CAR_Public/100506.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, May 6, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 88

                            Headlines

AGL RESOURCES: Ga. Sup. Ct. Upholds Ruling in Overcharging Suit
AXIS CAPITAL: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Dismissed Suit Still Pending
BROADCOM CORP: Awaits Court Approval of Settlement Agreement
CARMAX INC: Units Continue to Face Claims in Consolidated Suit
ENCORE CAPITAL: Parties Order to Brief Issues for Certification

ENCORE CAPITAL: Faces Lawsuits Over Claims for FDCPA Violations
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of NY Suit
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Texas Suit
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Arkansas and Washington Complaints Dismissed
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Appeals Denial of California Suit Dismissal

FIDELITY NATIONAL: Motion to Dismiss Delaware Complaint Pending
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Summary Judgment Motion in Penn. Suit Pending
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Ohio Lawsuit Over Title Insurance Dismissed
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Motion to Dismiss Amended NJ Suit Pending
FIDELITY NATIONAL: West Virginia Suit Remains in Inactive Status

FIDELITY NATIONAL: Florida & Mass. Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Affiliates Still Defendants in Complaint
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Defends "Recording Fees" Suit in Missouri
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Defends "Recording Fees" Suit in New Jersey
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Fifth Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment Ruling

FIDELITY NATIONAL: Summary Judgment Pending in "Escrow Fee" Suit
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Continues to Defend Suit it Hawaii
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Continues to Defend Amended Suit in Nevada
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Class Certification Granted in Illinois Suit
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Units Continue to Defend Two Suits in Calif.

GODADDY.COM INC: Sued in Ark. for Unlawfully Using Domain Names
GOLDMAN SACHS: S.D.N.Y. ABACUS Disclosure Shareholder Suit Filed
GOLDMAN SACHS: Acknowledges Receipt of Six Shareholder Lawsuits
PALM INC: Being Sold for Too Little, Calif. Suit Claims
PFIZER INC: Supreme Court Junks Appeal in Celebrex Fraud Suit

PINNACLE GROUP: S.D.N.Y. Certifies Tenant Class in RICO Lawsuit
RCN CORP: Inks MOU to Settle Delaware Suit Over Yankee Merger
SOLUTIA INC: Continues to Defend Suit Over Contamination
SOLUTIA INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment in ERISA Suit
TEMPUR-PEDIC: Plaintiffs' Appeal in "Jacobs" Suit Still Pending

U.S. STEEL: Antitrust Suit Over Products Ongoing in Illinois

                            *********

AGL RESOURCES: Ga. Sup. Ct. Upholds Ruling in Overcharging Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Georgia Supreme Court has upheld ruling by the Georgia Court
of Appeals and remanded a class-action lawsuit against Georgia
Natural Gas, which is owned by AGL Resources, Inc., back to the
Superior Court of Fulton County, according to the company's April
27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

In February 2008, the class-action lawsuit was filed against GNG
containing similar allegations to those asserted by the consumer
affairs staff of the Georgia Commission.

The Georgia Commission staff alleged that GNG charged its
customers on variable rate plans prices for natural gas that were
in excess of the published price, that it failed to give proper
notice regarding the availability of potentially lower price
plans and that it changed its methodology for computing variable
rates.

The action seeks damages on behalf of a class of GNG customers.

This lawsuit was dismissed in September 2008.

The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the lawsuit and, in May
2009, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's
order.

In June 2009, GNG filed a petition for reconsideration with the
Georgia Supreme Court.

In October 2009, the Georgia Supreme Court agreed to review the
Court of Appeals' decision and held oral arguments in January
2010.

In March 2010 the Georgia Supreme Court upheld the Court of
Appeals' decision.

The case will be remanded back to the Superior Court of Fulton
County for further proceedings.  GNG asserts that no violation of
law or Georgia Commission rules has occurred.

Based in Atlanta, Ga., AGL Resources Inc., through its
subsidiaries, distributes and markets natural gas to retail and
wholesale customers, stores and transports gas, offers asset and
risk management services, and operates telecommunications
networks.


AXIS CAPITAL: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Dismissed Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of a putative class
action lawsuit against AXIS Capital Holdings Limited's U.S.
insurance subsidiaries remains pending, according to the
company's April 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

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

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

The lawsuit alleges antitrust and Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act violations in connection with the
payment of contingent commissions and manipulation of insurance
bids and seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

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

On April 15, 2007, the District Court dismissed without prejudice
plaintiffs' complaint, as amended, and granted plaintiffs 30 days
to file another amended complaint and/or revised RICO Statement
and Statements of Particularity.

In May 2007, plaintiffs filed:

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

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

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

On June 21, 2007, the defendants filed renewed motions to
dismiss.

On Sept. 28, 2007, the District Court dismissed with prejudice
plaintiffs' antitrust and RICO claims and declined to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' remaining state law
claims.

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

AXIS Capital Holdings Limited -- http://www.axiscapital.com/--  
is a Bermuda-based global provider of specialty lines insurance
and treaty reinsurance with shareholders' equity at March 31,
2010 of $5.4 billion and locations in Bermuda, the United States,
Europe, Singapore, Canada and Australia.  Its operating
subsidiaries have been assigned a rating of "A+" ("Strong") by
Standard & Poor's and "A" ("Excellent") by A.M. Best. AXIS
Capital and AXIS Specialty Finance LLC have been assigned senior
unsecured debt ratings of A- (stable) by Standard & Poor's and
Baa1 (stable) by Moody's Investors Service.


BROADCOM CORP: Awaits Court Approval of Settlement Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------
Broadcom Corp. continues to await the approval of the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on an
agreement settling a consolidated shareholder class action

From August through October 2006 several plaintiffs filed
purported shareholder class actions against Broadcom and certain
of its current or former officers and directors, entitled:

     -- Bakshi v. Samueli, et al. (Case No. 06-5036 R (CWx)),

     -- Mills v. Samueli, et al. (Case No. SACV 06-9674 DOC
        R(CWx)), and

     -- Minnesota Bakers Union Pension Fund, et al. v. Broadcom
        Corp., et al. (Case No. SACV 06-970 CJC R (CWx)).

The essence of the plaintiffs' allegations is that the company
improperly backdated stock options, resulting in false or
misleading disclosures concerning, among other things, its
business and financial condition.

Plaintiffs also allege that the company failed to account for and
pay taxes on stock options properly, that the individual
defendants sold its common stock while in possession of material
nonpublic information, and that the defendants' conduct caused
artificial inflation in the company's stock price and damages to
the putative plaintiff class.

The plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

In November 2006, the Court consolidated the Stock Option Class
Actions and appointed the New Mexico State Investment Council as
lead class plaintiff.

In October 2007, the federal appeals court resolved a dispute
regarding the appointment of lead class counsel.

In March 2008, the district judge entered a revised order
appointing lead class counsel.  The lead plaintiff filed an
amended consolidated class action complaint in late April 2008,
naming additional defendants including certain current officers
and directors of Broadcom as well as Ernst & Young LLP, the
company's former independent registered public accounting firm.

In October 2008, the district judge granted defendants' motions
to dismiss with leave to amend.

In October 2008, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.  
In November 2008, defendants filed motions to dismiss.

In February 2009, these motions were denied except with respect
to E&Y and the former Chairman of the Audit Committee, which were
granted with leave to amend, and with respect to the former Chief
Executive Officer, which was granted without leave to amend.

The lead plaintiff did not amend its complaint with respect to
the former Chairman of the Audit Committee and the time period to
do so has expired.  With respect to E&Y, in March 2009, the
district judge entered a final judgment for E&Y and against the
lead plaintiff.  The lead plaintiff has appealed the final
judgment.

In December 2009, the company agreed in principle to settle the
Stock Option Class Actions.

Under the proposed settlement, the claims against Broadcom and
its current and former officers and directors will be dismissed
with prejudice and released in exchange for a $160.5 million cash
payment by Broadcom.

The company recorded the settlement amount as a one-time charge
in the company's consolidated statement of income for the three
months and year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The proposed settlement remains subject to the satisfaction of
various conditions, including negotiation and execution of a
final stipulation of settlement and court approval.  If these
conditions are satisfied, the proposed settlement will resolve
all claims in the Stock Option Class Actions against Broadcom and
the individual defendants.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 27, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Broadcom Corporation -- http://www.broadcom.com/-- is a provider  
of semiconductors for wired and wireless communications.  
Broadcom provides a portfolio of system-on-a-chip (SoC) solutions
to manufacturers of computing and networking equipment and,
broadband access products and mobile devices. Its product
portfolio includes solutions for the home (Broadband
Communications), solutions for the hand (Mobile and Wireless) and
solutions for network infrastructure (Enterprise and Networking).  
In December 2009, the company acquired Dune Networks, a company,
which is engaged in the designing of switch fabric solutions for
data center networking equipment.


CARMAX INC: Units Continue to Face Claims in Consolidated Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and CarMax Auto
Superstores West Coast, Inc. continue to face the remaining
claims in a consolidated lawsuit regarding the sales consultant
putative class.

On April 2, 2008, Mr. John Fowler filed a putative class-action
lawsuit against CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and
CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc. in the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles.

Subsequently, two other lawsuits, "Leena Areso et al. v. CarMax
Auto Superstores California, LLC," and "Justin Weaver v. CarMax
Auto Superstores California, LLC," were consolidated as part of
the Fowler case.

The allegations in the consolidated case involve:

   (1) failure to provide meal and rest breaks or compensation
       in lieu thereof;

   (2) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees
       related to meal and rest breaks and overtime;

   (3) failure to pay overtime;

   (4) failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement
       provisions; and

   (5) unfair competition.

The putative class consists of sales consultants, sales managers,
and other hourly employees who worked for the company
in California from April 2, 2004, to the present.

The lawsuit seeks compensatory and special damages, wages,
interest, civil and statutory penalties, restitution, injunctive
relief and the recovery of attorneys' fees.

On May 12, 2009, the court dismissed all of the class claims with
respect to the sales manager putative class.  On June 16,
2009, the court dismissed all claims related to the failure to
comply with the itemized employee wage statement provisions.
The court also granted CarMax's motion for summary adjudication
with regard to CarMax's alleged failure to pay overtime to the
sales consultant putative class.  The plaintiffs have indicated
that they will appeal the court's ruling regarding the sales
consultant overtime claim.

In addition to the plaintiffs' overtime claim, the claims
currently remaining in the lawsuit regarding the sales
consultant putative class are: (1) failure to provide meal and
rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay
wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and
rest breaks; and (3) unfair competition.

