CAR_Public/100511.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, May 11, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 91

                            Headlines

CELLCOM ISRAEL: Israeli High Court Dismisses Class Action Suit
CELLULAR ONE: Unclaimed $2.4 Mil. Benefits Md. Legal Aid Clinics
COMCAST CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Penn.
COMCAST CORP: Wants Philadelphia Plaintiffs' Claims Dismissed
COMCAST CORP: "Brantley" Plaintiffs Appealing Dismissal of Suit

COMCAST CORP: Pennsylvania Court Certifies Class in "Urban" Suit
CYBERSOURCE CORP: Being Sold to Visa for Too Little, Suit Claims
DOLLAR THRIFTY: Being Sold to Hertz for Too Little, Suit Says
EARL BRADLEY: Medical Center Doesn't Oppose Class Action Bid
EBAY INC: Court Okays Summary Judgment Motion in Antitrust Suit

ERNST & YOUNG: Accused in Calif. Suit of Wrongful Termination
EQUINIX INC: Approval of Settlement Agreement Still Pending
GLOBAL CLIENT: Sued for Offering Bogus Debt Settlement Services
HECKMANN CORP: Accused in Del. Suit of Misleading Shareholders
HECKMANN CORP: Denies Allegations in China Water Securities Suit

HUGOTON ROYALTY: Court Decertifies Class in "Beer" Suit
MAXIM INTEGRATED: Inks Stock Option Class Action Settlement Pact
MEAD JOHNSON: Accused in Ala. Suit of Deceptive Advertising
MEDCO HEALTH: Court Denies Attorney's Fees in PolyMedica Suit
MEDCO HEALTH: Continues to Defend Suit by Alameda Drug in Calif.

MEDCO HEALTH: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in Pennsylvania
MEDCO HEALTH: "Jones" Suit in New York Terminated
MEDCO HEALTH: Continues to Defend Suit by Union 1529
NETFLIX INC: Subscriber Privacy Violations Suit Dismissed
NETFLIX INC: Wants Amended Complaint Over DVD Sales Dismissed

NEW YORK: N.Y. Sup. Ct. Reinstates Public Defense System Lawsuit
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Remanded ERISA Suit Remains Pending in Calif.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Plaintiffs Appeal Class Certification Denial
ORION BANCORP: Employees Sue to Recover 401(k) Losses
PINNACLE GROUP: S.D.N.Y. Certifies Riverside Tenants' Class

ROYAL BANK: Continues to Defend Suit in New York
ROYAL BANK: Remains a Defendant in Securities-Related Suits
TOYOTA MOTOR: Judge Fischer Tells Parties to Solve Discovery Spat
UNITED STATES: Indian Trust Fund Settlement Legal Fees at Issue
WELLPOINT INC: State's Appeal in "Gold" Suit Remains Pending

WELLPOINT INC: Continues to Defend "Ormond" Suit in Indiana
WELLPOINT INC: Plaintiffs Appealing Dismissal of "Mell" Suit
WELLPOINT INC: Continues to Defend "Jorling" Lawsuit
WELLPOINT INC: Summary Judgment Bid in Dentists' Suit Pending
WELLPOINT INC: Wants Consolidated "OON" Suit Dismissed

* Australian Securities Class Actions Filings Hit Record in 2009

                            *********

CELLCOM ISRAEL: Israeli High Court Dismisses Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Israeli Supreme Court dismissed an appeal regarding the
dismissal of a purported class action filed against Cellcom
Israel Ltd. (NYSE: CEL) (and another cellular operator) in the
District Court of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa in December 2002, in connection
with the Company's incoming call tariff to subscribers of other
operators when calling the Company's subscribers during the
period before the regulation of interconnect fees. The dismissal
of the appeal followed its withdrawal by the appellants at the
recommendation of the Supreme Court.  Had the lawsuit been
certified as a class action, the amount claimed from Cellcom was
estimated by the plaintiffs to be NIS 1.6 billion.

                        About Cellcom Israel

Cellcom Israel Ltd. -- http://www.cellcom.co.il/-- established  
in 1994, is the leading Israeli cellular provider; Cellcom Israel
provides its approximately 3.292 million subscribers (as at
December 31, 2009) with a broad range of value added services
including cellular and landline telephony, roaming services for
tourists in Israel and for its subscribers abroad and additional
services in the areas of music, video, mobile office etc., based
on Cellcom Israel's technologically advanced infrastructure. The
Company operates an HSPA 3.5 Generation network enabling advanced
high speed broadband multimedia services, in addition to
GSM/GPRS/EDGE and TDMA networks. Cellcom Israel offers Israel's
broadest and largest customer service infrastructure including
telephone customer service centers, retail stores, and service
and sale centers, distributed nationwide. Through its broad
customer service network Cellcom Israel offers its customers
technical support, account information, direct to the door parcel
services, internet and fax services, dedicated centers for the
hearing impaired, etc. As of 2006, Cellcom Israel, through its
wholly owned subsidiary Cellcom Fixed Line Communications L.P.,
provides landline telephone communication services in Israel, in
addition to data communication services. Cellcom Israel's shares
are traded both on the New York Stock Exchange (CEL) and the Tel
Aviv Stock Exchange (CEL).


CELLULAR ONE: Unclaimed $2.4 Mil. Benefits Md. Legal Aid Clinics
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Pat Flaherty at the Washington reports that a legal aid
clinic in Oxon Hill will reopen and one in Baltimore that serves
consumers across the state will avoid a scheduled closing as a
result of a $2.4 million award stemming from a decade-old lawsuit
over excessive late fees on cellphone bills.

Thirteen legal programs in Maryland that help clients facing
evictions, wage disputes and other civil cases will share the
money, helping buoy programs battered by ongoing public funding
cuts and drops in foundation donations.

"This really helps us breathe easier," said Neal Conway,
executive director of Community Legal Services of Prince George's
County, which had shuttered its office in Oxon Hill last year.
The nearly $62,000 coming his way, said Conway, should allow him
to restore services in the southern part of the county.

In Montgomery County, the bar association foundation will use its
$15,000 to improve "our really ugly and not very usable Web
site," said Julie Petersen, executive director.

The protracted legal case that generated the fresh money has gone
on so long, said Petersen, that she tracked it in a file she
labeled "miracle money."

The $2.4 million had gone unclaimed by Cellular One customers
after a Montgomery County court found that the company had
violated what was then state law limiting late fees on bills. A
judgment totaling $7.6 million was awarded in a verdict in a
class-action suit originally filed in 1999. Most of the award
money was claimed by customers, who got back an average of about
$30 each, said Montgomery Circuit Judge Durke G. Thompson, who
oversaw the case.

But because so many of the individual awards for customers were
small, and tracking affected customers was a challenge after a
decade, there were leftover funds in a pool. Lawyers who had
brought the case asked that the kitty go to groups that would use
it for a purpose similar to the aim of the original lawsuit, "and
that was consumer protection," said one of those lawyers, Paul D.
Gleiberman of Chevy Chase.

Recipients applied to a committee set up by Thompson, and 13
groups across the state were selected and announced Wednesday.

Maryland Legal Aid in Baltimore received the largest amount --
$911,000 -- which its head, Wilhelm Joseph Jr., said will plug a
funding hole linked to the current low interest rates on accounts
that historically generate payments for legal aid programs. As
rates dropped, so did the interest income on which Wilhelm's
groups and others heavily rely. "The great pain for me was
watching our money decline just as more people needed our
services," said Wilhelm.

A consumer law clinic run by the University of Maryland School of
Law had told one faculty member that his job would be gone in
June because of financial cuts, but part of the $395,000 it will
receive will keep the clinic open, said Michael Millemann, a
professor. "We had already taken steps to close it down,"
Millemann said. "This has been a long time coming, but from our
perspective, it's a terrific result."

The lengthy litigation, at one point, drew in the Maryland
General Assembly, which passed legislation that retroactively
made the fees legal -- a move that later was overturned in court
but created a political firestorm among lobbyists and lawyers.

Though the case took years to wrap up, Thompson said, "it is
exciting to see this come through at such a crucial time for
groups that work with the public and were under financial
pressures."


