communications Inc., which own 55% of the partnership, and U.S.
subsidiaries of Vodafone Group Plc, which own 45% of the
partnership.  Verizon Communications and Vodafone are among the
world's leading telecommunications providers.


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Continues to Defend Wage-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Cellco Partnership remains a defendant in various purported
collective actions, class actions and other matters brought on
behalf of employees and former employees relating to the payment
of wages, including claims for overtime pay.

No additional information were disclosed in the company's March
12, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Cellco Partnership is a Delaware general partnership formed on
Oct. 4, 1994.  Cellco Partnership does business as Verizon
Wireless.  The company's partners include subsidiaries of Verizon
Communications Inc., which own 55% of the partnership, and U.S.
subsidiaries of Vodafone Group Plc, which own 45% of the
partnership.  Verizon Communications and Vodafone are among the
world's leading telecommunications providers.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Inks $200 Mil. Schwab YieldPlus Fund Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Charles Schwab Corporation has signed a memorandum of
understanding with plaintiffs to settle federal securities law
claims in a civil class action lawsuit related to the Schwab
YieldPlus Fund(R).  The preliminary settlement is subject to a
definitive agreement and final approval of the court. Other
related regulatory matters and a California state law claim
remain open.

As disclosed previously, the company is the subject of
consolidated class action litigation filed between March and May
2008, and regulatory investigations relating to the investment
policy, disclosures, and marketing of the Schwab YieldPlus Fund,
an ultra-short bond fund ("Bond Fund"). The Bond Fund was
designed to invest in a variety of fixed income instruments,
including corporate bonds, asset backed securities, mortgage-
backed securities, and other fixed income investments. The credit
crisis that began in mid-2007 led to a decline in the value of a
majority of fixed income investments market wide. As a result,
certain Schwab clients who chose to invest in the Bond Fund
experienced a decline in their investments, leading to the
litigation.

The settlement, in which the company, without admitting
liability, would pay a total of $200 million to resolve
plaintiffs' federal law claims, allows the company to avoid the
distraction and uncertainty of a trial, and the further
possibility of a protracted appeals process. "We believe that
bringing this aspect of the case to a constructive conclusion is
in the best interests of all parties, including the company, its
stockholders, and clients," said President and CEO Walt
Bettinger. "Today's agreement represents the most effective way
for us to move forward and maintain our focus on serving
clients," he added.

                       About Charles Schwab

The Charles Schwab Corporation -- http://www.schwab.com/-- is a  
leading provider of financial services, with more than 300
offices and 7.8 million client brokerage accounts, 1.5 million
corporate retirement plan participants, 768,000 banking accounts,
and $1.49 trillion in client assets. Through its operating
subsidiaries, the company provides a full range of securities
brokerage, banking, money management and financial advisory
services to individual investors and independent investment
advisors. Named Highest in Investor Satisfaction with Self-
Directed Services by J.D. Power and Associates, its broker-dealer
subsidiary, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (member SIPC,
www.sipc.org), and affiliates offer a complete range of
investment services and products including an extensive selection
of mutual funds; financial planning and investment advice;
retirement plan and equity compensation plan services; referrals
to independent fee-based investment advisors; and custodial,
operational and trading support for independent, fee-based
investment advisors through its Advisor Services division. Its
banking subsidiary, Charles Schwab Bank (member FDIC and an Equal
Housing Lender), provides banking and mortgage services and
products.


CHINA SHENGHUO: Defends Amended Consolidated Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc., defends an amended
consolidated complaint in relation to its filings with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, according to the company's
April 14, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In 2008, putative class action lawsuits were asserted against the
company and certain other parties in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

On Feb. 12, 2009, an amended complaint was served on the company
by new lead counsel for the class, consolidating the putative
class actions and bearing the caption Beni Varghese, Individually
and on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated v. China Shenghuo
Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc., et al., Index No. 1:08 CIV. 7422.

The defendants include the company, the company's controlling
shareholders, Lan's International Medicine Investment Co.,
Limited, the company's chief executive officer, Gui Hua Lan, the
company's former chief financial officer, Qiong Hua Gao, and the
company's former independent registered public accounting firm,
Hansen, Barnett & Maxwell, P.C.  Both the company and the
accounting firm filed motions to dismiss the complaint, but those
motions were denied by the Court.

A scheduling order has been entered by the Court anticipating
that the parties will engage in substantive discovery in 2010.

The amended consolidated complaint alleges that the Company
failed to take adequate steps to ensure its financial reporting
comported with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and,
as a result, the company was required to restate what are alleged
to be materially false and misleading financials for accounting
periods during the alleged class period from August 2007 through
Aug. 20, 2008.

The amended consolidated complaint further alleges, among other
things, that certain of the company's SEC filings and other
public statements contained false and misleading statements which
resulted in damages to the plaintiffs and the members of the
purported class when they purchased the company's securities.  On
the basis of those allegations, plaintiffs in each of the actions
seek an unspecified amount of damages under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.


China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.shenghuo.com.cn/-- is a specialty pharmaceutical  
company that focuses on the research, development, manufacture
and marketing of Sanchi-based medicinal and pharmaceutical,
nutritional supplement and cosmetic products.  Through its
subsidiary, Kunming Shenghuo Pharmaceutical (Group) Co., Ltd., it
owns thirty SFDA (State Food and Drug Administration) approved
medicines, including the flagship product Xuesaitong Soft
Capsules, which has already been listed in the Insurance
Catalogue.  At present, China Shenghuo incorporates a sales
network of agencies and representatives throughout China, which
markets Sanchi-based traditional Chinese medicine to hospitals
and drug stores as prescription and OTC drugs primarily for the
treatment of cardiovascular, cerebrovascular and peptic ulcer
disease.  The company also exports medicinal products to Asian
countries such as Indonesia, Singapore, Japan, Malaysia, and
Thailand and to European countries such as the United Kingdom,
Tajikistan, Russia and Kyrgyzstan.


CITIFINANCIAL: Settles Loan Payoff Lawsuit for Up to $1.3 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
                  Notice of Class Action Settlement
             Regarding Filing of Termination Statements

TO: Former Borrowers of CitiFinancial, Inc., Washington Mutual
    Financial Group, Inc., Washington Mutual Finance, LLC,
    Associates Financial Services, Avco Financial Services, City
    Loan Financial, or Commercial Credit Corp.

A settlement has been proposed in a class action lawsuit alleging
that CitiFinancial, Inc. and certain related entities failed to
timely file termination statements in accordance with Ohio
Revised Code Section 1309.513.  

The Court in which the class action is pending has reviewed the
settlement and preliminarily concluded that the settlement is
fair and reasonable to the settlement class.

The settlement will pay $175, subject to pro rata reduction, to
eligible people who submit a timely and valid claim.

If you are a Class Member because a termination statement was not
timely filed, you may ask for a payment from, exclude yourself
from, or object to, the settlement. The Cuyahoga County, Ohio
Court of Common Pleas will have a final approval hearing to
decide whether to approve the settlement. You can get a detailed
notice describing the settlement, a claim form, and a copy of the
settlement agreement at http://www.vanyosettlement.com/

Who is Included in the Class?

You are a "Class Member" if, on or after September 11, 2000, you
paid off in full a loan owned by CitiFinancial, Inc., Washington
Mutual Financial Group, Inc., Washington Mutual Finance, LLC,
Associates Financial Services, Citigroup Inc., Avco Financial
Services, City Loan Financial, or Commercial Credit Corp.; and
your loan was secured by consumer goods for which a financing
statement was filed in Ohio; and a termination statement was not
timely filed in accordance with Ohio Revised Code Section
1309.513.