On June 16, 2009, the court entered a stay of these claims
pending the outcome of a California Supreme Court case involving
related legal issues.

The lawsuit seeks compensatory and special damages, wages,
interest, civil and statutory penalties, restitution, injunctive
relief and the recovery of attorneys' fees.

No further updates were reported in CarMax, Inc.'s April 27,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 28, 2010.

CarMax, Inc. -- http://www.carmax.com/-- is a retailer of used  
cars.  Headquartered in Richmond, Va., CarMax currently operates
100 used car superstores in 46 markets.  The CarMax consumer
offer is structured around four customer benefits: low, no-haggle
prices; a broad selection; high quality vehicles; and customer-
friendly service.  During the fiscal year ended Feb. 28, 2010,
the company retailed 357,129 used cars and sold 197,382 wholesale
vehicles at our in-store auctions.


ENCORE CAPITAL: Parties Order to Brief Issues for Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio has
ordered the parties in a class action counter-claim against
Encore Capital Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, Midland Credit
Management, Inc., to brief issues relating to whether a statewide
class should be certified, according to the company's April 27,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

In an action captioned Brent v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.,
et. al, filed on May 19, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio [Western Division], the plaintiff has
filed a class action counter-claim against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. and Midland Funding LLC.

The complaint alleges that the Midland Defendants' business
practices violated consumers' rights under the FDCPA and the Ohio
Consumer Sales Practices Act.

The plaintiff is seeking actual and statutory damages for the
class of Ohio residents, plus attorney's fees and costs of class
notice and class administration.

On Aug. 11, 2009, the court issued an order partially granting
plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and entering findings
adverse to the Midland Defendants on certain of plaintiff's
claims.

The Midland Defendants subsequently moved the court to reconsider
the order and were partially successful.  However, because the
court did not completely reverse the August 11 order, certain
portions of the order remain subject to reversal only on appeal.


On Feb. 22, 2010, the District Court denied Plaintiff's attempts
to enlarge the case to include a national class of consumers, and
ordered the parties to brief issues relating to whether a
statewide class should be certified.  No class has been certified
to date.

Encore Capital Group, Inc. -- http://www.encorecapitalgroup.com/
-- is a systems-driven purchaser and manager of charged-off
consumer receivable portfolios and, through its wholly owned
subsidiary Ascension Capital Group, Inc., a provider of
bankruptcy services to the finance industry.  The company
acquires receivable portfolios at deep discounts from their face
values using its valuation process that is based upon an analysis
of the individual consumer attributes of the underlying accounts.  
The receivable portfolios it purchases consist primarily of
unsecured, charged-off domestic consumer credit card, auto loan
deficiency and telecom receivables purchased from national
financial institutions, retail credit corporations, telecom
companies and resellers of such portfolios. In September 2007,
the company exited its healthcare purchasing and internal
collection activities, although it receives collections from
certain healthcare portfolios that it purchased.


ENCORE CAPITAL: Faces Lawsuits Over Claims for FDCPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Encore Capital Group, Inc., continues to face class action
lawsuits over claims based on the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act and comparable state statutes.

These claims may result in class action lawsuits, which can be
material to the company due to the remedies available under these
statutes, including punitive damages.

A number of cases styled as class actions have been filed against
the company.

A class has been certified in several of these cases.  Several of
these cases present novel issues on which there is no legal
precedent.

No specific details regarding the cases were disclosed by in the
company's April 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

Encore Capital Group, Inc. -- http://www.encorecapitalgroup.com/
-- is a systems-driven purchaser and manager of charged-off
consumer receivable portfolios and, through its wholly owned
subsidiary Ascension Capital Group, Inc., a provider of
bankruptcy services to the finance industry.  The company
acquires receivable portfolios at deep discounts from their face
values using its valuation process that is based upon an analysis
of the individual consumer attributes of the underlying accounts.  
The receivable portfolios it purchases consist primarily of
unsecured, charged-off domestic consumer credit card, auto loan
deficiency and telecom receivables purchased from national
financial institutions, retail credit corporations, telecom
companies and resellers of such portfolios. In September 2007,
the company exited its healthcare purchasing and internal
collection activities, although it receives collections from
certain healthcare portfolios that it purchased.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of NY Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the dismissal of
a complaint against Fidelity National Financial, Inc., filed in
New York, according to the company's April 26, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

In February 2008, thirteen putative class actions were commenced
against several title insurance companies, including Fidelity
National Title Insurance Company, Chicago Title Insurance
Company, Security Union Title Insurance Company, Alamo Title
Insurance Company, Ticor Title Insurance Company of Florida,
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, LandAmerica New Jersey
Title Insurance Company (n/k/a Continental Title Insurance
Company), Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation, Transnation Title
Insurance Company (which has merged into Lawyers Title Insurance
Corporation), and Ticor Title Insurance Company.

The complaints also name Fidelity National Financial, Inc. as a
defendant based on its ownership of the Fidelity Affiliates.

The complaints, which are brought on behalf of a putative class
of consumers who purchased title insurance in New York, allege
that the defendants conspired to inflate rates for title
insurance through the Title Insurance Rate Service Association,
Inc. (TIRSA), a New York State-approved rate service organization
which is also named as a defendant.

Each of the complaints asserts a cause of action under the
Sherman Act and several of the complaints include claims under
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act as well as New York
State statutory and common law claims.  The complaints seek
monetary damages, including treble damages, as well as injunctive
relief.

Subsequently, similar complaints were filed in many federal
courts.  A motion was filed before the Multidistrict Litigation
Panel to consolidate and/or coordinate these actions in the U.S.
District Court in the Southern District of New York.  


However, that motion was denied.

Where there are multiple cases in one state they have been
consolidated before one district court judge in each state and
scheduled for the filing of consolidated complaints and motion
practice.

In 2009, the complaints filed in New York were dismissed with
prejudice, but the plaintiffs have appealed.

On Feb. 11, 2010, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in a
summary opinion affirmed the dismissal of the complaint in so far
as it alleged antitrust violations.  A count of the complaint
alleging RESPA violations remains.

Fidelity National Financial, Inc. -- http://www.fnf.com/--  
provides title insurance, mortgage services, specialty insurance,
claims management services and information services.  FNF is the
nation's largest title insurance company through its title
insurance underwriters - Fidelity National Title, Chicago Title,
Commonwealth Land Title, Lawyers Title, Ticor Title, Security
Union Title and Alamo Title - that collectively issue more title
insurance policies than any other title company in the United
States.  FNF also provides flood insurance, personal lines
insurance and home warranty insurance through its specialty
insurance business.  FNF also is a leading provider of outsourced
claims management services to large corporate and public sector
entities through its minority-owned subsidiary, Sedgwick CMS.  
FNF is also a leading information services company in the human
resource, retail and transportation markets through another
minority-owned subsidiary, Ceridian Corporation.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Texas Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the dismissal of
a complaint against Fidelity National Financial, Inc., filed in
Texas, according to the company's April 26, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010.

In February 2008, thirteen putative class actions were commenced
against several title insurance companies, including Fidelity
National Title Insurance Company, Chicago Title Insurance
Company, Security Union Title Insurance Company, Alamo Title
Insurance Company, Ticor Title Insurance Company of Florida,
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, LandAmerica New Jersey
Title Insurance Company (n/k/a Continental Title Insurance
Company), Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation, Transnation Title
Insurance Company (which has merged into Lawyers Title Insurance
Corporation), and Ticor Title Insurance Company.

The complaints also name Fidelity National Financial, Inc. as a
defendant based on its ownership of the Fidelity Affiliates.

The complaints, which are brought on behalf of a putative class
of consumers who purchased title insurance in New York, allege
that the defendants conspired to inflate rates for title
insurance through the Title Insurance Rate Service Association,
Inc. (TIRSA), a New York State-approved rate service organization
which is also named as a defendant.

Each of the complaints asserts a cause of action under the
Sherman Act and several of the complaints include claims under
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act as well as New York
State statutory and common law claims.  The complaints seek
monetary damages, including treble damages, as well as injunctive
relief.

Subsequently, similar complaints were filed in many federal
courts.  A motion was filed before the Multidistrict Litigation
Panel to consolidate and/or coordinate these actions in the U.S.
District Court in the Southern District of New York.

However, that motion was denied.

Where there are multiple cases in one state they have been
consolidated before one district court judge in each state and
scheduled for the filing of consolidated complaints and motion
practice.

In 2009, the complaints filed in Texas were dismissed with
prejudice, but the plaintiffs have appealed.

On March 30, 2010, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
the dismissal of the Texas complaint.

Fidelity National Financial, Inc. -- http://www.fnf.com/--  
provides title insurance, mortgage services, specialty insurance,
claims management services and information services.  FNF is the
nation's largest title insurance company through its title
insurance underwriters - Fidelity National Title, Chicago Title,
Commonwealth Land Title, Lawyers Title, Ticor Title, Security
Union Title and Alamo Title - that collectively issue more title
insurance policies than any other title company in the United
States.  FNF also provides flood insurance, personal lines
insurance and home warranty insurance through its specialty
insurance business.  FNF also is a leading provider of outsourced
claims management services to large corporate and public sector
entities through its minority-owned subsidiary, Sedgwick CMS.  
FNF is also a leading information services company in the human
resource, retail and transportation markets through another
minority-owned subsidiary, Ceridian Corporation.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Arkansas and Washington Complaints Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Putative class actions against Fidelity National Financial, Inc.,
filed in Arkansas and Washington have been dismissed, according
to the company's April 26, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

In February 2008, thirteen putative class actions were commenced
against several title insurance companies, including Fidelity
National Title Insurance Company, Chicago Title Insurance
Company, Security Union Title Insurance Company, Alamo Title
Insurance Company, Ticor Title Insurance Company of Florida,
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, LandAmerica New Jersey
Title Insurance Company (n/k/a Continental Title Insurance
Company), Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation, Transnation Title
Insurance Company (which has merged into Lawyers Title Insurance
Corporation), and Ticor Title Insurance Company.

The complaints also name Fidelity National Financial, Inc. as a
defendant based on its ownership of the Fidelity Affiliates.

The complaints, which are brought on behalf of a putative class
of consumers who purchased title insurance in New York, allege
that the defendants conspired to inflate rates for title
insurance through the Title Insurance Rate Service Association,
Inc. (TIRSA), a New York State-approved rate service organization
which is also named as a defendant.

Each of the complaints asserts a cause of action under the
Sherman Act and several of the complaints include claims under
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act as well as New York
State statutory and common law claims.  The complaints seek
monetary damages, including treble damages, as well as injunctive
relief.