COMCAST CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Penn.
------------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corporation continues to defend a consolidated suit
alleging violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The company is a defendant in twenty-two purported class actions
filed in federal district courts throughout the United States.

All of these actions have been consolidated by the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania for pre-trial proceedings.

In a consolidated complaint filed in November 2009 on behalf of
all plaintiffs in the multi-district litigation, the plaintiffs
allege that the company improperly "tie" the rental of set-top
boxes to the provision of premium cable services in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, various state antitrust
laws and unfair/deceptive trade practices acts in California,
Illinois and Alabama.

The plaintiffs also allege a claim for unjust enrichment and seek
relief on behalf of a nationwide class of the company's premium
cable customers and on behalf of subclasses consisting of premium
cable customers from California, Alabama, Illinois, Pennsylvania
and Washington.

In January 2010, the company moved to compel arbitration of the
plaintiffs' claims for unjust enrichment and violations of the
unfair/deceptive trade practices acts of Illinois and Alabama.

                  West Virginia AG's Case

The West Virginia Attorney General filed a complaint in West
Virginia state court in July 2009 alleging that the company
improperly "ties" the rental of set-top boxes to the provision of
premium cable services in violation of the West Virginia
Antitrust Act and the West Virginia Consumer Credit and
Protection Act.

The Attorney General also alleges a claim for unjust enrichment
and restitution.

The company removed the case to the U.S. District Court for West
Virginia, and it was subsequently transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and
consolidated with the multi-district litigation.

There were oral arguments in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
in December 2009 in connection with a motion by the Attorney
General to remand the case back to West Virginia state court.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 28, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Comcast Corporation -- http://www.comcast.com/-- is a provider  
of video, high-speed Internet and phone services (cable
services), offering a variety of entertainment, information and
communications services to residential and commercial customers.  
As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company's cable systems served
approximately 23.6 million video customers, 15.9 million high-
speed Internet customers and 7.6 million phone customers and
passed over 51.2 million homes and businesses in 39 states and
the District of Columbia.  Comcast operates in two segments:
Cable and Programming.  The company operates in two segments:
Cable and Programming.  The Cable segment, which generates
approximately 95% of the company's consolidated revenue, manages
and operates cable systems in the United States.  The Cable
segment also includes the operations of its regional sports
networks.  The Programming segment consists primarily of its
consolidated national programming networks, E!, Golf Channel,
VERSUS, G4 and Style.


COMCAST CORP: Wants Philadelphia Plaintiffs' Claims Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corporation has moved for summary judgment to dismiss all
of the Philadelphia Cluster plaintiffs' claims in a purported
class action lawsuit filed by its subscribers in connection with
the company's certain subscriber exchange transactions with other
cable providers.

The company was named as a defendant in two purported class
actions originally filed in December 2003 in the U.S. District
Courts for the District of Massachusetts and the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.

The potential class in the Massachusetts case, which has been
transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, is the
company's subscriber base in the "Boston Cluster" area, and the
potential class in the Pennsylvania case is the company's
subscriber base in the "Philadelphia and Chicago Clusters," as
those terms are defined in the complaints.

In each case, the plaintiffs allege that certain subscriber
exchange transactions with other cable providers resulted in
unlawful horizontal market restraints in those areas and seek
damages under antitrust statutes, including treble damages.

Classes of Philadelphia Cluster subscribers were certified in May
2007 while classes of Chicago Cluster subscribers were certified
in October 2007.

In March 2009, as a result of a Third Circuit Court of Appeals
decision clarifying the standards for class certification, the
order certifying the Philadelphia Cluster class was vacated
without prejudice to the plaintiffs filing a new motion.

In January 2010, in its decision on the plaintiffs' new motion,
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania certified a class subject to
certain limitations.

In March 2010, the company moved for summary judgment dismissing
all of the plaintiffs' claims in the Philadelphia Cluster.

The plaintiffs' claims concerning the other two clusters are
stayed pending determination of the Philadelphia Cluster claims,
according to the company's April 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

Comcast Corporation -- http://www.comcast.com/-- is a provider  
of video, high-speed Internet and phone services (cable
services), offering a variety of entertainment, information and
communications services to residential and commercial customers.  
As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company's cable systems served
approximately 23.6 million video customers, 15.9 million high-
speed Internet customers and 7.6 million phone customers and
passed over 51.2 million homes and businesses in 39 states and
the District of Columbia.  Comcast operates in two segments:
Cable and Programming.  The company operates in two segments:
Cable and Programming.  The Cable segment, which generates
approximately 95% of the company's consolidated revenue, manages
and operates cable systems in the United States.  The Cable
segment also includes the operations of its regional sports
networks.  The Programming segment consists primarily of its
consolidated national programming networks, E!, Golf Channel,
VERSUS, G4 and Style.


COMCAST CORP: "Brantley" Plaintiffs Appealing Dismissal of Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of the suit styled
Rob Brantley et al v. NBC Universal, Inc. et al., remains pending
in the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
denied certain certification motions in the purported class-
action lawsuit entitled, "Rob Brantley et al v. NBC Universal,
Inc. et al., Case No. 2:2007cv06101," which names Comcast Corp.,
as a defendant.

The company was among the defendants named in the purported
class-action lawsuit filed before the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on Sept. 20, 2007.

Listed as plaintiffs in the matter are:

       -- Rob Brantley,
       -- Darryn Cooke,
       -- William Costley,
       -- Beverly Costley,
       -- Christina Hills,
       -- Michael B. Kovac,
       -- Michelle Navarrette,
       -- Timothy J. Stabosz, and
       -- Joseph Vranich.

The defendants in the case are:

       -- NBC Universal, Inc.,
       -- Viacom Inc.,
       -- The Walt Disney company,
       -- Fox Entertainment Group, Inc.,
       -- Time Warner Inc.,
       -- Time Warner Cable Inc.,
       -- Comcast Corp.,
       -- Comcast Cable Communications, Inc.,
       -- Cox Communiations, Inc.,
       -- The Directv Group, Inc.,
       -- Echostar Satellite LLC,
       -- Charter Communications, Inc., and
       -- Cablevision Systems Corp.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants who produce video
programming have entered into agreements with the defendants who
distribute video programming via cable and satellite, which
preclude the distributors from reselling channels to subscribers
on an a la carte (or channel-by-channel) basis in violation of
federal antitrust laws.

They seek treble damages for the loss of their ability to pick
and choose the specific channels to which they wish to
subscribe, and injunctive relief requiring each distributor
defendant to resell certain channels to its subscribers on an a
la carte basis.

The potential class is comprised of all persons residing in the
U.S. who have subscribed to an expanded basic level of video
service provided by one of the distributor defendants.

In December 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the case.

On March 12, 2008, the court granted the motion to dismiss, with
permission for the plaintiffs to replead their complaint.  On
March 20, 2008, the plaintiffs served an amended complaint.

The company and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss an
amended complaint in April 2008.  In June 2008, the court denied
the motions to dismiss.

In July 2008, the company and the other defendants filed motions
to certify certain issues decided in the court's June 2008 order
for interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  

On Aug. 8, 2008, the court denied the certification motions.

In October 2009, the Central District issued an order dismissing
the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice.  Plaintiffs have
appealed that order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 28, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The suit is Rob Brantley et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 07-cv-06101 (C.D. Calif.) (Snyder, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Maxwell M. Blecher, Esq.
          Blecher & Collins
          515 South Figueroa Street, 17th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-622-4222
          E-mail: mblecher@blechercollins.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Arthur J. Burke, Esq.
          Davis Polk and Wardwell
          1600 El Camino Real
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Phone: 650-752-2005
          E-mail: arthur.burke@dpw.com

               - and -  

          John D. Lombardo, Esq.
          Arnold and Porter
          777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Fl
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2513
          Phone: 213-243-4000
          E-mail: john.lombardo@aporter.com

               - and -

          Steven F. Cherry, Esq.
          Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr
          1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 202-663-6321
          E-mail: steven.cherry@wilmerhale.com


COMCAST CORP: Pennsylvania Court Certifies Class in "Urban" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
has certified the class in the suit styled Urban v. Comcast
Corporation et al., according to the company's April 28, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The suit was filed on Feb. 15, 2008, on behalf of plaintiff
Robert Urban.  Aside from the company, the suit also named as
individual defendants:

       -- Brian L. Roberts;
       -- Ralph J. Roberts;
       -- S. Decker Anstrom;
       -- Kenneth J. Bacon;
       -- Sheldon M. Bonovitz;
       -- Edward D. Breen;
       -- Julian A. Brodsky;
       -- Joseph J. Collins;
       -- Michael Cook;
       -- Jeffrey A. Honickman;
       -- Judith Rodin;
       -- Michael I. Sovern;
       -- Lawrence J. Salva; and
       -- Unknown Fiduciary Defendants 1-30.