What is this Lawsuit About?

The lawsuit alleges that CitiFinancial failed to timely file
termination statements in accordance with Ohio Revised Code
Section 1309.513. For certain types of loans, that provision
requires that a termination statement be filed within one month
after the loan was paid off in full by the borrower.

CitiFinancial denies that it did anything wrong. The Court has
not ruled on the merits of the claims and has not found that
CitiFinancial did anything wrong. If the settlement is approved,
eligible Class Members will get money, and the lawsuit will be
resolved.

What Does the Settlement Provide?

If the settlement is finally approved by the Court and becomes
effective, CitiFinancial has agreed to pay $175, subject to pro
rata reduction, to each Class Member who is eligible for
compensation under the settlement. Settlement benefits will be
disbursed by check to all Class Members who submit timely and
valid claim forms. CitiFinancial has agreed to a maximum payout
under the settlement in the amount of $1,300,000. If the amount
paid to class counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses; to
plaintiff; towards class notice costs; towards administration
costs; and to Class Members who submit valid and timely claims
exceeds this maximum payout amount, the amount to be paid to
Class Members shall be reduced on a pro rata basis. In addition,
CitiFinancial has agreed to a minimum payout under the settlement
in the amount of $650,000. If the amount paid to plaintiff;
towards class notice costs; towards administration costs; and to
Class Members who submit valid and timely claims is less than
this minimum payout amount, the difference, if any, shall be
equally distributed to four charitable organizations to be
selected by the parties.

What Does the Settlement Provide?

In order to submit a claim for a cash benefit under the
settlement, you must completely fill out and mail a claim form
postmarked no later than August 5, 2010 to the address on the
form. You can get a claim form, as well as the Notice of Pendency
of Class Action and Proposed Settlement and a copy of the
Settlement Agreement, at http://www.vanyosettlement.com/

Only those claim forms that are timely postmarked and that are
valid claims are eligible for payment under the settlement. Your
Other Rights. If you do not want to be legally bound by the
settlement, you must exclude yourself by May 21, 2010, or else
you will not be able to sue CitiFinancial about the legal claims
in this case ever again. If you wish to object to the settlement,
you must do so by May 21, 2010, and if your objection is not
postmarked timely, it will not be considered.

The Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement
explains how to exclude yourself or to object. The Court will
hold a final approval hearing in this case, called Vanyo v.
CitiFinancial, Inc., Case No. CV-06-604060, to consider whether
to approve the settlement. You or your own lawyer may ask to
appear and speak at the hearing at your own cost, but you are not
required to appear. For more information about the settlement or
the lawsuit, please visit http://www.vanyosettlement.com/


COMPELLENT TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Suit in Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------------
Compellent Technologies, Inc., faces a purported securities class
action lawsuit commenced in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota, according to the company's April 16, 2010,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The suit was filed on April 14, 2010, naming as defendants the
company, and certain of its executive officers.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 in connection with the company's alleged failure to disclose
material adverse facts about its financial condition.

Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of stockholders who
purchased the company's common stock between Oct. 28, 2009, and
April 7, 2010.

Compellent Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.compellent.com/-- is  
a leading provider of enterprise-class network storage solutions
that are highly scalable, feature-rich and designed to be easy to
use and cost effective.  Compellent Technologies' principal
offices are located in Eden Prairie, Minn.


FRONTIER FINANCIAL: Accused in Wash. of Misleading Shareholders
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Frontier Financial Corp.
inflated its stock price through false and misleading statements,
shareholders say in Seattle Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Ben v. Frontier Financial Corp., et
al., Case No. 10-cv-00643 (W.D. Wash.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/20/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Karl P. Barth, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Ave., Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: 206-623-7292
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  karlb@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          David C. Walton, Esq.
          Catherine J. Kowalewski, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-231-1058

               - and -
                       
          Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
          HOLZER HOLZER & FISTEL, LLC
          200 Ashford Center North, Suite 300
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Telephone: 770-392-0090

               - and -

          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq.
          DYER & BERENS LLP
          303 East 17th Ave., Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: 303-861-1764


IMMUNOSYN CORP: Seeks to Dismiss Texas "Campbell" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Immunosyn Corporation's motion to dismiss a complaint filed by
Denise Campbell remains pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas, according to the company's
April 16, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Aug. 24, 2009, a complaint was filed by Denise Campbell on
behalf of a putative class that names as defendants Immunosyn,
Argyll Biotech, James T. Miceli, Douglas A. McClain, Jr., Frank
Morales, Argyll Equities, LLC, Stephen Ferrone and Douglas A.
McClain, Sr.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
have made false and/or misleading statements concerning Immunosyn
and SF-1019 in filings with the SEC in violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, including Section
10b-5 thereof, including, without limitation, that the Food &
Drug Administration had not approved SF-1019 for human injection,
that SF-1019 had not received compassionate waiver status, that
SF-1019 was on clinical hold, that SF-1019 had negative results
in certain safety studies, that SF-1019 was being sold by the
defendants outside of the exclusive license held by Immunosyn and
that Alan Osmond was being paid to promote SF-1019; defendants
have committed fraud in their SEC disclosures and on their
websites; defendants have engaged in civil conspiracy; defendants
have been unjustly enriched through the sale of Immunosyn stock;
and James T. Miceli, Douglas A. McClain, Sr. and Douglas A.
McClain, Jr. have committed RICO violations and conspired to
violate RICO.

The complaint seeks damages in an amount to be proven at trial,
plus interest, costs and attorneys fees.

The parties, including Immunosyn, answered the complaint on Oct.
16, 2009.  An initial telephonic pretrial conference among
attorneys was held on Jan. 19, 2010 and discovery has commenced.

The defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss upon which the
Court has not yet ruled.  Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is based
on lack of federal jurisdiction and plaintiff's failure to allege
sufficient facts to establish a class action.  

Immunosyn Corporation -- http://www.immunosyn.com/-- is a  
development stage company.  The company owns a worldwide license
to market, distribute and sell a biopharmaceutical drug product,
referred to as SF-1019, for multiple uses, including the
treatment of any and all diseases, and pathological conditions.  
Under the terms of its license, the Company is further granted
the rights to any improvement of SF-1019 and other compounds,
which are developed under the same technology platform, and which
are chemically similar to SF-1019.


JO-ANN STORES: Awaits Final Approval of $5 Million Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jo-Ann Stores, Inc., continues to await final approval from the
Superior Court of the State of California of a $5 million
settlement in the purported wage and hour class-action suit,
Patti Blair et al. v. Jo-Ann Stores, Inc. et al., Case No.
BC394795, according to the company's April 15, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Jan. 30, 2010.

In the complaint, as amended, six former company employees,
individually and on behalf of the purported class members,
allege that certain current and former California store team
leaders employed by the company since July 21, 2004, were
classified improperly as exempt employees (and thus not paid for
overtime work), and that current and former hourly employees
employed by the company's California stores since July 21, 2004,
missed rest and meal breaks for which they were not properly
compensated and at times worked off the clock without
compensation.

The amended complaint alleges other violations of California law
arising from the alleged wage and hour violations.  The amended
complaint seeks substantial monetary damages, injunctive relief
and attorney's fees.

On May 19, 2009 the court certified this matter to proceed as a
class action.