Subsequently, similar complaints were filed in many federal
courts.  A motion was filed before the Multidistrict Litigation
Panel to consolidate and/or coordinate these actions in the U.S.
District Court in the Southern District of New York.  

However, that motion was denied.

Where there are multiple cases in one state they have been
consolidated before one district court judge in each state and
scheduled for the filing of consolidated complaints and motion
practice.

The complaints in Arkansas and Washington were dismissed with
leave to amend, but the plaintiffs have not amended.

Fidelity National Financial, Inc. -- http://www.fnf.com/--  
provides title insurance, mortgage services, specialty insurance,
claims management services and information services.  FNF is the
nation's largest title insurance company through its title
insurance underwriters - Fidelity National Title, Chicago Title,
Commonwealth Land Title, Lawyers Title, Ticor Title, Security
Union Title and Alamo Title - that collectively issue more title
insurance policies than any other title company in the United
States.  FNF also provides flood insurance, personal lines
insurance and home warranty insurance through its specialty
insurance business.  FNF also is a leading provider of outsourced
claims management services to large corporate and public sector
entities through its minority-owned subsidiary, Sedgwick CMS.  
FNF is also a leading information services company in the human
resource, retail and transportation markets through another
minority-owned subsidiary, Ceridian Corporation.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Appeals Denial of California Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of Fidelity National Financial, Inc., on the denial of
the motion to dismiss an amended complaint filed in California
remains pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, according
to the company's April 26, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

In February 2008, thirteen putative class actions were commenced
against several title insurance companies, including Fidelity
National Title Insurance Company, Chicago Title Insurance
Company, Security Union Title Insurance Company, Alamo Title
Insurance Company, Ticor Title Insurance Company of Florida,
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, LandAmerica New Jersey
Title Insurance Company (n/k/a Continental Title Insurance
Company), Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation, Transnation Title
Insurance Company (which has merged into Lawyers Title Insurance
Corporation), and Ticor Title Insurance Company.

The complaints also name Fidelity National Financial, Inc. as a
defendant based on its ownership of the Fidelity Affiliates.

The complaints, which are brought on behalf of a putative class
of consumers who purchased title insurance in New York, allege
that the defendants conspired to inflate rates for title
insurance through the Title Insurance Rate Service Association,
Inc. (TIRSA), a New York State-approved rate service organization
which is also named as a defendant.

Each of the complaints asserts a cause of action under the
Sherman Act and several of the complaints include claims under
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act as well as New York
State statutory and common law claims.  The complaints seek
monetary damages, including treble damages, as well as injunctive
relief.

Subsequently, similar complaints were filed in many federal
courts.  A motion was filed before the Multidistrict Litigation
Panel to consolidate and/or coordinate these actions in the U.S.
District Court in the Southern District of New York.  However,
that motion was denied.

Where there are multiple cases in one state they have been
consolidated before one district court judge in each state and
scheduled for the filing of consolidated complaints and motion
practice.

The complaint in California was dismissed with leave to amend,
the plaintiffs have amended, and the companies have moved to
dismiss the amended complaint and the court denied the motion.  
The companies moved to appeal from the interlocutory denial of
the motion to dismiss and the motion was granted by the District
Court.  The companies have filed a petition in the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeal for review of the interlocutory order.

Fidelity National Financial, Inc. -- http://www.fnf.com/--  
provides title insurance, mortgage services, specialty insurance,
claims management services and information services.  FNF is the
nation's largest title insurance company through its title
insurance underwriters - Fidelity National Title, Chicago Title,
Commonwealth Land Title, Lawyers Title, Ticor Title, Security
Union Title and Alamo Title - that collectively issue more title
insurance policies than any other title company in the United
States.  FNF also provides flood insurance, personal lines
insurance and home warranty insurance through its specialty
insurance business.  FNF also is a leading provider of outsourced
claims management services to large corporate and public sector
entities through its minority-owned subsidiary, Sedgwick CMS.  
FNF is also a leading information services company in the human
resource, retail and transportation markets through another
minority-owned subsidiary, Ceridian Corporation.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Motion to Dismiss Delaware Complaint Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc.'s motion to dismiss an amended
complaint filed in Delaware remains pending, according to the
company's April 26, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

In February 2008, thirteen putative class actions were commenced
against several title insurance companies, including Fidelity
National Title Insurance Company, Chicago Title Insurance
Company, Security Union Title Insurance Company, Alamo Title
Insurance Company, Ticor Title Insurance Company of Florida,
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, LandAmerica New Jersey
Title Insurance Company (n/k/a Continental Title Insurance
Company), Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation, Transnation Title
Insurance Company (which has merged into Lawyers Title Insurance
Corporation), and Ticor Title Insurance Company.

The complaints also name Fidelity National Financial, Inc. as a
defendant based on its ownership of the Fidelity Affiliates.

The complaints, which are brought on behalf of a putative class
of consumers who purchased title insurance in New York, allege
that the defendants conspired to inflate rates for title
insurance through the Title Insurance Rate Service Association,
Inc. (TIRSA), a New York State-approved rate service organization
which is also named as a defendant.


Each of the complaints asserts a cause of action under the
Sherman Act and several of the complaints include claims under
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act as well as New York
State statutory and common law claims.  The complaints seek
monetary damages, including treble damages, as well as injunctive
relief.

Subsequently, similar complaints were filed in many federal
courts.  A motion was filed before the Multidistrict Litigation
Panel to consolidate and/or coordinate these actions in the U.S.
District Court in the Southern District of New York.  However,
that motion was denied.

Where there are multiple cases in one state they have been
consolidated before one district court judge in each state and
scheduled for the filing of consolidated complaints and motion
practice.

The complaint in Delaware was dismissed, but the plaintiffs were
permitted to amend to state a claim for injunctive relief.

The plaintiffs amended, and the defendants have moved to dismiss
the amended complaint.

Fidelity National Financial, Inc. -- http://www.fnf.com/--  
provides title insurance, mortgage services, specialty insurance,
claims management services and information services.  FNF is the
nation's largest title insurance company through its title
insurance underwriters - Fidelity National Title, Chicago Title,
Commonwealth Land Title, Lawyers Title, Ticor Title, Security
Union Title and Alamo Title - that collectively issue more title
insurance policies than any other title company in the United
States.  FNF also provides flood insurance, personal lines
insurance and home warranty insurance through its specialty
insurance business.  FNF also is a leading provider of outsourced
claims management services to large corporate and public sector
entities through its minority-owned subsidiary, Sedgwick CMS.  
FNF is also a leading information services company in the human
resource, retail and transportation markets through another
minority-owned subsidiary, Ceridian Corporation.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Summary Judgment Motion in Penn. Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc., has filed a motion for summary
judgment in a complaint pending in Pennsylvania, filed in
Delaware has been dismissed, according to the company's April 26,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

In February 2008, thirteen putative class actions were commenced
against several title insurance companies, including Fidelity
National Title Insurance Company, Chicago Title Insurance
Company, Security Union Title Insurance Company, Alamo Title
Insurance Company, Ticor Title Insurance Company of Florida,
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, LandAmerica New Jersey
Title Insurance Company (n/k/a Continental Title Insurance
Company), Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation, Transnation Title
Insurance Company (which has merged into Lawyers Title Insurance
Corporation), and Ticor Title Insurance Company.

The complaints also name Fidelity National Financial, Inc. as a
defendant based on its ownership of the Fidelity Affiliates.

The complaints, which are brought on behalf of a putative class
of consumers who purchased title insurance in New York, allege
that the defendants conspired to inflate rates for title
insurance through the Title Insurance Rate Service Association,
Inc. (TIRSA), a New York State-approved rate service organization
which is also named as a defendant.

Each of the complaints asserts a cause of action under the
Sherman Act and several of the complaints include claims under
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act as well as New York
State statutory and common law claims.  The complaints seek
monetary damages, including treble damages, as well as injunctive
relief.

Subsequently, similar complaints were filed in many federal
courts.  A motion was filed before the Multidistrict Litigation
Panel to consolidate and/or coordinate these actions in the U.S.
District Court in the Southern District of New York.  However,
that motion was denied.

Where there are multiple cases in one state they have been
consolidated before one district court judge in each state and
scheduled for the filing of consolidated complaints and motion
practice.

The damage claims in the Pennsylvania cases were dismissed, but
the plaintiffs were permitted to pursue injunctive relief.

The plaintiffs were permitted limited discovery.  The defendants
filed a motion for summary judgment on March 22, 2010.

Fidelity National Financial, Inc. -- http://www.fnf.com/--  
provides title insurance, mortgage services, specialty insurance,
claims management services and information services.  FNF is the
nation's largest title insurance company through its title
insurance underwriters - Fidelity National Title, Chicago Title,
Commonwealth Land Title, Lawyers Title, Ticor Title, Security
Union Title and Alamo Title - that collectively issue more title
insurance policies than any other title company in the United
States.  FNF also provides flood insurance, personal lines
insurance and home warranty insurance through its specialty
insurance business.  FNF also is a leading provider of outsourced
claims management services to large corporate and public sector
entities through its minority-owned subsidiary, Sedgwick CMS.  
FNF is also a leading information services company in the human
resource, retail and transportation markets through another
minority-owned subsidiary, Ceridian Corporation.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Ohio Lawsuit Over Title Insurance Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action against Fidelity National Financial,
Inc., filed in Ohio has been dismissed, according to the
company's April 26, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

In February 2008, thirteen putative class actions were commenced
against several title insurance companies, including Fidelity
National Title Insurance Company, Chicago Title Insurance
Company, Security Union Title Insurance Company, Alamo Title
Insurance Company, Ticor Title Insurance Company of Florida,
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, LandAmerica New Jersey
Title Insurance Company (n/k/a Continental Title Insurance
Company), Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation, Transnation Title
Insurance Company (which has merged into Lawyers Title Insurance
Corporation), and Ticor Title Insurance Company.

The complaints also name Fidelity National Financial, Inc. as a
defendant based on its ownership of the Fidelity Affiliates.

The complaints, which are brought on behalf of a putative class
of consumers who purchased title insurance in New York, allege
that the defendants conspired to inflate rates for title
insurance through the Title Insurance Rate Service Association,
Inc. (TIRSA), a New York State-approved rate service organization
which is also named as a defendant.

Each of the complaints asserts a cause of action under the
Sherman Act and several of the complaints include claims under
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act as well as New York
State statutory and common law claims.  The complaints seek
monetary damages, including treble damages, as well as injunctive
relief.

Subsequently, similar complaints were filed in many federal
courts.  A motion was filed before the Multidistrict Litigation
Panel to consolidate and/or coordinate these actions in the U.S.
District Court in the Southern District of New York.  However,
that motion was denied.