The proposed class comprises participants in the company's
retirement-investment (401)(k) plan that invested in the plan's
company stock account.

The plaintiff asserts that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in managing the plan.  Mr. Urban is seeking
unspecified damages.

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in June 2008, and in
July 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

On Oct. 29, 2008, the Court granted in part and denied in part
that motion.  The Court dismissed a claim alleging that
defendants failed to provide complete and accurate disclosures
concerning the plan, but did not dismiss claims alleging that
plan assets were imprudently invested in company stock.

In June 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion to have the case
certified as a class action and the company filed a response
opposing that motion.

In April 2010, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania certified the
class, although the company has filed a petition in the Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit seeking to appeal that ruling.

The suit is Urban v. Comcast Corporation et al., Case No. 08-cv-
00773 (E.D. Penn.)(Bartle, J.).

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Michael D. Donovan, Esq.
          Donovan Searles, LLC
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-732-6067
          Fax: 215-732-8060
          E-mail: mdonovan@donovansearles.com

              - and -

          Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
          Gainey & McKenna
          295 Madison Ave., 4th Fl
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-983-1300

Representing the defendants are:

          Thomas S. Gigot, Esq.
          Groom Law Group, Chartered
          1701 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 202-857-0620

              - and -

          M. Norman Goldberger, Esq.
          Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin
          One Logan Square, 27th Floor
          Philadelphia, pA 19103
          Phone: 215-496-7021
          E-mail: mgoldberger@hangley.com


CYBERSOURCE CORP: Being Sold to Visa for Too Little, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Inter-Local Pension Fund of the Graphic Communications Conference
of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. CyberSource
Corporation, et al., Case No. 5454 (Del. Ch. Ct. May 4, 2010),
complains that Cybersource is selling itself too cheaply and Visa
should pay more than $2 billion, or $26 a share, for the company.  

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jospeh A. Rosenthal, Esq.
          P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
          ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
          919 N. Market St., Suite 1401
          P.O. Box 1070
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Telephone: 302-656-4433

               - and -  

          SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.
          1818 Market St., Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 215-496-0300

               - and -  

          SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.
          1101 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 600
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: 202-756-3600


DOLLAR THRIFTY: Being Sold to Hertz for Too Little, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Dollar Thrifty Automotive is
selling itself too cheaply to Hertz, in a stock and cash deal
valued at $1.2 billion, shareholders say in Delaware Chancery
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Sinclair v. Dollar Thrifty Automotive
Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 5456 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/06/DollarThrifty.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carmella P. Keener, Esq.
          ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
          919 N. Market St., Suite 1401
          Citizens Bank Center
          P.O. Box 1070
          Wilmington, DE 19899-1070
          Telephone: 302-656-4433

               - and -

          HARWOOD FEFFER LLP
          488 Madison Ave.
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: 212-935-7400

               - and -

          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90069
          Telephone: 310-201-9150


EARL BRADLEY: Medical Center Doesn't Oppose Class Action Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lopardi at WBOC Channel 16 reports that Beebe Medical
Center is not opposed to a class action civil lawsuit in the case
of former pediatrician Earl Bradley.

The hospital is one of numerous parties named in a slew of civil
lawsuits filed in the Bradley case. This week, lawyers
representing dozens of potential victims requested the class
action status from a New Castle County judge.

Bradley, 56, faces more than 500 charges, accused of sexually
assaulting more than 100 children over several years. In court
documents, police said Bradley videotaped the alleged sexual acts
on young children.

A class action suit could some "order and structure" to the legal
process, Beebe Vice President Wallace Hudson said in an e-mailed
statement.

Class action status could bring hundreds if not thousands of
additional plaintiffs into the case. Bruce Hudson, an attorney
who represents victims and is requesting the change of status,
said lawyers would have to contact up to 7,000 former Bradley
patients if the request is approved.

Besides the hospital, the following are also named in the civil
suits: the Medical Society of Delaware, Lewes orthopedic surgeon
Dr. James Marvel, Milton pediatrician Dr. Lowell Scott and
Wilmington psychologist Dr. Carol Tavani. The filings claim the
parties knew, or should've known, about Bradley's alleged abusive
behavior and failed to report it to the medical board.

Bruce Hudson said a class action suit would benefit both
potential victims and the hospital by combining multiple
complaints into one large case. The lawyer said Beebe would risk
millions of dollars for each case if they went to trial
individually. If there is a settlement or verdict against the
defendants, the courts would likely set up a system of
compensation.

Beebe is already facing nearly two-dozen civil suits related to
Bradley, who once worked as chief of pediatrics at the hospital.

The lawsuits have also left some in the community worried about
the hospital's future. Last month, Beebe announced that credit
agencies had lowered its credit rating or put the hospital on a
negative watch list because of the volume of lawsuits related to
Bradley.

The class action status needs approval from a judge, but there's
no timeline as to when that might happen. Bruce Hudson said he
has not ruled out naming additional defendants in the suit.


EBAY INC: Court Okays Summary Judgment Motion in Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of eBay
Inc., in a purported antitrust class action lawsuit, according to
the company's April 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

In March 2007, a plaintiff filed a purported antitrust class
action lawsuit against eBay in the Western District of Texas
alleging that eBay and its wholly owned subsidiary PayPal
"monopolized" markets through various anticompetitive acts and
tying arrangements.

The plaintiff alleged claims under sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act, as well as related state law claims.

In April 2007, the plaintiff re-filed the complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (No. 07-
CV-01882-RS), and dismissed the Texas action.  The complaint
seeks treble damages and an injunction.

In 2007, the case was consolidated with other similar lawsuits
(No. 07-CV-01882JF).

In June 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.

In March 2008, the court granted the motion to dismiss the tying
claims with leave to amend and denied the motion with respect to
the monopolization claims.  Plaintiffs subsequently decided not
to refile the tying claims.

The plaintiffs' motion on class certification and the company's
motion for summary judgment were heard by the court in December
2009.

In March 2010, the District Court granted the company's motion
for summary judgment, denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification as moot, and entered judgment in favor of the
company.  Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal.

eBay Inc. -- http://www.ebay.com/-- connects buyers and sellers  
globally on a daily basis through eBay, an online marketplace
located at www.ebay.com, and PayPal, which enables individuals
and businesses to send and receive online payments through
www.paypal.com.  The company has two business segments:
Marketplaces and Payments.  On Nov. 19, 2009, the company sold
its interest in Skype Luxembourg Holdings S.a.r.l., Skype Inc.
and Sonorit Holdings, A.S. (collectively with their respective
subsidiaries, the Skype Companies) to Springboard Group S.a.r.l.  
Prior to the sale, the company operated in three segments.  Its
Communications segment, which consisted of Skype, enabled
Internet communications between Skype users and provided
connectivity to traditional fixed-line and mobile telephones.  
Following the completion of the sale of Skype, the company
operates through two business segments.


ERNST & YOUNG: Accused in Calif. Suit of Wrongful Termination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Banicki at Courthouse News Service reports that a class
action claims Ernst & Young offers job contracts to graduating
college seniors that "compel" them "to work for EY to the
exclusion of all other employers," but allow the company "to
legally renege or cancel the offer of employment" if the senior
does not maintain a vague "strong academic standing."  The named
plaintiff says Ernst & Young withdrew her job offer because she
got "a couple of C grades" during her senior year.

In her complaint in Orange County Court, named plaintiff Yunjung
Gribben, 43, says she graduated from Cal State Fullerton with a
3.6 grade point average.  She says Ernst & Young offered her a
job with a starting annual salary of $50,000, then pulled the
offer, after she graduated, because of "a couple of C grades she
had received in accounting during her senior year at CSUF."