In September 2009, an agreement in principle, which has been
executed by the company, was negotiated with counsel for the
plaintiff.

In November 2009, the court granted preliminary approval of the
negotiated settlement.

The negotiated settlement provides for the payment by the company
of up to $5.0 million, depending on the number of claims that are
filed by the purported class members.

Jo-Ann Stores, Inc. -- http://www.joann.com/-- is a specialty  
retailer of fabrics and crafts, serving customers in their
pursuit of apparel and craft sewing, crafting, home decorating
and other creative endeavors.  The company's retail stores
(operating as Jo-Ann Fabric and Craft stores and Jo-Ann stores)
and Website (www.Joann.com) feature a variety of merchandise
used in sewing, crafting and home decorating projects, including
fabrics, notions, crafts, frames, paper crafting material,
artificial floral, home accents, finished seasonal and home decor
merchandise.  As of Jan. 31, 2009, the company operated
764 stores in 47 states (554 small-format stores and 210 large-
format stores).


KELLOGG USA: Sued for False Advertising and Misleading Labels
-------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Werbel, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Kellogg USA, Case No. 10-cv-01660 (N.D. Calif. Apr. 19, 2010),
accuses Kellogg of deceptive marketing practices and misleading
packaging, in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law
and False Advertising Law, and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

Mr. Werbel says Kellogg misled consumers about its "Kellogg's
Froot Loops" cereal by showing pictures of actual fruit in the
principal display panel of the product, when in reality the
product contained no actual fruit of any kind.  Mr. Werbel says
that had he known the product contained no fruit he would not
have purchased it.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Howard Rubinstein, Esq.
          914 Waters Ave., Suite 20
          Aspen, CO 81611
          Telephone: (832) 715-2788
          E-mail: howard@pdq.net

               - and -

          Harold M. Hewell, Esq.
          HEWELL LAW FIRM
          402 W. Broadway, Fourth Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 235-6854
          E-mail: hmhewell@hewell-lawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jeff Kravitz, Esq.
          KRAVITZ LAW OFFICE
          2310 J. St., Suite A
          Sacramento, CA 95816
          Telephone: (916) 533-4072
          E-mail: kravitzlaw@aol.com   

On Oct. 1, 2009, the Class Action Reported about the filing of
Werbel v. Kellogg USA, Case No. 09-cv-4457 (N.D. Calif.)
(Henderson, J.), making the identical complaint that Kellogg's
Froot Loops cereal contains no actual fruit of any kind while the
product's name and principal display panel suggest otherwise.  
The Honorable Thelton E. Henderson granted Kellogg's motion to
dismiss that lawsuit on Feb. 18, 2010, for insufficient service
of process.  In the 2009 lawsuit, Kellogg was represented by:

          Brent Caslin, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 239-5100
          E-mail: bcaslin@jenner.com

               - and -  

          Dean Panos, Esq.
          Richard Steiken, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          353 N. Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654-3456
          Telephone: (312) 222-9350
          

KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Accused in Calif. Suit of Not Paying Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Kohl's Department Stores
stiffed workers for overtime, a class action claims in Alameda
County Court, Hayward, Calif.


KRISPY KREME: Enters Agreement to Settle Wage and Hour Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Krispy Kreme Doughnuts Inc., has entered into an agreement to
settle a wage and hour suit, according to the company's
April 15, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2010.

The company is a defendant in a wage/hour suit pending in the
Superior Court of Alameda County, California, in which the
plaintiffs seek class action status and unspecified damages on
behalf of a putative class of approximately 35 persons.

In January 2010, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
resolve the litigation and the company recorded a provision of
$950,000 for the settlement of this matter, which is included in
company Stores direct operating expenses and accrued liabilities
in the accompanying balance sheet.

Krispy Kreme Doughnuts Inc. -- http://www.KrispyKreme.com/-- is  
a retailer and wholesaler of doughnuts.  The company's principal
business, which began in 1937, is owning and franchising Krispy
Kreme doughnut stores where over 20 varieties of doughnuts are
made, sold and distributed and where a broad array of coffees and
other beverages are offered.


LINDEN RESEARCH: Accused in Pa. Suit of Misleading Game Players
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that Linden
Research, creator of the massive multiplayer "Second Life"
Internet game, induced thousands of players to invest as much as
$100 million in real money in "virtual" properties, then took the
properties back without just compensation, four former players
say in a federal class action.

Plaintiffs Carl Evans, Donald Spencer, Valerie Spencer and Cindy
Carter say that throughout the early 2000s the company and its
founder, Phillip Rosedale, promoted the concept of property
ownership and commerce in Second Life through press releases and
media interviews.

Linden Research and Mr. Rosedale claimed they would protect
rights to virtual property and that the virtual real estate could
be used to earn money for its owners.

But the plaintiffs say they were duped into increasing the value
of the company in anticipation of an initial public offering or
sale of the Internet platform to another entity.

They seek declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory and
punitive damages on claims of fraud, conversion, intentional
interference with contractual relations, unjust enrichment,
wrongful expulsion, and violations of California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law.

Developed by Linden Lab and launched in June 2003, Second Life
enabled its users, called residents, to interact with each other
though avatars traversing a three-dimensional virtual world.

Entry into the realm of Second Life is free, requiring users to
download Linden Lab's software.  A premium membership allows for
a fuller experience, including participation in Second Life's
"market economy."

Unlike other virtual or role-playing type games, such as
Blizzard's World of Warcraft and Sony's Everquest, which retained
rights to anything occurring within the games, Linden represented
Second Life as a platform in which participants could secure
actual property rights for "land" purchased from Linden, and
retain intellectual property rights for any virtual items or
content the participants created.

"Desperate for a participant base to generate profits, Linden
made a calculated business decision to depart from the industry
standard of denying that participants had any virtual items, land
and/or goods," the plaintiffs say.

Linden Labs announced the policy in a November 2003 press release
titled "Second Life Residents to Own Digital Creations."

"Until now, any context created by users for persistent state
worlds, such as Everquest or Star Wars Galaxies, has essentially
become the property of the company developing and hosting the
world," Mr. Rosedale said in the statement.  "We believe our new
policy recognizes the fact that persistent world users are making
significant contributions to building these worlds and should be
able to both own the content they create and share in the value
that is created.  The preservations of users' property rights are
a necessary step toward the emergence of genuinely real online
worlds."

A subsequent press release was titled, "Now Selling: Real estate
on the Digital Frontier."

In an interview with the London Guardian in 2005, Mr. Rosedale
said, "We started selling land free and clear, and we sold the
title, and we made it extremely clear that we were not the owner
of the virtual property."

The plaintiffs compare Second Life to Disney World, where "shops
selling merchandise exist and a variety of transactions occur."

Unlike Disney World, however, Linden was also in the business of
selling the land inside the theme park.  "Thus, Linden no longer
owns the very world they created, instead choosing to sell the
world/land to consumers," the plaintiffs said.

Under the arrangement, participants could not only "buy" virtual
parcels, they could resell it, subdivide it, even rent or lease
it.

But the class claims that the business model -- and Linden's
relationship with the players -- began to change markedly in
2006, after another player filed a consumer lawsuit.

During that case Mr. Rosedale, admitted that representations of
ownership were "in fact, false and misleading," according to the
complaint.

Shortly thereafter, the plaintiffs say, Linden Labs began
removing such representations from its Web site and began to
deceptively and quietly strip ownership rights from players.