Where there are multiple cases in one state they have been
consolidated before one district court judge in each state and
scheduled for the filing of consolidated complaints and motion
practice.

The Ohio complaint was dismissed on March 31, 2010.

Fidelity National Financial, Inc. -- http://www.fnf.com/--  
provides title insurance, mortgage services, specialty insurance,
claims management services and information services.  FNF is the
nation's largest title insurance company through its title
insurance underwriters - Fidelity National Title, Chicago Title,
Commonwealth Land Title, Lawyers Title, Ticor Title, Security
Union Title and Alamo Title - that collectively issue more title
insurance policies than any other title company in the United
States.  FNF also provides flood insurance, personal lines
insurance and home warranty insurance through its specialty
insurance business.  FNF also is a leading provider of outsourced
claims management services to large corporate and public sector
entities through its minority-owned subsidiary, Sedgwick CMS.  
FNF is also a leading information services company in the human
resource, retail and transportation markets through another
minority-owned subsidiary, Ceridian Corporation.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Motion to Dismiss Amended NJ Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc.'s motion to dismiss an amended
class action filed in New Jersey remains pending, according to
the company's April 26, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

In February 2008, thirteen putative class actions were commenced
against several title insurance companies, including Fidelity
National Title Insurance Company, Chicago Title Insurance
Company, Security Union Title Insurance Company, Alamo Title
Insurance Company, Ticor Title Insurance Company of Florida,
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, LandAmerica New Jersey
Title Insurance Company (n/k/a Continental Title Insurance
Company), Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation, Transnation Title
Insurance Company (which has merged into Lawyers Title Insurance
Corporation), and Ticor Title Insurance Company.

The complaints also name Fidelity National Financial, Inc. as a
defendant based on its ownership of the Fidelity Affiliates.

The complaints, which are brought on behalf of a putative class
of consumers who purchased title insurance in New York, allege
that the defendants conspired to inflate rates for title
insurance through the Title Insurance Rate Service Association,
Inc. (TIRSA), a New York State-approved rate service organization
which is also named as a defendant.

Each of the complaints asserts a cause of action under the
Sherman Act and several of the complaints include claims under
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act as well as New York
State statutory and common law claims.  The complaints seek
monetary damages, including treble damages, as well as injunctive
relief.

Subsequently, similar complaints were filed in many federal
courts.  A motion was filed before the Multidistrict Litigation
Panel to consolidate and/or coordinate these actions in the U.S.
District Court in the Southern District of New York.  However,
that motion was denied.

Where there are multiple cases in one state they have been
consolidated before one district court judge in each state and
scheduled for the filing of consolidated complaints and motion
practice.

In New Jersey, the company's motion to dismiss the amended
complaint remains under submission.

Fidelity National Financial, Inc. -- http://www.fnf.com/--  
provides title insurance, mortgage services, specialty insurance,
claims management services and information services.  FNF is the
nation's largest title insurance company through its title
insurance underwriters - Fidelity National Title, Chicago Title,
Commonwealth Land Title, Lawyers Title, Ticor Title, Security
Union Title and Alamo Title - that collectively issue more title
insurance policies than any other title company in the United
States.  FNF also provides flood insurance, personal lines
insurance and home warranty insurance through its specialty
insurance business.  FNF also is a leading provider of outsourced
claims management services to large corporate and public sector
entities through its minority-owned subsidiary, Sedgwick CMS.  
FNF is also a leading information services company in the human
resource, retail and transportation markets through another
minority-owned subsidiary, Ceridian Corporation.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: West Virginia Suit Remains in Inactive Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action against Fidelity National Financial,
Inc., filed in West Virginia remains inactive, according to the
company's April 26, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

In February 2008, thirteen putative class actions were commenced
against several title insurance companies, including Fidelity
National Title Insurance Company, Chicago Title Insurance
Company, Security Union Title Insurance Company, Alamo Title
Insurance Company, Ticor Title Insurance Company of Florida,
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, LandAmerica New Jersey
Title Insurance Company (n/k/a Continental Title Insurance
Company), Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation, Transnation Title
Insurance Company (which has merged into Lawyers Title Insurance
Corporation), and Ticor Title Insurance Company.

The complaints also name Fidelity National Financial, Inc. as a
defendant based on its ownership of the Fidelity Affiliates.

The complaints, which are brought on behalf of a putative class
of consumers who purchased title insurance in New York, allege
that the defendants conspired to inflate rates for title
insurance through the Title Insurance Rate Service Association,
Inc. (TIRSA), a New York State-approved rate service organization
which is also named as a defendant.

Each of the complaints asserts a cause of action under the
Sherman Act and several of the complaints include claims under
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act as well as New York
State statutory and common law claims.  The complaints seek
monetary damages, including treble damages, as well as injunctive
relief.

Subsequently, similar complaints were filed in many federal
courts.  A motion was filed before the Multidistrict Litigation
Panel to consolidate and/or coordinate these actions in the U.S.
District Court in the Southern District of New York.  However,
that motion was denied.

Where there are multiple cases in one state they have been
consolidated before one district court judge in each state and
scheduled for the filing of consolidated complaints and motion
practice.

In West Virginia, the case has been placed on the inactive list
pending the resolution of the LandAmerica bankruptcy.

Fidelity National Financial, Inc. -- http://www.fnf.com/--  
provides title insurance, mortgage services, specialty insurance,
claims management services and information services.  FNF is the
nation's largest title insurance company through its title
insurance underwriters - Fidelity National Title, Chicago Title,
Commonwealth Land Title, Lawyers Title, Ticor Title, Security
Union Title and Alamo Title - that collectively issue more title
insurance policies than any other title company in the United
States.  FNF also provides flood insurance, personal lines
insurance and home warranty insurance through its specialty
insurance business.  FNF also is a leading provider of outsourced
claims management services to large corporate and public sector
entities through its minority-owned subsidiary, Sedgwick CMS.  
FNF is also a leading information services company in the human
resource, retail and transportation markets through another
minority-owned subsidiary, Ceridian Corporation.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Florida & Mass. Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Putative class action complaints against Fidelity National
Financial, Inc., filed in Florida and Massachusetts have been
voluntarily dismissed, according to the company's April 26, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

In February 2008, thirteen putative class actions were commenced
against several title insurance companies, including Fidelity
National Title Insurance Company, Chicago Title Insurance
Company, Security Union Title Insurance Company, Alamo Title
Insurance Company, Ticor Title Insurance Company of Florida,
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, LandAmerica New Jersey
Title Insurance Company (n/k/a Continental Title Insurance
Company), Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation, Transnation Title
Insurance Company (which has merged into Lawyers Title Insurance
Corporation), and Ticor Title Insurance Company.

The complaints also name Fidelity National Financial, Inc. as a
defendant based on its ownership of the Fidelity Affiliates.

The complaints, which are brought on behalf of a putative class
of consumers who purchased title insurance in New York, allege
that the defendants conspired to inflate rates for title
insurance through the Title Insurance Rate Service Association,
Inc. (TIRSA), a New York State-approved rate service organization
which is also named as a defendant.

Each of the complaints asserts a cause of action under the
Sherman Act and several of the complaints include claims under
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act as well as New York
State statutory and common law claims.  The complaints seek
monetary damages, including treble damages, as well as injunctive
relief.

Subsequently, similar complaints were filed in many federal
courts.  A motion was filed before the Multidistrict Litigation
Panel to consolidate and/or coordinate these actions in the U.S.
District Court in the Southern District of New York.  

However, that motion was denied.

Where there are multiple cases in one state they have been
consolidated before one district court judge in each state and
scheduled for the filing of consolidated complaints and motion
practice.

The complaints filed in Florida and Massachusetts were all
voluntarily dismissed.

Fidelity National Financial, Inc. -- http://www.fnf.com/--  
provides title insurance, mortgage services, specialty insurance,
claims management services and information services.  FNF is the
nation's largest title insurance company through its title
insurance underwriters - Fidelity National Title, Chicago Title,
Commonwealth Land Title, Lawyers Title, Ticor Title, Security
Union Title and Alamo Title - that collectively issue more title
insurance policies than any other title company in the United
States.  FNF also provides flood insurance, personal lines
insurance and home warranty insurance through its specialty
insurance business.  FNF also is a leading provider of outsourced
claims management services to large corporate and public sector
entities through its minority-owned subsidiary, Sedgwick CMS.  
FNF is also a leading information services company in the human
resource, retail and transportation markets through another
minority-owned subsidiary, Ceridian Corporation.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Affiliates Still Defendants in Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc.'s affiliates remain a defendant
in a fifth amended third party complaint over the matter In Re
Ameriquest Mortgage Lending Practices Litigation, according to
the company's April 26, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

On Sept. 24, 2007, a third party complaint was filed in the In Re
Ameriquest Mortgage Lending Practices Litigation in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by
Ameriquest Mortgage Company and Argent Mortgage Company against
numerous title insurers and agents, including Chicago Title
Company, Fidelity National Title Company, Fidelity National Title
Insurance Company, American Pioneer Title Insurance Company
(n/k/a Ticor Title Insurance Company of Florida), Chicago Title
of Michigan, Fidelity National Title Insurance Company of New
York, Transnation Title Insurance Company (n/k/a Lawyers Title
Insurance Corporation), Commonwealth Land Title Insurance
Company, Commonwealth Land Title Company, Lawyers Title Insurance
Corporation, Chicago Title Insurance Company, Alamo Title
Company, and Ticor Title Insurance Company.

The third party complaint alleges that Ameriquest and Argent have
been sued by a class of borrowers (and by numerous persons who
have preemptively opted out of any class that may be certified)
alleging that the two lenders violated the Truth in Lending Act
by failing to comply with the notice of right to cancel
provisions and making misrepresentations in lending to the
borrowers, who now seek money damages.

In the third party complaint, Ameriquest and Argent each alleges
that the FNF Affiliates contracted and warranted to close these
loans in conformity with the lender's instructions which
correctly followed the requirements of TILA and contained no
misrepresentations; therefore, if Ameriquest and Argent are
liable to the class or to the opt-out plaintiffs, then the FNF
Affiliates are liable to them for failing to close the lending
transactions as agreed.

Ameriquest and Argent seek to recover the cost of resolving the
class action and other cases against them including their
attorney's fees and costs in the action.  The Title Insurer
Defendants organized to form a defense group and, as requested by
the court, are exploring the possibility of filing a single
collective response.