Her job contract stated: "Please note that this employment
arrangement is subject to the completion of the degree you are
currently pursuing with continued strong academic standing."

Ms. Gribben says "continued strong academic standing" is never
defined, save for a "hazy reference" on Ernst & Young's Web site.

Ms. Gribben says that after she signed the employment contract
she was so happy to have the job right out of school that she did
not look for other work.

After working for Ernst & Young for a month, Ms. Gribben says,
she got a call from human resources, questioning her about the
C's she got in her senior year.

She says she was fired the next days.

Ms. Gribben adds that "younger employees were allowed to stay at
the company."

Ms. Gribben says she is not the first student Ernst & Young
subjected to this treatment, citing its vague reference to
"continued strong academic standing."

She seeks class damages for wrongful termination, age
discrimination, breach of employment, specific performance and
violations of the Labor Code.

A copy of the Complaint in Gribben v. Ernst & Young LLP, et al.,
Case No. 30-2010-00366679 (Calif. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.), is
available at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/06/E&Y.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dale M. Fiola, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DALE M. FIOLA
          200 North Harbor Blvd., Suite 217
          Anaheim, CA 92805
          Telephone: 714-635-7888


EQUINIX INC: Approval of Settlement Agreement Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Equinix, Inc., continues to pursue court approval of an agreement
settling three lawsuits in connection with its planned merger
with Switch & Data Facilities Company, Inc., according to the
company's April 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

On Oct. 27, 2009, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the Delaware Chancery Court against Switch and Data,
members of Switch and Data's board of directors, Sundance
Acquisition Corporation and Equinix.

The lawsuit, Gibbs v. Switch & Data Facilities Company, Inc., et
al. (Case No. 5027-VCS), alleges that the members of Switch and
Data's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to
Switch and Data's stockholders in connection with the proposed
merger by, among other things, entering into the Merger Agreement
without first taking steps to obtain adequate, fair and maximum
consideration for Switch and Data's stockholders, by structuring
the transaction to benefit themselves and by including provisions
intended to dissuade other potential suitors from making
competing offers.

On Oct. 30, 2009, a second purported stockholder class action
lawsuit, Jiannaras v. Switch & Data Facilities Company, Inc., et
al. (Case No. 09-CA-027950), was filed against the same
defendants in a Hillsborough County, Florida state court.  The
complaint alleges that the members of Switch and Data's board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties to Switch and Data's
stockholders by, among other things, failing to take steps to
maximize the value of Switch and Data to its public stockholders,
failing to value properly Switch and Data, failing to protect
against the directors' conflicts of interest and failing to
disclose all material information to allow a fully informed vote
by the stockholders.

On Dec. 7, 2009, a third purported stockholder class action
lawsuit, Broadbased Equities v. Keith Olsen, et al. (Case No.
8:09-CV-02473), was filed against the same defendants (other than
Sundance Acquisition Corporation, which was not named) in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.  The
complaint alleges that the defendants have provided materially
incomplete information to Switch and Data stockholders in the
Proxy Statement, that Switch and Data's Chief Executive Officer
and President sought to advance his own interests at the expense
of Switch and Data stockholders in connection with the merger,
and that Switch and Data's directors breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the merger, including by agreeing to
provisions in the Merger Agreement intended to dissuade other
potential suitors from making competing offers.

On Jan. 19, 2010, counsel for parties in all three lawsuits
entered into a memorandum of understanding in which they agreed
upon the terms of a settlement of all three lawsuits.  In
connection with this settlement, the three lawsuits and all
claims asserted therein are expected to be dismissed with
prejudice.  The memorandum of understanding provides that the
parties will seek approval of the settlement in Florida state
court and that simultaneously, the parties will agree to stay the
actions pending in the Delaware Chancery Court and the Florida

On Jan. 19, 2010, counsel for parties in all three lawsuits
entered into a memorandum of understanding in which they agreed
upon the terms of a settlement of all lawsuits.

In connection with this settlement, the three lawsuits and all
claims asserted therein would be dismissed with prejudice,
including the claims brought against Switch and Data and its
directors.

The parties will seek approval of the settlement in the Florida
state court; simultaneously, the parties will agree to stay the
actions pending in the Delaware Chancery Court and the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

The proposed settlement is conditional upon, among other things,
the execution of an appropriate stipulation of settlement,
consummation of the merger and final approval of the proposed
settlement by the Florida state court.  The proposed settlement
contemplates that plaintiffs' counsel will apply to the Florida
state court for an award of attorneys' fees and costs in an
aggregate amount of $900,000, and that the defendants will not
oppose or undermine this application.   The company expects that
approximately 70% of these attorneys' fees will be paid by
insurance maintained by Switch and Data, and that the company
will pay the remainder.

Pursuant to this agreement, the parties sought and obtained stays
of the Florida federal and Delaware actions pending approval of
the settlement.

On March 22, 2010, the parties entered into a stipulation of
settlement and release, adopting the terms of the memorandum of
understanding outlined above.

Pursuant to this stipulation, on March 25, 2010, the parties
filed a Joint Motion for Class Certification and Preliminary
Approval of Settlement in Florida state court.

Equinix, Inc. -- http://www.equinix.com/-- provides network-
neutral colocation, interconnection and managed information
technology infrastructure services to enterprises, content
providers and financial companies.  Through its International
Business Exchange (IBX) data centers, across 18 markets in North
America, Europe and Asia-Pacific, customers directly interconnect
with a network ecosystem of partners and customers.  Its services
comprises colocation, interconnection and managed IT
infrastructure services.  Colocation services include cabinets,
power, operations space and storage space for customers'
colocation needs.  Interconnection services include cross
connects, as well as switch ports on the Equinix exchange
service.  Managed IT infrastructure services helps customers to
leverage Equinix's telecommunications.  In February 2008, it
acquired Virtu Secure Webservices B.V.  In May 2009, the company
announced the opening of the second phase expansion of its New
York-4 IBX data center in Secaucus, New Jersey.


GLOBAL CLIENT: Sued for Offering Bogus Debt Settlement Services
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Global Client Solutions
preys on consumers by offering bogus "debt settlement" services,
a class action claims in Louisville Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Davis, et ux. v. Global Client
Solutions, LLC, et al., Case No. 10-cv-00322 (W.D. Ky.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/06/CCA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert R. Sparks, Esq.
          PARRY DEERING FUTSCHER & SPARKS, PSC
          411 Garrard St.
          P.O. Box 2618
          Covington, KY 41012-2618
          Telephone: 859-291-9000
          E-mail: rsparks@pdfslaw.com

               - and -

          Darrell W. Scott, Esq.
          Matthew J. Zuchetto
          THE SCOTT LAW GROUP, P.S.
          925W. Sprague Ave., Suite 680
          Spokane, WA 99201
          Telephone: 509-455-3966
          E-mail: darrellscott@mac.com
                  matthewzuchetto@mac.com


HECKMANN CORP: Accused in Del. Suit of Misleading Shareholders
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Heckmann Corp. directors
defrauded shareholders with misrepresentations and omissions in
acquiring a floundering China Water and Drinks for $675 million,
shareholders claim in Delaware Federal Court.

A copy of the complaint in Gielata v. Heckmann, et al., Case No.
10-cv-00378 (D. Del.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/07/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman M. Monhait, Esq.
          P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
          ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
          919 N. Market St., Suite 1401
          P.O. Box 1070
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Telephone: 302-656-4433
          E-mail: nmonhait@rmgglaw.com
                  bdeleeuw@rmgglaw.com

               - and -

          Sharan Nirmul, Esq.
          D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
          BARROWAY TOPAZ KESSLER MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Rd.
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: 610-667-7706
          E-mail: snirmul@btkmc.com
                  skaskela@btkmc.com


HECKMANN CORP: Denies Allegations in China Water Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heckmann Corporation of Palm Desert, Calif., learned that a
lawsuit purporting to allege claims under the federal securities
laws was filed on May 6, 2010, in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware.  Heckmann Corporation has not
been served with a copy of the complaint.  It appears, Heckmann
says, that the lawsuit alleges various claims concerning the
October 2008 acquisition of China Water.  Heckmann Corporation
believes that the allegations lack merit and intends to
vigorously defend the lawsuit.