At no time did Linden Labs make any attempt to compensate what
the plaintiffs estimate were as many as 50,000 participants who
bought virtual land based upon the earlier promises.

The class action, the plaintiffs say, will put corporate entities
that own virtual worlds on notice that "where large amounts of
real money flow, legal consequences must follow."

A copy of the Complaint in Evans, et al. v. Linden Research,
Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-01679 (E.D. Pa.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/20/SecondLife.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason A. Archinaco, Esq.
          PRIBANIC, PRIBANIC + ARCHINACO LLC
          513 Court Place
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: 412-281-8844


MALCOLM S GERALD: Sued for Not Paying for All Hours Worked
----------------------------------------------------------
William Purnell and Leonard A. Cork, individually, and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. Malcolm S. Gerald Associates,
Inc., Case No. 2010-CH-16959 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. Apr. 19,
2010), accuses Malcom S. Gerald of not paying wages for all hours
worked, not paying overtime wages, requiring workers to perform
work during their break periods, requiring workers to work "off-
the-clock", and failing to provide accurate records of actual
hours worked, in violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and
the Illinoic Wage Payment and Collection Act.

Messrs. Purnell and Cork worked for Defendant as telephone-
dedicated bill collectors.  Malcolm S. Gerald owns and operates a
bill collection facility in Chicago.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James X. Bormes, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
          8 South Michigan Ave., Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 201-0575

               - and -

          Thomas J. Shannon, Esq.     
          SHANNON & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          8 South Michigan Ave., Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 3320-2804


MERIDIAN RESOURCE: Agrees to Settle Alta Merger-Related Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Meridian Resource Corporation has agreed to settle a
consolidated action relating to its merger with Alta Mesa
Holdings LP, according to the company's April 15, 2010, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Jan. 8, 2010, Mr. Eliezer Leider, a purported company
shareholder, filed a derivative lawsuit filed on behalf of the
Company, Leider, derivatively on behalf of The Meridian Resource
Corporation v. Ching, et al. in Harris County District Court.  
Defendants were the company's directors, Alta Mesa Holdings, LP,
and Alta Mesa Acquisition Sub, LLC.  Leider alleged that the
company's directors breached their fiduciary duties in approving
the merger transaction with Alta Mesa and he requested, but was
denied, a temporary restraining order against the company.

This lawsuit was consolidated with another, similar one from Mr.
Jeremy Rausch, which was a class action lawsuit.

Counsel for Leider was appointed lead counsel.

On March 23, 2010, the parties agreed in principle to settle the
now-consolidated Leider action.

The settlement is conditioned on, among other things, approval of
the merger by Meridian's shareholders.  Under the terms of the
proposed settlement, all claims relating to the Merger Agreement
and the merger will be dismissed on behalf of Meridian's
stockholders.

As part of the proposed settlement, the defendants have agreed
not to oppose plaintiff's counsel's request to the court to be
paid up to $164,000 for their fees and expenses and up to $1,000
as an incentive award for plaintiff Leider.  Any payment of fees,
expenses, and incentives is subject to final approval of the
settlement and such fees, expenses, and incentives by the court.  
The proposed settlement will not affect the amount of merger
consideration to be paid to Meridian's shareholders in the merger
or change any other terms of the merger or Merger Agreement.  
Expenses of the proposed settlement are expected to be recorded
in the first quarter of 2010.

The Meridian Resource Corporation is an independent oil and
natural gas company that explores for, acquires and develops oil
and natural gas properties.  Through its wholly owned
subsidiaries, Meridian holds interests primarily in the onshore
oil and natural gas regions of south Louisiana and Texas and
offshore in the Gulf of Mexico.


NEUROMETRIX INC: Plaintiffs Appealing Dismissal of Mass. Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of a consolidated
federal securities class action lawsuit against NeuroMetrix,
Inc., remains pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit, according to the company's March 12, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On March 17, 2008, a putative securities class action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against the company and certain of its current and
former officers.  On March 27, 2008, a related putative
securities class action complaint was filed in the same court,
against the same defendants.

These two actions were subsequently consolidated, and the court
appointed a lead plaintiff.

On Nov. 10, 2008, a consolidated amended class action complaint
was filed, which alleged, among other things, that between Oct.
27, 2005, and Feb. 12, 2008, defendants violated the federal
securities laws by allegedly making false and misleading
statements and failing to disclose material information to the
investing public.  The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages.
On Jan. 30, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint on the grounds, among others, that
it failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted.

On Dec. 8, 2009, the Court entered an order granting defendants'
motion to dismiss and dismissing the consolidated amended
complaint in its entirety with prejudice.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court
of Appeals for the First Circuit on Jan. 6, 2010.  The appeal is
currently pending.

NeuroMetrix, Inc. -- http://www.neurometrix.com/-- is a science-
based health care company transforming patient care through
neurotechnology.  The company provides innovative products for
preservation and restoration of nerve and spinal cord function,
and pain control.


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Accused of Selling Defective Hormone Tests
-------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that a Quest
Diagnostics subsidiary sold defective hormone tests that produced
incorrectly elevated results, leading to thousands of unnecessary
surgeries, a RICO class action claims in Federal Court.  The
class claims the inaccurate tests caused hundreds of millions of
dollars in damages, including the price of tests, drugs to treat
the "elevated hormones" and unnecessary surgeries for critically
ill patients.

Delaware-based Quest bought Nichols Institute Diagnostics in the
mid-1990s after the company created an automated test to measure
parathyroid hormone levels in human blood or urine samples,
according to the complaint.

Parathyroid hormone (PTH) regulates calcium levels and bone
cells; parathyroid gland failure is a common complication of
severe kidney disease.  Doctors must monitor hormone levels to
ensure that patients continue to experience burn turnover and a
regulated metabolism.

Insufficient levels of vitamin D can cause bone pain, while too
much calcium can cause nausea, vomiting, kidney stones and other
side effects.

"If PTH levels are thought to be higher than they actually are,
doctors will mistakenly prescribe too much of vitamin D drugs,
which can lead to a painful calcification of blood vessels and
other soft tissue, a condition arising from a dynamic low bone
turnover disease that can be deadly," according to the complaint.

"When patients thought to have high PTH levels do not respond to
vitamin D drugs, they often will undergo surgery to remove their
parathyroid glands."

By 1999 approximately 90 percent of PTH tests performed on end-
stage renal disease patients used the Nichols automated kits, the
complaint states.

Nichols, a California company, claimed that the automated tests
produced accurate and reliable results that were no different
from an earlier test, which was more complicated and took 18
hours to perform, according to the complaint.

The class claims that between May 2000 and April 2006, many of
the automated kits incorrectly found elevated levels of the
hormone, which led to hundreds of millions of dollars in
overtreatment and unnecessary surgeries.

The class claims that a competitor uncovered the trend toward
"substantially higher" results in 2001, but Nichols and Quest
misled the medical community by promoting the kits while
concealing their defects.  The defendants also introduced more
tests that relied on the same system and produced elevated
results, according to the complaint.

Another lab sued Quest and Nichols in 2004, spurring federal
investigations.  Nichols recalled all of its products in 2005 and
shut down within the year, the complaint states, and Quest and
Nichols paid $302 million to settle criminal and civil charges in
April 2009.

The class seeks treble damages and reimbursement for the cost of
buying defective kits and prescribing unnecessary treatments.  It
alleges fraud, RICO violations, deceptive business practices,
breach of warranty and misrepresentation.