The Seventh Circuit, in which circuit these matters are pending,
ruled in a separate case that TILA violations as alleged in these
complaints could not be the subject of a class action seeking
rescission, though the plaintiffs in the case against Ameriquest
and Argent have not yet sought class certification and so the
court in their case has not yet ruled on the applicability of the
Court of Appeals' decision (which, in any event, would not affect
the cases of individual plaintiffs).  Ameriquest filed its fifth
amended third party complaint against the defendants, and the
Title Insurer Defendants moved to dismiss.

On Jan. 19, 2010, the court granted the motion as to the
negligence claims, but denied the motion as to the contract
claims and negligent misrepresentation claims.  The Title Insurer
Defendants will answer the Fifth Amended complaint.

Fidelity National Financial, Inc. -- http://www.fnf.com/--  
provides title insurance, mortgage services, specialty insurance,
claims management services and information services.  FNF is the
nation's largest title insurance company through its title
insurance underwriters - Fidelity National Title, Chicago Title,
Commonwealth Land Title, Lawyers Title, Ticor Title, Security
Union Title and Alamo Title - that collectively issue more title
insurance policies than any other title company in the United
States.  FNF also provides flood insurance, personal lines
insurance and home warranty insurance through its specialty
insurance business.  FNF also is a leading provider of outsourced
claims management services to large corporate and public sector
entities through its minority-owned subsidiary, Sedgwick CMS.  
FNF is also a leading information services company in the human
resource, retail and transportation markets through another
minority-owned subsidiary, Ceridian Corporation.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Defends "Recording Fees" Suit in Missouri
------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc., continues to defend a class
action in Missouri relating to its alleged overcharges for
government recording fees, according to the company's April 26,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

There are class actions pending against Fidelity National
Financial, Inc., Fidelity National Title Group and several title
insurance companies, including Fidelity National Title Insurance
Company, Chicago Title Insurance Company, Lawyers Title Insurance
Corporation, Transnation Title Insurance Company (which has
merged into Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation), United Title
Company, Inc., and Ticor Title Insurance Company, alleging
overcharges for government recording fees.

These cases allege that the named defendant companies charged
fees in excess of the fees charged by government entities in
closing transactions and charged for documents releasing
encumbrances that were never recorded by the company.  These
suits seek various remedies including compensatory damages,
prejudgment interest, punitive damages and attorney's fees.

One case filed in Missouri in the summer of 2008 but removed to
the Federal District Court in Missouri, seeks to certify a
national class against Chicago Title Insurance Company.  Although
the Federal District Court in Kansas refused to certify a
national class previously filed by the same plaintiff's
attorneys, this suit seeks to overcome that Court's objections to
certification.  In September 2009, the company filed a motion to
deny class certification.

And, although similar cases filed in Indiana were decertified by
the appellate court and trial court, the Missouri courts have
refused to decertify a case now pending, which has been assigned
to a judge.

Fidelity National Financial, Inc. -- http://www.fnf.com/--  
provides title insurance, mortgage services, specialty insurance,
claims management services and information services.  FNF is the
nation's largest title insurance company through its title
insurance underwriters - Fidelity National Title, Chicago Title,
Commonwealth Land Title, Lawyers Title, Ticor Title, Security
Union Title and Alamo Title - that collectively issue more title
insurance policies than any other title company in the United
States.  FNF also provides flood insurance, personal lines
insurance and home warranty insurance through its specialty
insurance business.  FNF also is a leading provider of outsourced
claims management services to large corporate and public sector
entities through its minority-owned subsidiary, Sedgwick CMS.  
FNF is also a leading information services company in the human
resource, retail and transportation markets through another
minority-owned subsidiary, Ceridian Corporation.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Defends "Recording Fees" Suit in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc., continues to defend a class
action in connection with its alleged overcharging for government
recording fees in New Jersey.

There are class actions pending against Fidelity National
Financial, Inc., Fidelity National Title Group and several title
insurance companies, including Fidelity National Title Insurance
Company, Chicago Title Insurance Company, Lawyers Title Insurance
Corporation, Transnation Title Insurance Company (which has
merged into Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation), United Title
Company, Inc., and Ticor Title Insurance Company, alleging
overcharges for government recording fees.

These cases allege that the named defendant companies charged
fees in excess of the fees charged by government entities in
closing transactions and charged for documents releasing
encumbrances that were never recorded by the company.  These
suits seek various remedies including compensatory damages,
prejudgment interest, punitive damages and attorney's fees.

On Jan. 26, 2009, a recording fee class action was filed in New
Jersey.

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

Fidelity National Financial, Inc. -- http://www.fnf.com/--  
provides title insurance, mortgage services, specialty insurance,
claims management services and information services.  FNF is the
nation's largest title insurance company through its title
insurance underwriters - Fidelity National Title, Chicago Title,
Commonwealth Land Title, Lawyers Title, Ticor Title, Security
Union Title and Alamo Title - that collectively issue more title
insurance policies than any other title company in the United
States.  FNF also provides flood insurance, personal lines
insurance and home warranty insurance through its specialty
insurance business.  FNF also is a leading provider of outsourced
claims management services to large corporate and public sector
entities through its minority-owned subsidiary, Sedgwick CMS.  
FNF is also a leading information services company in the human
resource, retail and transportation markets through another
minority-owned subsidiary, Ceridian Corporation.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Fifth Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling granting
Fidelity National Financial, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment
in a class action filed in Texas, according to the company's
April 26, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

There are class actions pending against Fidelity National
Financial, Inc., Fidelity National Title Group and several title
insurance companies, including Fidelity National Title Insurance
Company, Chicago Title Insurance Company, Lawyers Title Insurance
Corporation, Transnation Title Insurance Company (which has
merged into Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation), United Title
Company, Inc., and Ticor Title Insurance Company, alleging
overcharges for government recording fees.

These cases allege that the named defendant companies charged
fees in excess of the fees charged by government entities in
closing transactions and charged for documents releasing
encumbrances that were never recorded by the company.  These
suits seek various remedies including compensatory damages,
prejudgment interest, punitive damages and attorney's fees.

On Jan. 30, 2009, the court granted the named defendants' motion
for summary judgment in the recording fee class action in the
Federal District Court in Texas, which alleged recording fee
overcharges in five states.  The plaintiff has appealed this
decision and oral argument was heard in the Fifth Circuit Court
of Appeals on Nov. 2, 2009.

On Jan. 15, 2010, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
Federal District Court's decision to grant the named defendants'
motion for summary judgment.

Fidelity National Financial, Inc. -- http://www.fnf.com/--  
provides title insurance, mortgage services, specialty insurance,
claims management services and information services.  FNF is the
nation's largest title insurance company through its title
insurance underwriters - Fidelity National Title, Chicago Title,
Commonwealth Land Title, Lawyers Title, Ticor Title, Security
Union Title and Alamo Title - that collectively issue more title
insurance policies than any other title company in the United
States.  FNF also provides flood insurance, personal lines
insurance and home warranty insurance through its specialty
insurance business.  FNF also is a leading provider of outsourced
claims management services to large corporate and public sector
entities through its minority-owned subsidiary, Sedgwick CMS.  
FNF is also a leading information services company in the human
resource, retail and transportation markets through another
minority-owned subsidiary, Ceridian Corporation.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Summary Judgment Pending in "Escrow Fee" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment
in a class action over its alleged "escrow fee," remains pending,
according to the company's April 26, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

There are class actions pending against Fidelity National Title
Company, Fidelity National Title Company of Washington, Inc., and
Chicago Title Insurance Company, alleging that the named
defendants in each case charged unnecessary reconveyance fees
without performing any separate service for those fees which was
not already included as a service for the "escrow fee."

Additionally, one of the cases alleges that the named defendants
wrongfully earned interest or other benefits on escrowed funds
from the time funds were deposited into escrow until any
disbursement checks cleared the account.

Motions for class certification were filed in both of these
cases, and the company then moved for summary judgment in both
cases and to continue the briefing of the class certification
motions until the summary judgment motions were determined.

Both courts granted the motions to continue class certification
briefing until the summary judgment motions were determined and
those motions were fully briefed and submitted.  In one of the
cases, the court granted summary judgment for the defendants.  
The other motion for summary judgment remains pending.

Fidelity National Financial, Inc. -- http://www.fnf.com/--  
provides title insurance, mortgage services, specialty insurance,
claims management services and information services.  FNF is the
nation's largest title insurance company through its title
insurance underwriters - Fidelity National Title, Chicago Title,
Commonwealth Land Title, Lawyers Title, Ticor Title, Security
Union Title and Alamo Title - that collectively issue more title
insurance policies than any other title company in the United
States.  FNF also provides flood insurance, personal lines
insurance and home warranty insurance through its specialty
insurance business.  FNF also is a leading provider of outsourced
claims management services to large corporate and public sector
entities through its minority-owned subsidiary, Sedgwick CMS.  
FNF is also a leading information services company in the human
resource, retail and transportation markets through another
minority-owned subsidiary, Ceridian Corporation.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Continues to Defend Suit it Hawaii
-----------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc., continues to defend a class
action alleging it wrongfully released funds from escrow,
according to the company's April 26, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

A class action has been filed in state court in Hawaii against
Fidelity National Title and Escrow of Hawaii, Inc., alleging the
company wrongfully released funds from escrow thereby engaging in
unfair or deceptive trade practices in violation of state
statute.  The suit seeks damages, treble damages, prejudgment
interest, attorney's fees and costs.

The company has answered the complaint and are investigating the
allegations informally and through discovery.

Fidelity National Financial, Inc. -- http://www.fnf.com/--  
provides  title insurance, mortgage services, specialty
insurance, claims management services and information services.  
FNF is the nation's largest title insurance company through its
title insurance underwriters - Fidelity National Title, Chicago
Title, Commonwealth Land Title, Lawyers Title, Ticor Title,
Security Union Title and Alamo Title - that collectively issue
more title insurance policies than any other title company in the
United States.  FNF also provides flood insurance, personal lines
insurance and home warranty insurance through its specialty
insurance business.  FNF also is a leading provider of outsourced
claims management services to large corporate and public sector
entities through its minority-owned subsidiary, Sedgwick CMS.  
FNF is also a leading information services company in the human
resource, retail and transportation markets through another
minority-owned subsidiary, Ceridian Corporation.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Continues to Defend Amended Suit in Nevada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc., continues to defend an amended
class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Nevada, according to the company's April 26, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010.

A class action filed in District Court in Nevada has been amended
to allege a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty in
handling escrows against Commonwealth Land Title Insurance
Company and Fidelity National Title Agency of Nevada, Inc.

The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages and
attorney's fees.