                      About Heckmann Corporation

Heckmann Corporation -- http://www.heckmanncorp.com/-- was  
created to buy and build companies in the water sector. On
January 30, 2010, the Company completed its 50-mile water
disposal pipeline in the Haynesville Shale which can treat and
dispose up to 100,000 barrels of water per day. The completion of
the pipeline makes the Company one of the largest handlers of
produced water in North America. On February 9, 2010, the Company
announced its joint venture with Energy Transfer to provide
turnkey transportation and treatment solutions for complicated
water flows in the Marcellus and Haynesville oil and natural gas
fields. In October of 2008, the Company acquired China Water &
Drinks, Inc., and now operates eight bottled water facilities in
the People's Republic of China with Coca Cola as its largest
customer. The Company also makes strategic minority interest
investments, such as its recent investment in Underground
Solutions, Inc., an exclusive supplier of Fusible PVC(TM) pipe
products, and China Bottles, Inc., a bottle equipment
manufacturing company in China.


HUGOTON ROYALTY: Court Decertifies Class in "Beer" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Texas County, Oklahoma, has certified the
class in a suit against XTO Energy, Inc., according to Hugoton
Royalty Trust's April 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

An amended petition for a class action lawsuit, Beer, et al. v.
XTO Energy Inc., was filed in January 2006 in the District Court
of Texas County, Oklahoma by certain royalty owners of natural
gas wells in Oklahoma and Kansas.

The plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy has not properly accounted
to the plaintiffs for the royalties to which they are entitled
and seek an accounting regarding the natural gas and other
products produced from their wells and the prices paid for the
natural gas and other products produced, and for payment of the
monies allegedly owed since June 2002, with a certain limited
number of plaintiffs claiming monies owed for additional time.

XTO Energy removed the case to federal district court in Oklahoma
City.

A hearing on the class certification was conducted in October
2008.

At the class certification hearing, the plaintiffs sought to
certify a class of royalty owners whose wells were connected to a
processing plant owned by a subsidiary of XTO Energy in the
Hugoton Field, with two sub-classes consisting of owners in
Oklahoma and Kansas.

In March 2009, the court granted the motion to certify the class.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment for only the
two named plaintiffs.  The court granted the motion in the amount
of $12,779.  A motion for summary judgment related to the
remainder of the class was denied.

Trial was scheduled for April 2010; however, the court vacated
the trial date.

At a hearing in April 2010, the court ruled that the class
representatives were no longer proper representatives and stated
that it is considering whether to dismiss class counsel or
decertify the class in whole or in part.

In a subsequent ruling in April 2010, the court decertified the
class.

XTO Energy has informed the trustee that it believes that it has
strong defenses to this lawsuit and intends to vigorously defend
its position.  However, if XTO Energy ultimately makes any
settlement payments or receives a judgment against it, the trust
will bear its 80% share of such settlement or judgment related to
production from the underlying properties.
Additionally, if a judgment or settlement increases the amount of
future payments to royalty owners, the trust would bear its
proportionate share of the increased payments through reduced net
proceeds.  XTO Energy has informed the trustee that, although the
amount of any reduction in net proceeds is not presently
determinable, in its management's opinion, the amount is not
currently expected to be material to the trust's annual
distributable income, financial position or liquidity.  It could,
however, result in costs exceeding revenues on the properties
underlying the Oklahoma and Kansas net profit interests for one
or more monthly distributions, depending on the size of the
judgment or settlement, if any, and the net proceeds being paid
at that time.

Hugoton Royalty Trust -- http://www.hugotontrust.com/-- is an  
express trust created under the laws of Texas pursuant to the
Hugoton Royalty Trust Indenture entered into on Dec. 1, 1998
between XTO Energy Inc., as grantor, and NationsBank, N.A., as
trustee.  Bank of America, N.A. succeeded NationsBank as the
trustee of the Trust.  XTO Energy conveyed to the Trust 80% net
profits interests in certain natural gas producing working
interest properties in Kansas, Oklahoma and Wyoming under three
separate conveyances.  In exchange for these net profits interest
conveyances to the Trust, 40 million units of
beneficial interest were issued to XTO Energy.  XTO Energy
distributed all of its remaining 21.7 million trust units.  As
of Dec. 31, 2008, XTO Energy is not a unitholder of the trust.  
The net profits interests entitle the Trust to receive 80% of the
net proceeds from the sale of oil and gas from the underlying
properties.


MAXIM INTEGRATED: Inks Stock Option Class Action Settlement Pact
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., has entered into a memorandum of
understanding reflecting an agreement in principle to settle all
claims asserted against all defendants in the putative class
action concerning the Company's stock option accounting practices
captioned In re Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. C-08-00832-JW (N.D. Cal.).  The agreement in
principle provides for the payment of $173 million by the
Company. The after-tax cash impact is estimated to be $110
million. The memorandum of understanding contemplates the
negotiation and execution of a final settlement agreement, and
the settlement is subject to notice to the putative class and
final approval by the Court.

The memorandum of understanding was entered into after the
Company announced its preliminary results of operations for the
three-month period ended March 27, 2010 but prior to the filing
of the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the three month period
ended March 27, 2010. As a result, the Company is required under
U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles to reflect the
impact of the memorandum of understanding, which is a subsequent
event, in its financial statements for the three months ended
March 27, 2010.  For details, please refer to the Company's
Current Report on Form 8-K/A that was filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2010.

                            About Maxim

Maxim Integrated Products is a publicly traded company that
designs, manufactures, and sells high-performance semiconductor
products. The Company was founded over 25 years ago with the
mission to deliver innovative analog and mixed-signal engineering
solutions that add value to its customers' products. To date, it
has developed over 6,200 products serving the industrial,
communications, consumer, and computing markets.

Maxim -- http://www.maxim-ic.com/-- reported revenue in excess  
of $1.6 billion for fiscal 2009. A Fortune 1000 company, Maxim is
included in the Nasdaq 100, the Russell 1000, and the MSCI USA
indices.


MEAD JOHNSON: Accused in Ala. Suit of Deceptive Advertising
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Dalzell Walsh at Courthouse News Service reports that a
federal class action claims Mead Johnson & Co. lied about
Enfamil, claiming that the baby formula is the only one on the
market containing products "clinically proven to improve brain
and eye function in infants."

The class claims that when faced with competition from lower-
priced rivals, Mead Johnson started a "smear campaign" against
competitors.

The class claims that Mead falsely claimed that Enfamil with
LIPIL was the only one containing docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and
arachidonic acid (ARA), two lipid fatty acids found in breast
milk.

Mead's advertising slogans stated, "Store brands may cost less,
but Enfamil gives your baby more" according to the complaint.

But the class claims that other brands of formula, including
lower-priced products, contain DHA and ARA "in amounts equal to
or greater than those contained in Mead Johnson's product".

The complaint states: "Mead Johnson, whose product enjoys
significant brand recognition and sells at premium prices, faces
tough competition from lower-priced stored brand products.

"Unable to meet this competition with superior quality, and
unwilling to compete on price, Mead Johnson sought to increase
sales by falsely representing to consumers that the product was
the only infant formula product that contained DHA and ARA and
that the product was the only infant formula product that was
clinically proven to improve brain and eye function in infants."

Mead Johnson failed to disclose that its testing showed that any
formula with the same levels of DHA and ARA would be "equally
effective in promoting brain and eye development in infants,"
according to the complaint.

The class claims they were duped into buying the more expensive
brand based on its misrepresentations.  They seek an injunction
and damages for deceptive trade and unjust enrichment.

A copy of the Complaint in Roberts, et al. v. Mead Johnson &
Company, Case No. 10-cv-01159 (N.D. Ala.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/06/Lipil.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          F. Inge Johnstone, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF F. INGE JOHNSTONE
          Steiner Bldg., 3rd Floor
          15 Richard Arrington, Jr. Blvd. N
          P.O. Box 11447
          Birmingham, AL 35202
          Telephone: 205-383-1809
          E-mail: ijohnstone@ingejohnstone.com


MEDCO HEALTH: Court Denies Attorney's Fees in PolyMedica Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Massachusetts for Middlesex County has
denied the motion of the plaintiffs' counsel in a putative
stockholder class action against Medco Health Solutions, Inc.,
for reconsideration of fees.  The plaintiffs' counsel's
application for attorneys' fees was previously rejected by the
Court, resulting in the award of costs only, according to the
company's April 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 27, 2010.