A copy of the Complaint in International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Local 456 Health and Welfare Trust Fund, et al. v. Quest
Diagnostics Incorporated, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01692 (E.D.N.Y.)
(Dearie, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/20/MedTesters.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael A. London, Esq.
          DOUGLAS & LONDON, P.C.
          111 John St., Suite 1400
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: 212-566-7500
          E-mail: mlondon@douglasandlondon.com

               - and -

          James R. Dugan, II, Esq.
          Douglas R. Plymale, Esq.
          Justin Bloom, Esq.
          Stephen B. Murray, Jr., Esq.
          Stephen B. Murray, Sr., Esq.
          MURRAY LAW FIRM
          650 Poydras St., Suite 2150
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: 504-648-0180

               - and -

          Gregory Hach, Esq.
          Michael A. Rose, Esq.
          HACH & ROSE, LLP
          185 Madison Ave., 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: 212-779-0057

               - and -

          Eric L. Young, Esq.
          Gerald Egan, Esq.
          EGAN YOUNG
          Township Line Road, Suite 100
          Blue Bell, PA 19422
          Telephone: 215-367-5151

               - and -

          Samuel Issacharoff, Esq.
          40 Washington Square South
          New York, NY 10012
          Telephone: 212-998-6580


ONTARIO: Asylum Resident Class Certified in $1 Billion Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Tyler, the Legal Affairs Reporter for the Toronto Star,
reports that a judge has decided in principle that former
residents of a school once known as an "asylum for idiots" can
move forward with a $1 billion lawsuit against the Ontario
government.

But in a decision Monday, Justice Maurice Cullity of Ontario's
Superior Court of Justice held off on formally certifying the
case as a class action lawsuit until lawyers fine tune plans for
keeping what could be thousands of mentally disabled plaintiffs
informed about the litigation.

"This is a case in which plaintiffs' counsel will have a special
responsibility to ensure that notice and communications with
class members will be effective to permit them to make informed
decisions and, for the purpose of opting out or making claims -
the question of whether litigation guardians will be required in
individual cases may need to be considered," Cullity said in the
written ruling.

The case has been brought on behalf of as many as 3,000 former
residents of the Huronia Regional Centre in Orillia, which closed
last year after 133 years of operation and was also known as the
Orillia Asylum for Idiots and the Ontario Hospital School.

A statement of claim alleges the provincial government turned a
blind eye to physical and emotional abuse of residents.

In an affidavit, Marilyn Dolmage, a social worker who was
employed at the institution between 1968 and 1973, said residents
were confined to caged cots with bars on the top and sides,
Cullity noted in his decision Monday.

Dolmage, who has been approved as a litigation guardian for one
of the "representative plaintiffs," Marie Slark, 56, who entered
the institution at age 7, also claims many residents had all
their teeth routinely removed to prevent them from injuring each
other, the judge said.

The allegations have not been proven in court and the Ontario
government has not yet filed a statement of defence.


SCORES HOLDING: Defends Third Amended Complaint in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scores Holding Co. Inc. is defending a third amended complaint
alleging violations of wage and hour laws.

On Oct. 9, 2007, former Go West bartender Siri Diaz filed a
purported class action and collective action on behalf of all
tipped employees against the company and other defendants
alleging violations of federal and state wage and hour laws.

On Nov. 6, 2007, plaintiffs served an amended purported class
action and collective action complaint, naming dancers and
servers as additional plaintiffs and alleging the same violations
of federal and state wage and hour laws.

On or about Feb. 21, 2008, plaintiffs served a second amended
complaint adding two additional party defendants, but limiting
the action to persons employed in the New York Scores' clubs.  
The amended complaint alleges that the company and the other
defendants are "an integrated enterprise" and that the company
jointly employ the plaintiffs, subjecting all of the defendants
to liability for the alleged wage and hour violations.

On April 18, 2008, co-defendant Go West filed for bankruptcy.

On or about Sept. 5, 2009, plaintiffs served their third amended
complaint adding in two individual defendants who are alleged to
be employers under the state and federal wage claims.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 15, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The suit is Diaz v. Scores Holding Company, Inc. et al., Case No.
07-cv-08718 (S.D.N.Y.) (Berman, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Tammy Marzigliano, Esq.
         Outten & Golden Law Firm
         3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-245-1000
         Fax: 212-977-4005
         E-mail: tm@outtengolden.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Jerrold Foster Goldberg, Esq.
         Greenberg Traurig, LLP
         200 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10166
         Phone: 212-801-9209
         Fax: 212-805-9209
         E-mail: GoldbergJ@gtlaw.com


TALEO CORP: California Court Dismisses Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has dismissed an amended complaint against Taleo Corp., relating
to the company's announcement made on Nov. 14, 2008, that it was
re-evaluating certain of its historical and then current
accounting practices.

A lawsuit entitled Scott Stemper v Taleo Corporation, Michael
Gregoire, Katy Murray, and Divesh Sisodraker, CV 09-0151 JSW, was
filed on Jan.13, 2009.

On Feb. 9, 2009, the court renamed the Stemper action In re Taleo
Corporation Securities Litigation and appointed the Greater
Pennsylvania Carpenter's Pension Fund as lead plaintiff.

On June 15, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming
Taleo Corporation, Michael Gregoire, Katy Murray, and Divesh
Sisodraker as defendants.

The Amended Complaint alleges that defendants engaged in
securities fraud in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and SEC Rule 10b-5.  The fraud allegations include a failure
to apply GAAP in the reporting of quarterly and annual financial
statements and securities prospectuses from the time of the
company's initial public offering to recent filings with the SEC.

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of
a purported class of individuals or institutions who purchased or
acquired shares of the company's common stock between Sept. 29,
2005 and Nov. 12, 2008.

In response to the Amended Complaint, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the lawsuit on July 31, 2009.

On Feb. 17, 2010, the Court granted defendants' motion and
dismissed the Amended Complaint.

The Court also granted Plaintiff leave to amend and gave
Plaintiff until March 12, 2010 to file a second amended
complaint.

A case management conference is currently set for May 14, 2010,
according to the company's March 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

Taleo Corp. -- http://www.taleo.com/-- is the leader in on  
demand unified talent management solutions that empower
organizations of all sizes to better understand and engage their
best talent for improved business performance.  More than 4,400
organizations use Taleo for talent acquisition, performance and
compensation management, including 47 of the Fortune 100 and over
3,700 small and medium sized businesses across 200 countries and
territories.  Known for its strong configurability and usability,
Taleo runs on a world-class infrastructure and offers 99.9%
availability.  Taleo's Talent Grid harnesses the resources of the
Taleo community of customers, candidates, and partners to power
the talent needs of companies around the world.


THOMAS WEISEL: Remains Defendant in Bare Escentuals Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc., remains a defendant in a
purported class action litigation against Bare Escentuals Inc.

The company has been named as a defendant in a purported class
action litigation brought in connection with the 2006 initial
public offering and 2007 secondary offering of Bare Escentuals
where the company acted as a co-manager.  The complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, and alleges violations of Federal securities laws
against Bare Escentuals, officers and underwriters, including the
company, based on alleged misstatements and omissions in the
registration statement.