The company is investigating the allegations and have moved for a
more definite statement of the allegations against the company,
which was opposed by plaintiffs and is now fully briefed and
submitted.

Fidelity National Financial, Inc. -- http://www.fnf.com/--  
provides  title insurance, mortgage services, specialty
insurance, claims management services and information services.  
FNF is the nation's largest title insurance company through its
title insurance underwriters - Fidelity National Title, Chicago
Title, Commonwealth Land Title, Lawyers Title, Ticor Title,
Security Union Title and Alamo Title - that collectively issue
more title insurance policies than any other title company in the
United States.  FNF also provides flood insurance, personal lines
insurance and home warranty insurance through its specialty
insurance business.  FNF also is a leading provider of outsourced
claims management services to large corporate and public sector
entities through its minority-owned subsidiary, Sedgwick CMS.  
FNF is also a leading information services company in the human
resource, retail and transportation markets through another
minority-owned subsidiary, Ceridian Corporation.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Class Certification Granted in Illinois Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois District Court of Appeal has issued an order
reversing a decision by the lower and directed that class
certification be granted in a complaint against Fidelity National
Financial, Inc., according to the company's April 26, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Two class action complaints are pending in the Illinois state
court against Chicago Title Insurance Company, Ticor Title
Insurance Company, Chicago Title and Trust Company and Fidelity
National Financial, Inc., alleging the companies violated the
Illinois Title Insurance Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act
and have been unjustly enriched through the practice of paying
Illinois attorney's agency fees.

The complaints allege the payments are in exchange for the
referral of business and the attorneys do not perform any "core
title services".  The motions to certify the classes were denied
on May 26, 2009, but the plaintiffs appealed.

The appeal was fully briefed and the court heard oral arguments
on Feb. 25, 2010.

On April 15, 2010, the Illinois District Court of Appeal issued
an order reversing the lower court and directing that class
certification be granted.

Fidelity National Financial, Inc. -- http://www.fnf.com/--  
provides title insurance, mortgage services, specialty insurance,
claims management services and information services.  FNF is the
nation's largest title insurance company through its title
insurance underwriters - Fidelity National Title, Chicago Title,
Commonwealth Land Title, Lawyers Title, Ticor Title, Security
Union Title and Alamo Title - that collectively issue more title
insurance policies than any other title company in the United
States.  FNF also provides flood insurance, personal lines
insurance and home warranty insurance through its specialty
insurance business.  FNF also is a leading provider of outsourced
claims management services to large corporate and public sector
entities through its minority-owned subsidiary, Sedgwick CMS.  
FNF is also a leading information services company in the human
resource, retail and transportation markets through another
minority-owned subsidiary, Ceridian Corporation.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Units Continue to Defend Two Suits in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to
defend two putative class actions in California alleging failure
to pay overtime, according to the company's April 26, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On Dec. 3, 2007, a former title officer in California filed a
putative class action suit against Lawyers Title Company, and
LandAmerica Financial Group, Inc.

The lawsuits were later amended to include Commonwealth Land
Title Company and Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company as
defendants in the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles
County.  A similar putative class action was filed against the
Defendants by former escrow officers in California, in the same
court on Dec. 12, 2007.

The plaintiffs' complaints in both lawsuits allege failure to pay
overtime and other related violations of the California Labor
Code, as well as unfair business practices under the California
Business and Professions Code Section 17200 on behalf of all
current and former California title and escrow officers.

The underlying basis for both lawsuits is an alleged
misclassification of title and escrow officers as "exempt"
employees for purposes of the California Labor Code, which
resulted in a failure to pay overtime and provide for required
meal and rest breaks.

Although such employees were reclassified as "non-exempt"
beginning on Jan. 1, 2006, the complaints allege similar
violations of the California Labor Code even after that date for
alleged "off-the-clock" work.

The plaintiffs' complaints in both cases demand an unspecified
amount of back wages, statutory penalties, declaratory and
injunctive relief, punitive damages, interest, and attorneys'
fees and costs.

The plaintiffs have yet to file a motion for class certification,
as the parties have agreed to mediation.

A mediation date was scheduled for April 28, 2010.

Fidelity National Financial, Inc. -- http://www.fnf.com/--  
provides title insurance, mortgage services, specialty insurance,
claims management services and information services.  FNF is the
nation's largest title insurance company through its title
insurance underwriters - Fidelity National Title, Chicago Title,
Commonwealth Land Title, Lawyers Title, Ticor Title, Security
Union Title and Alamo Title - that collectively issue more title
insurance policies than any other title company in the United
States.  FNF also provides flood insurance, personal lines
insurance and home warranty insurance through its specialty
insurance business.  FNF also is a leading provider of outsourced
claims management services to large corporate and public sector
entities through its minority-owned subsidiary, Sedgwick CMS.  
FNF is also a leading information services company in the human
resource, retail and transportation markets through another
minority-owned subsidiary, Ceridian Corporation.


GODADDY.COM INC: Sued in Ark. for Unlawfully Using Domain Names
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that a class action
claims GoDaddy.com is advertising on registered domain names
without consent of the domain owners.  The class claims the
"world's largest domain name registrar" is profiting from pay-
per-click revenue from ads it placed on class members' domain
names.

The lawsuit, filed in Phoenix and Arkansas federal courts, claims
that Go Daddy is "unlawfully generating and retaining revenue
derived from these online advertisements each time an Internet
user clicks an online advertisement appearing on plaintiff's
domain names."

The class claims to have acquired the exclusive use of their
purchased domain names when they registered the names through
GoDaddy.com and paid the fees.

Class representative Matthew McBride says he registered four
domain names with GoDaddy, which later placed "advertisements for
products or services that they believe are contextually relevant"
to the domain names to generate pay-per-click revenue.

Mr. McBride says he did not authorize Go Daddy to use his domain
names, and the company did not disclose that it would use the
domain names for ads to pad its bottom line when he bought the
names from it.

In pay-per-click advertising, "online advertisers agree to pay a
certain price for each click-through on an online advertisement,"
the complaint states.  With each click-through, an online
advertiser "pays a fee to a search engine company, such as Google
or Yahoo!, in exchange for publishing the advertisement on the
website."

The class wants Go Daddy enjoined from "converting and using
domain names registered by plaintiff and the other members of the
class for defendants' own benefit."

It also wants Go Daddy enjoined from keeping any pay-per-click
revenue from registered domain names, and from posting any ads
without the parties' agreement.

A copy of the Complaint in McBride, et al. v. GoDaddy.com, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 10-cv-00940 (W.D. Ark.), is available at:

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John C. Goodson, Esq.
          KEIL & GOODSON
          611 Pecan St.
          Texarkana, AR 71854-5337
          Telephone: 870-772-4113

               - and -

          James M. Pratt, Jr.
          144 Washington N.W.
          Camden, AR 71701
          Telephone: 870-836-7328

               - and -

          Shirley Jones, Esq.
          WILSON, ENGSTROM, CORUM & COULTER
          200 South Commerce, Suite 600
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: 501-375-6453


GOLDMAN SACHS: S.D.N.Y. ABACUS Disclosure Shareholder Suit Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zamansky & Associates LLC -- http://www.zamansky.com/-- and  
Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP -- http://www.lshllp.com/--  
filed a class action complaint on April 30, 2010, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of shares of the common stock of Goldman
Sachs Group, Inc., between January 2, 2007, and the time it was
publicly revealed on April 16, 2010, that the Securities and
Exchange Commission had sued Goldman in connection with its
misconduct relating to the structuring and sale of ABACUS 2007-
AC1, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.  The case has been assigned Civil Action No. 10-cv-3616
before the Hon. Barbara Jones.

A copy of the Complaint in Afshani v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 10-cv-0366 (S.D.N.Y.), is available at:

     http://www.zamansky.com/files/10-04-30-stamped-complaint.pdf

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than Friday, June 25, 2010. If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel:

          Jacob H. Zamansky, Esq.
          Edward H. Glenn, Jr., Esq.
          Kevin D. Galbraith, Esq.
          ZAMANSKY & ASSOCIATES LLC
          50 Broadway, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: 212-742-1414
          E-mail: Jacob@zamansky.com

               - and -  

          Christopher Lovell, Esq.
          Victor E. Stewart, Esq.
          Fred T. Isqueth, Esq.
          LOVELL STEWART HALEBAIN JACOBSON LLP
          61 Broadway, Suite 501
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: 212-608-1900

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's true financial condition, sources of revenues, business
and prospects in violation of the Exchange Act. Specifically, the
complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose that: (i)
the Company had, in violation of applicable law, not fully
disclosed the facts and circumstances concerning the formation
and sale of the ABACUS 2007-AC1 deal and other similar CDO deals
to investors and as a result had engaged in materially misleading
conduct; (ii) the Company had, in fact, bet against its clients
and constructed collateralized debt obligations that were likely,
if not designed, to fail while at the same time earning
substantial revenues from the such conduct; (iii) the Company had
received a Wells Notice from the SEC about the ABACUS transaction
but failed to inform shareholders of this fact until the SEC
brought a lawsuit against the Company alleging fraud based upon
the same conduct described in the Wells Notice; and (iv) should
the SEC file a formal complaint, as it eventually did, Goldman
could potentially suffer material adverse effects to its core
business lines and profitability, among other negative and
deleterious results.

After the market opened on April 16, 2010, it was revealed that
Goldman's U.S. broker-dealer, GS&C, had been sued by the SEC "for
making materially misleading statements and omissions in
connection" with ABACUS 2007-AC1. As news of Goldman's misconduct
reached the market, Goldman shares immediately plummeted $24.05
in price, declining from $184.27 per share on April 15, 2010 to
close at $160.70 per share on April 16, 2010. Goldman shares fell
an additional $15.04 per share on April 30, 2010 to close at
$145.20 per share in response to investor concerns about the
potential criminality of Goldman's misconduct.

Plaintiff is represented by the law firms of Zamansky &
Associates LLC and Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, two of
the country's premier national law firms that represent
institutional and individual investors in class action, complex
securities and corporate governance litigation. The firms have
achieved many notable results for investors over many years,
including some of the largest awards ever made under the
antitrust, securities and commodities laws, and have been
recognized for their reputation for excellence in class actions
and arbitrations by many courts.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Acknowledges Receipt of Six Shareholder Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Several putative shareholder derivative actions have been filed
in New York Supreme Court, New York County, and the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., its Board of Directors, and certain
officers and employees generally alleging claims for breach of
fiduciary duty, corporate waste, abuse of control, mismanagement
and unjust enrichment in connection with collateralized debt
obligation offerings made between 2004 and 2007, and challenging
the accuracy and completeness of Goldman Sachs' disclosure.  
These derivative complaints seek, among other things, declaratory
relief, unspecified compensatory damages, restitution and certain
corporate governance reforms.  In addition, plaintiffs in an
existing purported shareholder derivative action in the Delaware
Court of Chancery relating to compensation levels for 2009 have
amended their complaint to assert, among other things,
allegations similar to those in the derivative complaints
referred to above.