In August 2007, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit
related to the merger of the company with PolyMedica Corporation,
was filed by purported stockholders of PolyMedica in the Superior
Court of Massachusetts for Middlesex County against, amongst
others, the company and its affiliate, MACQ Corp.

The lawsuit captioned Groen v. PolyMedica Corp. et al., alleged,
among other things, that the price agreed to in the merger
agreement was inadequate and unfair to the PolyMedica
stockholders and that the defendants breached their duties to the
stockholders and/or aided breaches of duty by other defendants in
negotiating and approving the merger agreement.

Shortly thereafter, two virtually identical lawsuits (only one of
which named the company as a defendant) were filed in the same
Court.

In September 2007, the parties to these actions reached an
agreement in principle to settle the actions for an immaterial
amount and in May 2008, the Court granted final approval of the
settlement and dismissed the actions with prejudice on the
merits.

Plaintiffs' counsel's application for attorneys' fees was
rejected by the Court, resulting in the award of costs only.

Plaintiffs' counsel had filed a motion for reconsideration of the
fees with the Court.  The Court has denied this motion and the
plaintiff did not appeal this denial.

Medco Health Solutions, Inc. -- http://www.medcohealth.com/-- is  
pioneering the world's most advanced pharmacy(R) and its clinical
research and innovations are part of Medco making medicine
smarter(TM) for approximately 65 million members.  With more than
20,000 employees dedicated to improving patient health and
reducing costs for a wide range of public and private sector
clients, and 2009 revenue of nearly $60 billion, Medco ranks 35th
on the Fortune 500 list and is named among the world's most
innovative, most admired and most trustworthy companies.


MEDCO HEALTH: Continues to Defend Suit by Alameda Drug in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Medco Health Solutions, Inc., continues to defend the lawsuit
captioned Alameda Drug Company, Inc., et al. v. Medco Health
Solutions, Inc., et al. pending the Superior Court of California.

The suit was filed in January 2004 against the company and Merck
& Co., Inc.

The plaintiffs, which seek to represent a class of all California
pharmacies that had contracted with the company and that had
indirectly purchased prescription drugs from Merck, allege, among
other things, that since the expiration of a 1995 consent
injunction entered by the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, if not earlier, the company failed to
maintain an Open Formulary (as defined in the consent
injunction), and that the company and Merck had failed to prevent
nonpublic information received from competitors of Merck and the
company from being disclosed to each other.

The plaintiffs further allege that, as a result of these alleged
practices, the company has been able to increase its market share
and artificially reduce the level of reimbursement to the retail
pharmacy class members, and that the prices of prescription drugs
from Merck and other pharmaceutical manufacturers that do
business with the company had been fixed and raised above
competitive levels.  The plaintiffs assert claims for violation
of California antitrust law and California law prohibiting unfair
business practices.

The plaintiffs demand, among other things, compensatory damages,
restitution, disgorgement of unlawfully obtained profits and
injunctive relief.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs further allege, among other
things, that the company acts as a purchasing agent for its plan
sponsor customers, resulting in a system that serves to suppress
competition.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 28, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 27, 2010.

Medco Health Solutions, Inc. -- http://www.medcohealth.com/-- is  
pioneering the world's most advanced pharmacy(R) and its clinical
research and innovations are part of Medco making medicine
smarter(TM) for approximately 65 million members.  With more than
20,000 employees dedicated to improving patient health and
reducing costs for a wide range of public and private sector
clients, and 2009 revenue of nearly $60 billion, Medco ranks 35th
on the Fortune 500 list and is named among the world's most
innovative, most admired and most trustworthy companies.


MEDCO HEALTH: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
Medco Health Solutions, Inc., continues to defend the suit
captioned In re Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust Litigation,
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, according to the company's April 28, 2010, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 27, 2010.

                         Brady Action

In August 2003, a lawsuit captioned Brady Enterprises, Inc., et
al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al. was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against
Merck & Co., Inc., and the company.

The plaintiffs, who seek to represent a national class of retail
pharmacies that had contracted with the company, allege that the
company has conspired with, acted as the common agent for, and
used the combined bargaining power of plan sponsors to restrain
competition in the market for the dispensing and sale of
prescription drugs.  The plaintiffs allege that, through the
alleged conspiracy, the company has engaged in various forms of
anticompetitive conduct, including, among other things, setting
artificially low reimbursement rates to such pharmacies.

The plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Sherman Act and
seek treble damages and injunctive relief.

The plaintiffs' motion for class certification is currently
pending before the Multidistrict Litigation Court.

                    North Jackson Action

In October 2003, a lawsuit captioned North Jackson Pharmacy,
Inc., et al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al. was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
against Merck and the company.

In their Second Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs allege that
Merck and the company engaged in price fixing and other unlawful
concerted actions with others, including other PBMs, to restrain
trade in the dispensing and sale of prescription drugs to
customers of retail pharmacies who participate in programs or
plans that pay for all or part of the drugs dispensed, and
conspired with, acted as the common agent for, and used the
combined bargaining power of plan sponsors to restrain
competition in the market for the dispensing and sale of
prescription drugs.

The plaintiffs allege that, through such concerted action, Merck
and the Company engaged in various forms of anticompetitive
conduct, including, among other things, setting reimbursement
rates to such pharmacies at unreasonably low levels. The
plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Sherman Act and
seek treble damages and injunctive relief.

The plaintiffs' motion for class certification has been granted,
but this matter has been consolidated with other actions where
class certification remains an open issue.

                     Mike's Medical Action

In December 2005, a lawsuit captioned Mike's Medical Center
Pharmacy, et al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al. was
filed against the company and Merck in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.  The plaintiffs seek to
represent a class of all pharmacies and pharmacists that had
contracted with the Company and California pharmacies that had
indirectly purchased prescription drugs from Merck and make
factual allegations similar to those in the Alameda Drug Company
action discussed below.

The plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Sherman Act,
California antitrust law and California law prohibiting unfair
business practices.  The plaintiffs demand, among other things,
treble damages, restitution, disgorgement of unlawfully obtained
profits and injunctive relief.

                      Consolidated Action

In April 2006, the Brady plaintiffs filed a petition to transfer
and consolidate various antitrust actions against PBMs, including
North Jackson, Brady, and Mike's Medical Center before a single
federal judge.  The motion was granted in August 2006.

These actions are now consolidated for pretrial purposes in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The consolidated action is known as In re Pharmacy Benefit
Managers Antitrust Litigation.

The plaintiffs' motion for class certification in certain actions
is currently pending before the Multidistrict Litigation Court.

Medco Health Solutions, Inc. -- http://www.medcohealth.com/-- is  
pioneering the world's most advanced pharmacy(R) and its clinical
research and innovations are part of Medco making medicine
smarter(TM) for approximately 65 million members.  With more than
20,000 employees dedicated to improving patient health and
reducing costs for a wide range of public and private sector
clients, and 2009 revenue of nearly $60 billion, Medco ranks 35th
on the Fortune 500 list and is named among the world's most
innovative, most admired and most trustworthy companies.


MEDCO HEALTH: "Jones" Suit in New York Terminated
-------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit against Medco Health Solutions, Inc., alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and
ending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York has been terminated, according to the company's
April 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 27, 2010.

ERISA-based complaints against the company and Merck & Co., Inc.,
were filed in eight actions by ERISA plan participants,
purportedly on behalf of their plans, and, in some of the
actions, similarly situated self-funded plans.  The ERISA plans
themselves, which were not parties to these lawsuits, had elected
to participate in the settlement of the Gruer v. Merck-Medco
Managed Care, L.L.C., suit.  Accordingly, seven of these actions
had been dismissed pursuant to the final judgment.

The plaintiff in another action, Betty Jo Jones v. Merck-Medco
Managed Care, L.L.C., et al., filed a Second Amended Complaint,
in which she sought to represent a class of all participants and
beneficiaries of ERISA plans that required such participants to
pay a percentage co-payment on prescription drugs.