No further updates were reported in the company's March 12, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc. -- http://www.tweisel.com/--  
is an investment bank focused principally on the growth sectors
of the economy.  Thomas Weisel Partners generates revenues from
three principal sources: investment banking, brokerage and asset
management.  The investment banking group is comprised of two
disciplines: corporate finance and strategic advisory.  The
brokerage group provides equity and convertible debt securities
sales and trading services to institutional investors, and offers
brokerage, advisory and cash management services to high-net-
worth individuals and corporate clients.  The asset management
group consists of: private equity, public equity and distribution
management.  Thomas Weisel Partners is headquartered in San
Francisco with additional offices in Baltimore, Boston, Calgary,
Chicago, Dallas, Denver, New York, Portland, Toronto, London and
Zurich.


THOMAS WEISEL: Continues to Defend Suit Against GT Solar
--------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc., continues to remains a
defendant in a purported class action against GT Solar
International, Inc.

The company has been named as a defendant in a purported class
action litigation brought in connection with an initial public
offering of GT Solar International, Inc. in July 2008 where it
acted as a co-manager.

The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Hampshire on Aug. 1, 2008, alleges violations of Federal
securities laws against GT Solar and certain of its directors and
officers as well as GT Solar's underwriters, including the
company, based on alleged misstatements and omissions in the
registration statement.

No further updates were reported in the company's March 12, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc. -- http://www.tweisel.com/--  
is an investment bank focused principally on the growth sectors
of the economy.  Thomas Weisel Partners generates revenues from
three principal sources: investment banking, brokerage and asset
management.  The investment banking group is comprised of two
disciplines: corporate finance and strategic advisory.  The
brokerage group provides equity and convertible debt securities
sales and trading services to institutional investors, and offers
brokerage, advisory and cash management services to high-net-
worth individuals and corporate clients.  The asset management
group consists of: private equity, public equity and distribution
management.  Thomas Weisel Partners is headquartered in San
Francisco with additional offices in Baltimore, Boston, Calgary,
Chicago, Dallas, Denver, New York, Portland, Toronto, London and
Zurich.


THOMAS WEISEL: Discovery in Suit Against Merix in Oregon Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action suit against
Merix Corp. where Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc., is also a
defendant.

The company has been named as a defendant in a purported class
action suit brought in connection with an offering in January
2004 involving Merix Corporation in which it served as co-lead
manager for Merix.

On Sept. 15, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon entered an order dismissing all claims against the
underwriter defendants, including the company, and the Merix
defendants.  A portion of the claim under Section 12(a)(2) of the
Exchange Act was dismissed with prejudice, and the remainder of
that claim and the Section 11 claim were dismissed with leave to
re-file.

Plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint and on Sept.
28, 2006, the Court dismissed the remaining claims with
prejudice.  Following the Sept. 28, 2006 dismissal, plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit and the dismissal has now been overturned by the
appellate court.

The parties have now re-started the litigation process and begun
formal discovery.

No further updates were reported in the company's March 12, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc. -- http://www.tweisel.com/--  
is an investment bank focused principally on the growth sectors
of the economy.  Thomas Weisel Partners generates revenues from
three principal sources: investment banking, brokerage and asset
management.  The investment banking group is comprised of two
disciplines: corporate finance and strategic advisory.  The
brokerage group provides equity and convertible debt securities
sales and trading services to institutional investors, and offers
brokerage, advisory and cash management services to high-net-
worth individuals and corporate clients.  The asset management
group consists of: private equity, public equity and distribution
management.  Thomas Weisel Partners is headquartered in San
Francisco with additional offices in Baltimore, Boston, Calgary,
Chicago, Dallas, Denver, New York, Portland, Toronto, London and
Zurich.


THOMAS WEISEL: Remains a Defendant in Suit vs. Noah Education
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc., continues to remains as a
defendant in a purported class action against Noah Educational
Holdings, Ltd.

The company has been named as a defendant in a purported class
action litigation brought in connection with an initial public
offering of Noah Educational Holdings, Ltd. in October 2007 where
it acted as a co-manager.

The complaint, apparently filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, alleges violations of Federal
securities laws against Noah Educational and the underwriters,
including the company, based on alleged misstatements and
omissions in the registration statement.

No further updates were reported in the company's March 12, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc. -- http://www.tweisel.com/--  
is an investment bank focused principally on the growth sectors
of the economy.  Thomas Weisel Partners generates revenues from
three principal sources: investment banking, brokerage and asset
management.  The investment banking group is comprised of two
disciplines: corporate finance and strategic advisory.  The
brokerage group provides equity and convertible debt securities
sales and trading services to institutional investors, and offers
brokerage, advisory and cash management services to high-net-
worth individuals and corporate clients.  The asset management
group consists of: private equity, public equity and distribution
management.  Thomas Weisel Partners is headquartered in San
Francisco with additional offices in Baltimore, Boston, Calgary,
Chicago, Dallas, Denver, New York, Portland, Toronto, London and
Zurich.


THOMAS WEISEL: Continues to Defend Orion Energy's Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc., remains a defendant in a
purported class action lawsuit against Orion Energy Systems, Inc.

The company has been named as a defendant in a purported class
action lawsuit filed in February 2008 arising out of the December
2007 initial public offering of Orion Energy Systems, Inc. where
the company acted as the sole book manager.

The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, alleges violations of Federal securities
laws against Orion, various officers and directors, as well as
Orion's underwriters, including the company, based on alleged
misstatements and omissions in the disclosure documents for the
offering.

No further updates were reported in the company's March 12, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc. -- http://www.tweisel.com/--  
is an investment bank focused principally on the growth sectors
of the economy.  Thomas Weisel Partners generates revenues from
three principal sources: investment banking, brokerage and asset
management.  The investment banking group is comprised of two
disciplines: corporate finance and strategic advisory.  The
brokerage group provides equity and convertible debt securities
sales and trading services to institutional investors, and offers
brokerage, advisory and cash management services to high-net-
worth individuals and corporate clients.  The asset management
group consists of: private equity, public equity and distribution
management.  Thomas Weisel Partners is headquartered in San
Francisco with additional offices in Baltimore, Boston, Calgary,
Chicago, Dallas, Denver, New York, Portland, Toronto, London and
Zurich.


THOMAS WEISEL: Suit Against Rigel in California Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action against Rigel Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
where Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc., is also a defedant, has
been dismissed, according to the company's March 12, 2010, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The company has been named as a defendant in a purported class
action litigation brought in connection with a February 2008
secondary offering of Rigel Pharmaceuticals where the company
acted as a co-manager.

The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, and alleges violations of
Federal securities laws against Rigel Pharmaceuticals, its
officers and underwriters, including the company, based on
alleged misstatements and omissions in the registration
statement.

The court granted the company's motion to dismiss in its entirety
on Dec. 21, 2009 and granted Plaintiffs' leave to amend their
complaint.

Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc. -- http://www.tweisel.com/--  
is an investment bank focused principally on the growth sectors
of the economy.  Thomas Weisel Partners generates revenues from
three principal sources: investment banking, brokerage and asset
management.  The investment banking group is comprised of two
disciplines: corporate finance and strategic advisory.  The
brokerage group provides equity and convertible debt securities
sales and trading services to institutional investors, and offers
brokerage, advisory and cash management services to high-net-
worth individuals and corporate clients.  The asset management
group consists of: private equity, public equity and distribution
management.  Thomas Weisel Partners is headquartered in San
Francisco with additional offices in Baltimore, Boston, Calgary,
Chicago, Dallas, Denver, New York, Portland, Toronto, London and
Zurich.


THOMAS WEISEL: Defends Suit Against Mobile USA in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc., remains a defendant in a
purported class action against Virgin Mobile USA, Inc.