Goldman Sachs delivered copies of the five putative shareholder
derivative complaints and the amended putative shareholder
derivative complaint to the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission under cover of a Form 8-K on May 3, 2010.  

A copy of the Complaint in Rosinek v. Blankfein, et al., Index
No. _______ (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.), is available at
http://is.gd/bTxNaand the Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          Beth A. Keller, Esq.
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330

A copy of the Complaint in Spiegel v. Blankfein, et al., Index
No. _______ (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.), is available at
http://is.gd/bTxUJand the Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          Beth A. Keller, Esq.
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330

               - and -  

          Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
          James S. Notis, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          560 Sylvan Avenue, Third Floor
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Telephone: (201) 567-7377

A copy of the Complaint in Hubuschman v. Blankfein, et al., Case
No. 10-cv-03476 (S.D.N.Y.), is available at http://is.gd/bTy2h
and the Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas G. Amon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS G. AMON
          250 West 57th Street, Suite 1316
          New York, NY 10107
          Telephone: (212) 810-2430

               - and -  

          Michael I. Fistel, Esq.
          Marshall Dees, Esq.
          HOLZER HOLZER & FISTEL LLC
          200 Ashford Center North, Suite 300
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Telephone: (770) 392-0090

A copy of the Complaint in Richardson v. Blankfein, et al., Case
No. 10-cv-03505 (S.D.N.Y.) (Castel, J.), is available at
http://is.gd/bTybXand the Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert I. Harwood, Esq.
          HARWOOD FEFFER LLP
          488 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone (212) 935-7400

               - and -  

          Robert B. Weiser, Esq.
          Brett D. Stecker, Esq.
          Jeffrey J. Ciarlanto, Esq.
          THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          121 N. Wayne Avenue, Suite 100
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 225-2677

               - and -  

          Kathleen A. Herkenhoff, Esq.
          THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          12707 High Bluff Drive, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 794-1441

               - and -  

          Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
          Gerald L. Rutledge, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C.
          519 Allegheny Building
          429 Forbes Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 391-5164

A copy of the Amended Complaint, dated April 28, 2010, filed on
behalf of Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority and
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 98 Pension
Fund in In re The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Shareholder
Litigation, C.A. No. 5215-CC (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at
http://is.gd/bTyqgand the Plaintiffs are represented by:
  
          Pamela S. Tikellis, Esq.
          Robert J. Kriner, Esq.
          Tiffany J. Cramer, Esq.
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
          222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1100  
          P.O. Box 1035
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 656-2500

               - and -  

          John F. Harnes, Esq.
          CHITWOOD HARLEY HARNES LLP
          2300 Promenade II
          1230 Peachtree Street
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 873-3900

A copy of the Complaint in Clem v. Blankfein, et al., Case No.
10-cv-03578 (S.D.N.Y.), is available at http://is.gd/bTyBcand  
the Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas G. Amon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS G. AMON
          250 West 57th Street, Suite 1316
          New York, NY 10107
          Telephone: (212) 810-2430

               - and -  

          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          George C. Aguilar, Esq.
          Shane P. Sanders, Esq.
          Julia M. Williams, Esq.
          ROBBINS UMEDA LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990

Goldman Sachs also received a Shareholder Demand Letter, dated
April 23, 2010 -- a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/bTzcr-- from:

          Albert M. Myers, Esq.
          KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
          50 Poydras St., Suite 2150
          New Orleans LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 455-1400

threatening to file a new action or a motion with the Court to
reopen Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System v.
Blankfein, et al., Case No. 08-cv-07605 (S.D.N.Y., filed Aug. 28,
2009, and subsequently dismissed).


PALM INC: Being Sold for Too Little, Calif. Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Palm is selling itself too
cheaply to Hewlett-Packard, for $1.2 billion or $5.70 a share,
half the price it sold at 2 months ago, shareholders say in seven
class actions in Santa Clara County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Wong v. Palm, Inc., et al., Case No.
110CV170545 (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty.), is available
at:

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc M. Umeda, Esq.
          S. Benjamin Rozwood, Esq.
          Arshan Amiri, Esq.
          Jay N. Razzouk, Esq.
          ROBBINS UMEDA LLP
          600 B St., Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-525-3990


PFIZER INC: Supreme Court Junks Appeal in Celebrex Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the United States Supreme
Court on Monday refused to take up Pfizer's appeal seeking to
derail a class action accusing the drug maker of falsely touting
that its drug Celebrex was safer than traditional anti-
inflammatory drugs.

The justices' refusal to hear the appeal leaves in place a
decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit reinstating a securities fraud class action against
Pfizer and Pharmacia.

The federal appeals court in Philadelphia had ruled that
investors' claims were not barred by the two-year statute of
limitations, because investors had not been properly notified
about the alleged fraud.

"We conclude that investors are not put on inquiry notice of
fraud when an apparently legitimate scientific dispute arises
between the FDA and a pharmaceutical company," Judge Maryanne
Barry wrote, referring to FDA staff reports published in 2001.  
The first class action was filed in April 2003.

The Supreme Court rejected Pfizer's appeal without comment.


PINNACLE GROUP: S.D.N.Y. Certifies Tenant Class in RICO Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Comtois at Crain's New York reports that a federal district
court judge has given the go-ahead for a class-action lawsuit to
proceed against landlord Pinnacle Group NY and its chief
executive, Joel Weiner.

Plaintiffs Marjorie and Theodore Charron, Andres Mares-Muro,
Raymond Andrew Stahl-David, and Kim Powell allege that Pinnacle
and Mr. Weiner have engaged in a wide ranging scheme to harass
and intimidate its tenants and evade New York's rent regulation
laws with its properties. In addition, the plaintiffs charge that
Pinnacle's conduct violates the federal racketeering statute,
RICO, and the New York Consumer Protection Act.

In her April 27 opinion, which did not address whether or not
Pinnacle had violated RICO or the New York Consumer Protection
Act, Judge Colleen McMahon of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York certified two overlapping classes
to proceed against Pinnacle. She stated that if the plaintiffs'
allegations are true, then all of Pinnacle's rent-regulated
tenants "either have been subjected to, or are at risk of being
subjected to the same general course of allegedly fraudulent and
harassing conduct, the same pattern of racketeering."

According to Jenner & Block, the law firm appointed to serve as
lead counsel for the plaintiffs, the court certified a class
compromised of all persons who, as of April 27, 2010, are tenants
in rent-regulated apartments in New York City directly or
indirectly owned in whole or in part by the Pinnacle Enterprise.
The company controls or owns over 400 apartment buildings across
the city.

The court also certified a liability class so that those tenants
seeking damages for Pinnacle's conduct will have the opportunity
to prove that Pinnacle and Mr. Weiner violated RICO and state
consumer protection laws. The liability class is comprised of
anyone who was a tenant in a rent-regulated apartment in the city
directly or indirectly owned by Pinnacle at any time between July
11, 2004, and April 27, 2010.

Ms. McMahon directed Jenner & Block to submit a proposed method
of notifying all members of the liability class of the suit to
the court within 14 days.

Pinnacle's conduct has previously been the subject of an
enforcement action by the New York attorney general's office,
which resulted in Pinnacle repaying over $1 million to tenants.


RCN CORP: Inks MOU to Settle Delaware Suit Over Yankee Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
RCN Corporation has entered into a memorandum of understanding to
settle a class action complaint over its planned merger with
Yankee Cable Acquisition, LLC, pending in the Court of Chancery
in the State of Delaware, according to the company's April 27,
2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with
Yankee Cable Acquisition, LLC, Yankee Metro Parent, Inc., and
Yankee Metro Merger Sub, Inc. on March 5, 2010.  Cable Buyer,
Metro Parent and Merger Sub are controlled by a private equity
fund associated with ABRY Partners.  The company has scheduled a
special meeting of stockholders for May 19, 2010 at 10:00 a.m.
(Eastern time) at which company stockholders will be asked to
consider and vote on a proposal to adopt the Merger Agreement and
to approve the transactions contemplated thereby.  On April 21,
2010, the Company filed with the SEC, and mailed to its
stockholders of record, a definitive proxy statement on Schedule
14A relating to the solicitation of proxies by the Board of
Directors of the company in favor of a proposal to adopt the
Merger Agreement and to approve the transactions contemplated
thereby at the Special Meeting.

On March 8, 2010 and March 11, 2010, class action complaints were
filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware and the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,
respectively, on behalf of putative classes of company
stockholders and naming the company, all of the members of the
Board, Cable Buyer, Metro Parent, Merger Sub and, in the case of
the Delaware complaint, ABRY, as defendants.

On April 1, 2010, the Delaware plaintiff filed an amended class
action complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery under the
caption Murphy v. Levine, et al., Civil Action No. 5320-VCS, and
on April 12, 2010, the Virginia plaintiff filed an amended class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia under the caption Cohen v. Hillman, et al.,
Case No. 1:10cv237 (LMB/TCB).

The plaintiffs allege that, in connection with their approval of
the Merger Agreement and the preparation of the preliminary proxy
statement on Schedule 14A filed by the company with the SEC on
March 29, 2010, the members of the Board breached their fiduciary
duties and, in the case of the Virginia Action, violated certain
federal securities laws.  The plaintiffs further allege that
Cable Buyer, Metro Parent, Merger Sub and, in the case of the
Delaware Action, ABRY, aided and abetted the members of the Board
in the alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties.

The plaintiffs seek a determination that:

     (a) the respective lawsuits are proper class actions and
         that the plaintiffs are proper class representatives;

     (b) the orders preliminarily and permanently enjoining the
         consummation of the transactions contemplated by the
         Merger Agreement;

     (c) the orders rescinding or invalidating such transactions
         or awarding rescissory damages if consummated;

     (d) the orders directing the members of the Board to
         exercise their duties to obtain a transaction that is
         in the best interests of company stockholders and to
         make disclosure of all material information to
         stockholders;

     (e) the orders imposing a constructive trust, in favor of
         the plaintiff and the putative classes of company
         stockholders, upon any benefits improperly received by
         members of the Board and ABRY, Cable Buyer, Metro
         Parent and Merger Sub as a result of their allegedly
         wrongful conduct;

     (f) an accounting for all damages that the putative classes
         of company stockholders may sustain as a result of such
         allegedly wrongful conduct;

     (g) an accounting for all the profits and special benefits
         obtained as a result of such allegedly wrongful
         conduct;

     (h) an award of the costs of the lawsuit, including
         reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees and other
         costs;

     (i) in the case of the Virginia Action, an order that the
         proxy statement is materially misleading and contains
         material omissions in violation of certain federal
         securities laws; and

     (j) such other relief as the applicable courts may find
         just and proper.