The U.S. District Court subsequently found that the plaintiff in
this action did not have the authority to opt out on behalf of
her plan and denied and overruled her objection to the
settlement, thereby resulting in this case being terminated.

Medco Health Solutions, Inc. -- http://www.medcohealth.com/-- is  
pioneering the world's most advanced pharmacy(R) and its clinical
research and innovations are part of Medco making medicine
smarter(TM) for approximately 65 million members.  With more than
20,000 employees dedicated to improving patient health and
reducing costs for a wide range of public and private sector
clients, and 2009 revenue of nearly $60 billion, Medco ranks 35th
on the Fortune 500 list and is named among the world's most
innovative, most admired and most trustworthy companies.


MEDCO HEALTH: Continues to Defend Suit by Union 1529
----------------------------------------------------
Medco Health Solutions, Inc., continues to defend the matter
styled The United Food and Commercial Workers Local Union No.
1529 and Employers Health and Welfare Plan Trust v. Medco Health
Solutions, Inc. and Merck & Co., Inc.

A proposed class action complaint against Merck & Co., Inc., and
the company has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California by trustees of another benefit
plan, the United Food and Commercial Workers Local Union No. 1529
and Employers Health and Welfare Plan Trust.  This plan has
elected to opt out of the Gruer v. Merck-Medco Managed Care,
L.L.C., suit settlement.

The action has been transferred and consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York by order of
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

No updates were reported in the company's April 28, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 27, 2010.

Medco Health Solutions, Inc. -- http://www.medcohealth.com/-- is  
pioneering the world's most advanced pharmacy(R) and its clinical
research and innovations are part of Medco making medicine
smarter(TM) for approximately 65 million members.  With more than
20,000 employees dedicated to improving patient health and
reducing costs for a wide range of public and private sector
clients, and 2009 revenue of nearly $60 billion, Medco ranks 35th
on the Fortune 500 list and is named among the world's most
innovative, most admired and most trustworthy companies.


NETFLIX INC: Subscriber Privacy Violations Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a purported class action lawsuit alleging
violation of subscribers' privacy rights have voluntarily
dismissed the suit pursuant to a settlement agreement with
Netflix, Inc., according to the company's April 28, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On Dec. 17, 2009, plaintiffs Jane Doe, Nelly Valdez-Marquez,
Anthony Sinopoli, and Paul Navarro filed a purported class action
lawsuit against the company in the U.S. District Court, District
of Northern California, Case No. C09-05903 on behalf of:

     (1) a nationwide class consisting of "all Netflix
         subscribers that rented a Netflix movie and also rated
         a movie on the Netflix website during the period of
         October 1998 through December 2005, residing in the
         United States,"

     (2) a subclass of California residents and

     (3) an injunctive class consisting of "all Netflix
         subscribers since 2006, residing in the United States."

Plaintiffs allege that Netflix breached the privacy rights of its
subscribers by, among other things, releasing certain data in
connection with the "Netflix Prize" contest.

Plaintiffs have brought this action pursuant to the Video Privacy
Protection Act, 18 U.S.C.   2710; California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, Civil Code Section 1750; California Customer
Records Act, Civil Code Section 1798.80; California's Unfair
Competition Law, Bus. & Prof'l Code Sections 17200, 17500; and
common law actions for Unjust Enrichment and Public Disclosure of
Private Facts.

Plaintiffs are seeking declaratory relief; statutory, actual and
punitive damages; disgorgement of profits; and injunctive relief.

The company has settled this action and, pursuant to the
settlement agreement, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the
lawsuit on March 19, 2010.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
          David A. Stampley, Esq.
          KAMBEREDELSON, LLC
          11 Broadway, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: 212-920-3072

               - and -  

          Joseph H. Malley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH H. MALLEY
          1045 North Zang Blvd.
          Dallas, TX 75208
          Telephone: 214-943-6100

               - and -  

          David Parisi, Esq.
          Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq.
          PARISI & HAVENS LLP
          15233 Valleyheart Drive
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: 818-990-1299


NETFLIX INC: Wants Amended Complaint Over DVD Sales Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Netflix, Inc., has filed a motion to dismiss an amended complaint
claiming that the company, along with Wal-Mart Stores
Inc., and Walmart.com USA LLC, colluded to divide the rental and
retail markets for DVDs, thus driving up Netflix subscription
prices allowing Wal-Mart to overcharge for DVD sales.

In January through April of 2009, a number of purported anti-
trust class action suits were filed against the company.  Wal-
Mart Stores, Inc. and Walmart.com USA LLC, collectively, Wal-
Mart, were also named as defendants in these suits.

Most of the suits were filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California and other federal
district courts around the country.

A number of suits were filed in the Superior Court of the State
of California, Santa Clara County.  The plaintiffs, who are
current or former Netflix customers, generally allege that
Netflix and Wal-Mart entered into an agreement to divide the
markets for sales and online rentals of DVDs in the United
States, which resulted in higher Netflix subscription prices.

The complaints, which assert violation of federal and/or state
antitrust laws, seek injunctive relief, costs, including
attorneys' fees, and damages in an unspecified amount.

On April 10, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered all cases pending in federal court transferred to the
Northern District of California to be consolidated or coordinated
for pre-trial purposes.

These cases have been assigned the multidistrict litigation
number MDL-2029.  On March 19, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion
for class certification.

The cases pending in the Superior Court of the State of
California, Santa Clara County have been consolidated.

In addition, in May of 2009, three additional lawsuits were
filed-two in the Northern District of California and one in the
Superior Court of the State of California, San Mateo County-
alleging identical conduct and seeking identical relief.

In these three cases, the plaintiffs are current or former
subscribers to the online DVD rental service offered by
Blockbuster Inc.

The two cases filed in federal court on behalf of Blockbuster
subscribers have been related to MDL-2029.

On Dec. 1, 2009, the federal Court entered an order granting
defendants' motion to dismiss the two federal cases filed on
behalf of Blockbuster subscribers.  Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on March 1, 2010.

Defendants moved to dismiss the Blockbuster subscribers' amended
complaint on March 31, 2010.

The lawsuit filed in Superior Court of the State of California,
San Mateo County has been coordinated with the cases pending in
Santa Clara County, according to the company's April 28, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Netflix, Inc. -- http://www.netflix.com/-- provides online movie  
rental subscription service in the United States to approximately
10 million subscribers.  The company offers a variety of plans
and provides subscribers access to over 100,000 digital versatile
disc (DVD) and Blu-ray titles plus more than 12,000 streaming
content choices.


NEW YORK: N.Y. Sup. Ct. Reinstates Public Defense System Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action challenging
New York state's system of providing public defenders can proceed
because there's enough indication that the system is failing the
poor, the state's highest court ruled Thursday.

"Wrongful conviction, the ultimate sign of a criminal justice
system's breakdown and failure, has been documented in too many
cases," Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman wrote for the 4-3 majority.
"Wrongful convictions, however, are not the only injustices that
command our present concern.  As plaintiffs rightly point out,
the absence of representation at critical stages is capable of
causing grave and irreparable injury to persons who will not be
convicted."

There have been similar class actions over public defense systems
in at least four other states.

The present case comes after Kimberly Hurell-Harring claimed a
public defender in Washington County, N.Y., did nothing but
pressure her to plead guilty following her felony arrest for
trying to smuggle pot to her husband, who was in prison.

The lawsuit contained allegations that "although lawyers were
eventually nominally appointed (to Hurell-Harring and 19 other
plaintiffs in the suit), they weren't unavailable to their
clients -- they conferred with them little, if at all, were often
completely unresponsive to their urgent inquiries and requests
from jail, sometimes for months on end, waived important rights
without consulting them, and ultimately appeared to do little
more on their behalf than act as conduits for plea offers," Judge
Lippman wrote.

"In New York, the legislature has left the performance of the
state's obligations . . . to the counties, where it is
discharged, for the most part, with county resources and
according to local rules.

"Plaintiffs . . . content that this arrangement, involving what
is in essence a costly, largely unfunded and politically
unpopular mandate upon local government, has functioned to
deprive them and other similarly situated indigent defendants . .
. of constitutionally and statutorily granted representational
rights," Judge Lippman wrote.