The company has been named as a defendant in one of two purported
class action lawsuits filed in November 2007 arising out of the
October 2007 initial public offering of Virgin Mobile USA, Inc.
where the company acted as a co-manager.

The complaints, filed in the U.S. District Courts for New Jersey
and the Southern District of New York, allege violations of
Federal securities laws against Virgin Mobile, various officers
and directors as well as Virgin Mobile's underwriters, including
the company, based on alleged misstatements and omissions in the
disclosure documents for the offering.

The parties have agreed to transfer and consolidate the matters
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

No further updates were reported in the company's March 12, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc. -- http://www.tweisel.com/--  
is an investment bank focused principally on the growth sectors
of the economy.  Thomas Weisel Partners generates revenues from
three principal sources: investment banking, brokerage and asset
management.  The investment banking group is comprised of two
disciplines: corporate finance and strategic advisory.  The
brokerage group provides equity and convertible debt securities
sales and trading services to institutional investors, and offers
brokerage, advisory and cash management services to high-net-
worth individuals and corporate clients.  The asset management
group consists of: private equity, public equity and distribution
management.  Thomas Weisel Partners is headquartered in San
Francisco with additional offices in Baltimore, Boston, Calgary,
Chicago, Dallas, Denver, New York, Portland, Toronto, London and
Zurich.


THOMAS WEISEL: Continues to Seek Dismissal of Suit v. Netlist
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc., continues to seek the
dismissal of an amended complaint Netlist, Inc., where the
company remains as a defendant, according to the company's March
12, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The company has been named as a defendant in an amended complaint
for a purported class action lawsuit filed in November 2007 in
connection with the initial public offering of Netlist in
November 2006 where the company acted as a lead manager.

The amended complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, alleges violations of Federal
securities laws against Netlist, various officers and directors
as well as Netlist's underwriters, including the company, based
on alleged misstatements and omissions in the disclosure
documents for the offering.

The complaint essentially alleges that the registration statement
relating to Netlist's initial public offering was materially
false and misleading.  The company denies liability in connection
with this matter and has filed a motion to dismiss that was
granted without prejudice by the court.  Plaintiffs have now
filed an amended complaint and the company has now filed another
motion to dismiss.

Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc. -- http://www.tweisel.com/--  
is an investment bank focused principally on the growth sectors
of the economy.  Thomas Weisel Partners generates revenues from
three principal sources: investment banking, brokerage and asset
management.  The investment banking group is comprised of two
disciplines: corporate finance and strategic advisory.  The
brokerage group provides equity and convertible debt securities
sales and trading services to institutional investors, and offers
brokerage, advisory and cash management services to high-net-
worth individuals and corporate clients.  The asset management
group consists of: private equity, public equity and distribution
management.  Thomas Weisel Partners is headquartered in San
Francisco with additional offices in Baltimore, Boston, Calgary,
Chicago, Dallas, Denver, New York, Portland, Toronto, London and
Zurich.


TIGRENT INC: Motion Challenging Class Claims Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Tigrent Inc.'s motion challenging authorization of the class
claims remains pending, according to the company's April 15,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,

On Jan. 11, 2007, Whitney Canada, Inc., a wholly-owned
subsidiary, and the company received notice of an Amended Motion
for Authorization to Institute a Class Action in the Province of
Quebec, Canada on behalf of all persons who are alleged to have
made various real estate investments at the alleged inducement
of, or through, Marc Jemus, Francois Roy, Robert Primeau and/or
their companies, and/or B2B Trust, and/or Whitney Canada, Inc.,
and/or the company and/or Jean Lafreniere.

The complaint seeks repayment of $39,235 to the petitioner,
unspecified payment to each member of the class of an amount
corresponding to their lost investments, payment of $10,000 to
each member of the class as general damages, recovery of costs
and other litigation expenses, and unspecified equitable relief.

On Oct. 19 and Oct. 20, 2009, the company argued its motions for
lack of jurisdiction and to dismiss the authorization of the
class claims against Whitney Information Network n/k/a Tigrent.

On Nov. 3, 2009 the Canadian Court denied the company's motion
for lack of jurisdiction.

Arguments for the company's motion challenging authorization of
the class claims have been rescheduled for June 21-23, 2010.

Tigrent Inc. -- http://tigrent.com/-- formerly Whitney  
Information Network, Inc., is a provider of practical, training,
conferences, publications, technology-based tools and mentoring.  
Through its affiliates, Tigrent Brands, Tigrent Learning, Tigrent
eLearning and Rich Dad Education, the company provides a training
model that imparts skills and knowledge in investing (real estate
and financial instruments), entrepreneurship and personal
finance.  The company's courses are available for customers to
attend live and in person at various regional locations.  Many of
Tigrent's trainings are offered in a virtual live environment
over the Internet.  Other forms of training program delivery
include on-demand streaming Internet-based courses and packaged
compact discs (CDs) and digital versatile discs (DVDs), as well
as mentoring and personal phone coaching.


TOMOTHERAPY INC: Class Certification Motion Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' motion for class certification in a second
amended consolidated complaint against TomoTherapy Inc., remains
pending, according to the company's March 11, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On May 30, 2008 and June 10, 2008, two separate complaints were
filed by certain of the company's shareholders in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin against the
company and certain of its officers and all of the company's
independent directors during the period in question.

The complaints were consolidated on Oct. 23, 2008.

The consolidated action alleges that the defendants violated the
Securities Act with respect to statements made in connection with
the initial and secondary public offerings of the company's
common stock and the Exchange Act by misrepresenting our
projected financial outlook during the period May 9, 2007 through
April 17, 2008.  The named plaintiffs, Michael Schultz, John
Scala, et al., seek to represent persons who purchased the
company's securities between those dates and who were damaged as
a result of the decline in the price of the stock between those
dates, allegedly attributable to the financial
misrepresentations, and seek compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount.

The company moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on
Dec. 8, 2008.

On July 9, 2009, the Court ruled on the motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint by dismissing without prejudice all claims
under the Exchange Act and all but one claim under the Securities
Act for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted.

On Aug. 3, 2009, the plaintiffs amended the consolidated
complaint by filing their Second Amended Consolidated Complaint.  
The company moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on Sept. 3,
2009, and on Dec. 15, 2009 the Court granted this second motion
to dismiss in part and denied it in part.

The plaintiffs have moved for class certification and briefing on
that motion is ongoing.

TomoTherapy Incorporated -- http://www.TomoTherapy.com/--  
develops, markets and sells advanced radiation therapy solutions
that can be used to treat a wide variety of cancers, from the
most common to the most complex.  The ring gantry-based
TomoTherapy(R) platform combines integrated CT imaging with
conformal radiation therapy to deliver sophisticated radiation
treatments with speed and precision while reducing radiation
exposure to surrounding healthy tissue.  TomoTherapy's suite of
solutions include its flagship Hi úArt(R) treatment system, which
has been used to deliver more than three million CT-guided,
helical intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment
fractions; the TomoHD(TM) treatment system, designed to enable
cancer centers to treat a broader patient population with a
single device; and the TomoMobile(TM) relocatable radiation
therapy solution, designed to improve access and availability of
state-of-the-art cancer care. TomoTherapy's stock is traded on
the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbol TOMO.


TYCOM LTD: Inks $79 Million Securities Litigation Settlement Pact
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant at the New Jersey Law Journal reports that a $79
million settlement has been reached in a long-running class
action suit that accuses Tyco International Ltd. of misleading
investors in its undersea cable subsidiary, TyCom Ltd.