On April 23, 2010, the company, the members of the Board, Cable
Buyer, Metro Parent, Merger Sub and ABRY executed a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiff in the Delaware Action
reflecting an agreement in principle to settle the Delaware
Action based upon the inclusion in the Definitive Proxy Statement
of certain additional disclosures that had been requested by the
plaintiff in the Delaware Action.

In contemplation of a potential settlement, the company included
these additional disclosures in the Definitive Proxy Statement
filed with the SEC, and mailed to company stockholders of record,
on April 21, 2010.  The company, the members of the Board, Cable
Buyer, Metro Parent, Merger Sub and ABRY each have denied, and
continue to deny, that they have committed or aided and abetted
in the commission of any violation of law or engaged in any of
the wrongful acts alleged in the Delaware Action, and maintain
that they have diligently and scrupulously complied with their
fiduciary, disclosure and other legal duties.

The company, the members of the Board, Cable Buyer, Metro Parent,
Merger Sub and ABRY believe that the Delaware Action is without
merit, and they have entered into the MOU solely to avoid the
risk of delaying the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement and to minimize the expense of litigation.  The MOU is
subject to customary conditions, including completion of
appropriate settlement documentation, completion of confirmatory
discovery to confirm the fairness of the settlement and approval
by the Delaware Court of Chancery.

If the settlement is consummated, the Delaware Action will be
dismissed with prejudice and the defendants and other released
persons will receive from or on behalf of all persons and
entities who held company common stock at any time from March 5,
2010, through the date of consummation of the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement a release of all claims
relating to the Merger Agreement and the transactions
contemplated thereby and the disclosure made in connection
therewith (including the claims asserted in the Virginia Action).

Members of the purported plaintiff class will be sent notice of
the proposed settlement, and a hearing before the Delaware Court
of Chancery will be scheduled regarding, among other things,
approval of the proposed settlement and any application by
plaintiffs' counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

Neither the MOU nor the proposed settlement would affect the
amount of the merger consideration that company stockholders
would be entitled to receive if the transactions contemplated by
the Merger Agreement are consummated.  Notwithstanding the
foregoing, there can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
Delaware Court of Chancery will approve a settlement even if the
parties enter into such a stipulation.

The Company intends to defend the remaining Virginia Action
vigorously.

RCN Corporation -- http://www.rcn.com/-- is a competitive  
broadband services provider delivering all-digital and high
definition video, high-speed internet and premium voice services
to residential and small-medium business customers under the
brand names of RCN and RCN Business Services, respectively.  In
addition, through its RCN Metro Optical Networks business unit,
RCN delivers fiber-based high-capacity data transport services to
large commercial customers, primarily large enterprises and
carriers, targeting the metropolitan central business districts
in the company's geographic markets.  RCN's primary service areas
include Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, Lehigh Valley (PA), New
York City, Boston and Chicago.


SOLUTIA INC: Continues to Defend Suit Over Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------
Solutia, Inc., continues to defend a purported class action
lawsuit alleging contamination in St. Clair County, Illinois.

In February 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois against Solutia,
Pharmacia, Monsanto and two other unrelated defendants alleging
the contamination of their property from PCBs, dioxins, furans,
and other alleged hazardous substances emanating from the
defendants' facilities in Sauget, Illinois (including our W.G.
Krummrich site in Sauget, Illinois).

The proposed class is comprised of residents who live within a
two-mile radius of the Sauget facilities.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages for medical monitoring and the
costs associated with remediation and removal of alleged
contaminants from their property.

In addition to the purported class action lawsuit, twenty
additional individual lawsuits have been filed since February
2009 against the same defendants (including Solutia) comprised of
claims from over one thousand individual residents of Illinois
who claim they suffered illnesses and/or injuries as well as
property damages as a result of the same PCB's, dioxins, furans,
and other alleged hazardous substances allegedly emanating from
the defendants' facilities in Sauget.  Moreover, two additional
individual lawsuits comprised of claims from eight plaintiffs
have been filed in Madison County, Illinois, alleging the
plaintiffs suffered illnesses resulting from exposure to benzene,
PCBs, dioxins, furans and other hazardous substances.

Upon assessment of the terms of the Monsanto Settlement Agreement
and other defenses available to the company, it believes the
probability of an unfavorable outcome to the company on the
Putnam County, West Virginia, Escambia County, Florida, and St.
Clair and Madison Counties, Illinois litigation against the
company is remote and, accordingly, the company has not recorded
a loss contingency.

No further developements were reported in the company's April 27,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Solutia Inc. http://www.Solutia.com/-- is a market-leading  
performance materials and specialty chemicals company.  The
company focuses on providing solutions for a better life through
a range of products, including: Saflex(R) interlayer for
laminated glass; CPFilms(R) aftermarket window films sold under
the LLumar(R) brand and others; and technical specialties
including the Flexsys(R) family of chemicals for the rubber
industry, Skydrol(R) aviation hydraulic fluid and Therminol(R)
heat transfer fluid.  Solutia's businesses are world leaders in
each of their market segments.  With its headquarters in St.
Louis, Missouri, USA, the company operates globally with
approximately 3,100 employees in more than 50 locations.


SOLUTIA INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment in ERISA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the summary judgment in favor of
Solutia Inc. on the sole claim against the company's U.S.
Employees' Pension Plan, remains pending, according to the
company's April 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

Starting in October 2005, separate purported class action
lawsuits were filed by current or former participants in the
company's U.S. pension plan, which were ultimately consolidated
in September 2006 into a single case.

The Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleged three separate
causes of action against the U.S. Plan:

     (1) the U.S. Plan violates ERISA by terminating interest
         credits on prior plan accounts at the age of 55;

     (2) the U.S. Plan is improperly backloaded in violation of
         ERISA; and

     (3) the U.S. Plan is discriminatory on the basis of age.

In September 2007, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' second and
third claims, and by consent of the parties, certified a class
action against the U.S. Plan only with respect to plaintiffs'
claim that the U.S. Plan violates ERISA by allegedly terminating
interest credits on prior plan accounts at the age of 55.

On June 11, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois entered a summary judgment in favor of the
U.S. Plan on the sole remaining claim against the U.S. Plan.

The district court entered its final appealable judgment in the
case on Sept. 29, 2009, and plaintiffs have appealed the decision
to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Solutia Inc. http://www.Solutia.com/-- is a market-leading  
performance materials and specialty chemicals company.  The
company focuses on providing solutions for a better life through
a range of products, including: Saflex(R) interlayer for
laminated glass; CPFilms(R) aftermarket window films sold under
the LLumar(R) brand and others; and technical specialties
including the Flexsys(R) family of chemicals for the rubber
industry, Skydrol(R) aviation hydraulic fluid and Therminol(R)
heat transfer fluid.  Solutia's businesses are world leaders in
each of their market segments.  With its headquarters in St.
Louis, Missouri, USA, the company operates globally with
approximately 3,100 employees in more than 50 locations.


TEMPUR-PEDIC: Plaintiffs' Appeal in "Jacobs" Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs in the matter Jacobs, et al. v.
Tempur-Pedic International, Inc., Case No. 07-cv-00002, remains
pending in the U.S. Circuit Court for the Eleventh Circuit on
Dec. 11, 2008, according to Tempur-Pedic International Inc.'s
April 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On Jan. 5, 2007 a purported class action was filed against the
company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, Rome Division.  The action alleges violations of federal
antitrust law arising from the pricing of Tempur-Pedic mattress
products by Tempur-Pedic North America and certain distributors.

The action further alleges a class of all purchasers of Tempur-
Pedic mattresses in the United States since Jan. 5, 2003 and
seeks damages and injunctive relief.

Count Two of the complaint was dismissed by the court on June 25,
2007 based on a motion filed by the company.  Then, following a
decision issued by the U.S. Supreme Court in Leegin Creative
Leather Prods., Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., on June 28, 2007, the company
filed a motion to dismiss the remaining two counts of the
complaint on July 10, 2007.

On Dec. 11, 2007, that motion was granted and, as a result,
judgment was entered in favor of the company and the plaintiffs'
complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

On Dec. 21, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a "Motion to Alter or
Amend Judgment," which has been fully briefed.

On May 1, 2008, that motion was denied.  The Jacobs appealed the
dismissal of their claims, and the parties argued the appeal
before the U.S. Circuit Court for the Eleventh Circuit on Dec.
11, 2008.

The matter has been taken under advisement by the court.

Tempur-Pedic International Inc. -- http://www.tempurpedic.com/--  
is a manufacturer, marketer and distributor of mattresses and
pillows, which it sells in approximately 80 countries under the
TEMPUR and Tempur-Pedic brands. The Company has two operating
segments: Domestic and International.  The Domestic operating
segment consists of United States manufacturing facilities, whose
customers include its United States distribution subsidiary and
certain third party distributors in the Americas.  The
International segment consists of its manufacturing facility in
Denmark, whose customers include all of the company's
distribution subsidiaries and third party distributors outside
the Domestic segment.


U.S. STEEL: Antitrust Suit Over Products Ongoing in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Steel Corp. continues to face several purported antitrust
class-action lawsuits in Illinois over steel products.

In a series of lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois beginning Sept. 12, 2008,
individual direct or indirect buyers of steel products have
asserted that eight steel manufacturers, including U. S. Steel,
conspired in violation of antitrust laws to restrict the domestic
production of raw steel and thereby to fix, raise, maintain or
stabilize the price of steel products in the United States.

The cases are filed as class-action lawsuits and claim treble
damages for the period 2005 to present, but do not allege any
damage amounts.

No further details were reported in the company's April 27, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

U.S. Steel Corp. -- http://www.ussteel.com-- is an integrated  
steel producer with production operations in North America and
Central Europe. The company has an annual raw steel production
capability of 24.3 million net tons (tons) in the North America
and 7.4 million tons in Central Europe. U. S. Steel is also
engaged in several other business activities, most of which are
related to steel manufacturing. These include the production of
coke in both in North America and Central Europe, and the
production of iron ore pellets from taconite, transportation
services (railroad and barge operations), real estate operations
and engineering and consulting services in North America.

                            *********

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  * * *