The parties reached a deal on April 13 that would end the 7-year-
old suit, and the plaintiffs moved on Monday for preliminary
approval from U.S. District Judge Garrett Brown Jr. in Trenton,
N.J. He has set a May 6 hearing date.

The settlement, if approved, calls for class counsel to petition
the court for attorney fees, to be paid out of the settlement
amount.

The plaintiffs' compensation will depend on how many class
members make claims, says co-lead counsel Gregory Keller of
Chitwood Harley Harnes in Atlanta.

The suit, In re Tycom Ltd. Securities Litigation, 03-cv-3540, was
filed on behalf of investors who bought 70 million shares of
Tycom at $32 each in an initial public offering from July 2000
and through December 2001.

They claim the prospectus overstated the demand for undersea
transmission of voice and data communications and failed to
disclose that bandwidth was in oversupply.

Before the public offering, Tycom's main business was building
and repairing undersea communication networks for other
companies.  In 1999, the company decided to build its own
transoceanic cable network, with funding from the sale of stock.
But the supply of undersea bandwidth far exceeded the demand, the
plaintiffs claimed.

Princeton, N.J.-based Tyco repurchased the shares for $17 each a
few years later.

The suit also named as defendants three underwriters -- Goldman
Sachs, Merrill Lynch and Salomon Smith Barney -- who allegedly
included false statements about the demand for bandwidth in the
IPO registration statement.

The underwriters moved for summary judgment, claiming any
misrepresentations about the bandwidth market are immaterial
under the "bespeaks caution" doctrine, which says that forecasts
or projections in a disclosure statement are not misleading when
accompanied by cautionary language.

Tyco and Tycom also moved for summary judgment, raising the
statute of limitations. Both motions are pending.

The underwriter defendants are included in the proposed
settlement.

The plaintiffs did not reach a deal with two individual
defendants, former Tyco International chief executive officer L.
Dennis Kozlowski and former chief financial officer Mark Swartz.
The suit would continue against them.

The suit, filed in July 2003 in Trenton, was transferred that
October by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the
District of New Hampshire, where it was consolidated with other
Tyco securities and ERISA litigation because of Tyco's disclosure
in 2002 that Kozlowski and Swartz received multimillion-dollar
bonuses in connection with the Tycom offering.

The New Hampshire court granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify
in June 2007. The defendants moved for leave to appeal that order
to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which denied the
petition in September 2007.

The Tycom case was sent back to New Jersey in March 2009 after
the JPML determined that all pretrial matters on common issues
had been resolved.

Besides Keller, the plaintiffs are represented by Robert Finkel
of Wolf Popper in New York.

Elizabeth Edwards, of McGuire Woods in Richmond, Va., represents
Tyco and Tycom.

Lawrence Friedman of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton in
Manhattan, represents the underwriters.

Karen Confoy, of Sterns & Weinroth in Trenton, N.J., is local
counsel for Tyco, Tycom and the underwriters.


WELLS FARGO: Removes "Gustavo Reyes" Lawsuit to N.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gustavo Reyes and Maria Teresa, husband and wife, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., Case No. RG10503606 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.), was
filed on March 11, 2010.  The Plaintiffs allege that that despite
making four monthly forbearance payments of $1,307.57 in exchange
for the Bank's agreement to suspend non-judicial foreclosure
proceedings and promising to consider a loan modification, the
Bank proceeded with the foreclosure in violation of the
agreement.

Wells Fargo says that based on a review of attorneys' fee awards
in connection with claims comparable to those asserted by the
Plaintiffs in this action, any fee award will likely be in excess
of $75,000, so the complaint falls within the original
jurisdiction of the District Court.  On this basis, on April 29,
2010, Wells Fargo removed the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, and the Clerk assigned
Case No. 10-cv-01667-JCS to the proceeding.  

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter B Fredman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER FREDMAN
          125 University Ave., Suite 102
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 868-2626
          E-mail: peter@peterfredmanlaw.com
   
                and

          David Pivtorak, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DAVID PIVTORAK
          166 Santa Clara Ave., Suite 205
          Oakland, CA 94610
          Telephone: (510) 658-2500
          E-mail: pivtoraklaw@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael J. Steiner, Esq.
          Joshua E. Whitehair, Esq.
          SVERSON & WERSON A.P.C.
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 398-3344


WILLING HOLDING: Fees & Damages in "Hosking" Still Undetermined
---------------------------------------------------------------
The amount of damages and attorney's fees in "Gary Hosking v. New
World Mortgage, Inc. and New World Capital Holdings, Inc., Case
No. 2007cv02200," remains to be determined by the U.S. District
Court of the Eastern District of New York, according to Willing
Holding, Inc.'s April 15, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

On July 21, 2008, a default judgment against the company's
subsidiary, New World, was entered in the Eastern District of  
New York in Gary Hosking's case for failure to appear in a class-
action lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, allegedly
unlawfully withheld wages, statutory penalties, and damages owed
to certain loan officers formerly employed by New World.

The amount of damages and attorney's fees has yet to be
determined by the court.

On Dec. 16, 2009, the court determined that service on Kevin
Leonard and Francis Leonard was not effectuated.

Willing Holding, Inc. was organized in 2005, as a technology
company with a focus on the telecommunications industry.  Since
inception, the company has conducted various consulting and other
startup activities in the telecommunications sector but have not
yet generated any revenues and only incurred minimal expenses
relating to those activities.  With the acquisition of its wholly
owned subsidiary, New World, in April 2008, a significant portion
of the company's operations has consisted of providing mortgage
and e-commerce products and services through its Telemarketing
Group and sales organization.


YTB INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
YTB International, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a second amended
consolidated complaint remains pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois, according to the company's
April 14, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Aug. 8, 2008, a complaint seeking to be certified as a class-
action was filed against the company, three company subsidiaries,
and certain executive officers.  The complaint alleges that the
defendants violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act.

On Aug. 14, 2008, a second, substantively similar, complaint was
filed against the same defendants in the same Court.  The two
cases have now been consolidated and are proceeding together
before the same judge.  The plaintiffs have filed a consolidated
complaint, seeking damages of over $100.0 million.

On Feb. 9, 2009, the company filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.  On June 5, 2009, the Court granted the
company's motions and dismissed the class action complaint, but
granted the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint that
conformed to the Court's ruling.

On July 15, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
purported to conform to the Court's ruling.  The amended
complaint asserts claims similar to those contained in the
dismissed complaint.  On July 20, 2009, the Court, acting on its
own motion, struck the plaintiffs' amended complaint in its
entirety based on the Court's belief that the amended complaint
does not pass muster under the applicable federal pleading
standards.

As of July 27, 2009, the plaintiffs filed motions for leave with
the Court to amend their complaints.  The Court granted their
motions and a second amended complaint was filed on Dec. 24,
2009.

On Feb. 12, 2010, the company filed motions to dismiss the second
amended consolidated complaint.  As of MArch 14, the Court has
not ruled on this motion.

YTB International, Inc. -- http://www.ytb.com/-- provides E-
commerce business solutions for individual consumers and home-
based independent representatives in the United States, Puerto
Rico, the Bahamas, Canada, Bermuda, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
The Company operates through three subsidiaries: ZamZuu, Inc.
(formerly YTB Marketing, Inc.), YTB Travel Network, Inc., and YTB
Franchise Services, Inc.

                            *********

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  * * *