In reinstating the complaint that was tossed by the appellate
division.

A copy of the opinion in Hurrell-Harring, et al. v. The State of
New York, et al., No. 66 (N.Y. App. Ct.), is available at:

     http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?6196

The Appellants are represented by:

          Corey Stoughton, Esq.
          NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          125 Broad St., 19th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: 212-607-3300

The Respondents are represented by:

          Barbara D. Underwood, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE NY STATE SOLICITOR GENERAL
          120 Broadway, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10271
          Telephone: 212-416-8370
          E-mail: barbara.underwood@oag.state.ny.us


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Remanded ERISA Suit Remains Pending in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A remanded consolidated Employee Retirement Income Security Act
lawsuit against Northrop Grumman Corp. in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California remains pending.

The Court consolidated two separately filed ERISA lawsuits, which
the plaintiffs seek to have certified as class actions, into the
In Re Northrop Grumman Corporation ERISA Litigation.

On Aug. 7, 2007, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, and the plaintiffs appealed the Court's
decision on class certification to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

On Sept. 8, 2009, the Ninth Circuit vacated the Order denying
class certification, remanded the issue to the District Court for
further consideration.

As required by the Ninth Circuit's Order, the case was also
reassigned to a different judge.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 28, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Northrop Grumman Corp. -- http://www.northropgrumman.com/-- is  
an integrated enterprise consisting of businesses that cover the
entire defense spectrum, from undersea to outer space and into
cyberspace.  The company is aligned into seven segments
categorized into four primary businesses.  The Mission Systems,
Information Technology, and Technical Services segments are
presented as Information and Services.  The Integrated Systems
and Space Technology segments are presented as Aerospace.  The
Electronics and Ships segments are each presented as separate
businesses.


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Plaintiffs Appeal Class Certification Denial
--------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the ruling of the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California denying class
certification in a putative class action commenced against the
Northrop Grumman Retirement Plan B remains pending, according to
Northrop Grumman Corp.'s April 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

On June 22, 2007, a putative class action was filed against the
Northrop Grumman Pension Plan and the Northrop Grumman Retirement
Plan B and their corresponding administrative committees, styled
as Skinner et al. v. Northrop Grumman Pension Plan, etc., et al.,
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

The putative class representatives alleged violations of ERISA
and breaches of fiduciary duty concerning a 2003 modification to
the Northrop Grumman Retirement Plan B.  The modification relates
to the employer-funded portion of the pension benefit available
during a five-year transition period that ended on June 30, 2008.

The plaintiffs dismissed the Northrop Grumman Pension Plan, and
in 2008 the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of
all remaining defendants on all claims.

The plaintiffs appealed, and in May 2009, the Ninth Circuit
reversed the decision of the District Court and remanded the
matter back to the District Court for further proceedings,
finding that there was ambiguity in a 1998 summary plan
description related to the employer funded component of the
pension benefit.

The plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class.

The parties also filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

On Jan. 26, 2010, the District Court granted summary judgment in
favor of the Plan and denied plaintiffs' motion.

The District Court also denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and struck the trial date of March 23, 2010 as
unnecessary given the Court's grant of summary judgment for the
Plan.

On Feb. 2, 2010, the plaintiffs appealed the order to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Northrop Grumman Corp. -- http://www.northropgrumman.com/-- is  
an integrated enterprise consisting of businesses that cover the
entire defense spectrum, from undersea to outer space and into
cyberspace.  The company is aligned into seven segments
categorized into four primary businesses.  The Mission Systems,
Information Technology, and Technical Services segments are
presented as Information and Services.  The Integrated Systems
and Space Technology segments are presented as Aerospace.  The
Electronics and Ships segments are each presented as separate
businesses.


ORION BANCORP: Employees Sue to Recover 401(k) Losses
-----------------------------------------------------
Laura Layden at NaplesNews.com reports that a class-action
lawsuit has been filed against Orion Bancorp Inc.

Former employees of Orion Bank in Naples have sued the holding
company and its directors, seeking damages after losing their
nest egg in a company retirement plan.

The lawsuit follows a similar one filed by six former employees a
few weeks ago, which was not a class-action.

All of the named plaintiffs in the two federal lawsuits were
participants in Orion's employee stock ownership plan with 401(k)
benefits. Their investment in the holding company's stock is now
valued at "zero" after the bank failed last year.

The class-action involves more than 280 employees who invested in
the company's benefit plan, according to the lawsuit filed in
U.S. District Court in Tampa on April 28.

The newest suit was brought by Jeff Smith, Mary Rice, Ann Wright,
Pat Miller and William Bartels.

Orion was shut down by regulators in November and since has been
taken over by IberiaBank, a publicly traded bank headquartered in
Louisiana. It took over Orion's deposits and branches, but not
its private shares.

There were more than 400 owners of the company's stock, according
to a registration list that became public as part of a court
action to sell off Orion Bancorp's assets for the benefit of
creditors.

Jerry Williams, Orion's embattled ex-CEO, owned the most shares -
798,323. He's one of the named defendants in the class-action
lawsuit, along with the five other directors of Orion Bancorp's
board and the stock ownership plan's other trustees, advisers and
administrators.

The company's other directors are Earl Holland of Fort Myers;
Alan Pratt of Vero Beach; James Aultman of Marathon; James Torok
of Sarasota; and Brian Schmitt of Marathon. Other defendants are
David Sweeney, who was an executive vice president and treasurer
at Orion, and Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, a plan
adviser.

According to the class-action lawsuit, 96 percent of the
retirement plan's assets - $33,666,319 - were invested in Orion
stock.

"Such a large percentage of the plan assets were concentrated in
Orion stock because not only did the company make matching
contributions in the Orion stock fund - it required participants
to invest in the Orion stock fund and Orion stock in order to
receive a match," the lawsuit says.

The former employees allege the company's directors did not
"fairly and adequately" disclose the risks and consequences of
the bank's unsound and unsafe practices and policies, resulting
in the plan purchasing shares at inflated prices.

The lawsuit also cites allegations by regulators that Williams
lied to make the bank appear in better shape than it was.

Williams is accused of illegally loaning $60 million to "straw
borrowers," who were fronting for another borrower who had
already reached his loan limits. Regulators say Williams knew $15
million from those loans would be used to buy stock in Orion, and
he intentionally lied about the nature of the loans to make the
bank appear financially sound.

The lawsuit is based on losses suffered between Jan. 1, 2006, and
Nov. 13, 2009. In 2007, Orion's stock was valued at as much as
$55 a share, when in reality it was "utterly worthless as the
defendants caused the company to adopt undisclosed business and
lending practices that ultimately led to its downfall," the
lawsuit contends.

Plaintiffs allege violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, which is meant to ensure "the soundness and
stability of plans" to make sure they can pay the promised
benefits. They seek to recover "millions of dollars in losses" in
the plan.

Through the retirement plan, employees could contribute up to 10
percent of their pay annually, with a $1 for $1 match from the
company, according to the lawsuit. "As Orion matched all
contributions in Orion stock, plan participants were heavily
encouraged to maintain their investments in the company's stock
and were prohibited from diversifying or selling," the plaintiffs
say. "As a result, virtually all of the plan participants'
retirement funds were invested in only one stock - Orion stock."

From 2007 to 2009, plaintiffs say Orion "engaged in a course of
improper, unethical and illegal conduct" spearheaded by Williams.
The company "wrote and securitized loans using reduced
underwriting standards," and inadequately reserved for loan
losses based on those lower standards, they say.

Despite losing more than $6 million in 2007, Orion Bancorp paid
out $28 million in dividends and as the largest shareholder
Williams used the payout "as a means of extracting cash from his
investment," according to the lawsuit.

In its December 2007 quarterly report, Orion announced its non-
current loans rose to $91.7 million - a 4,267 increase from the
$2.1 million in problem loans it had in the same quarter in 2006,
a further indication of its instability, the plaintiffs say.

In June 2008, Williams sent a reassuring letter to shareholders,
saying the management team forecasted a profitable year. His
letter is included in the lawsuit. In it he writes, "We have been
aggressive in dealing with any problem loans and are fortunate
that Orion has no credit exposure to subprime borrowers which has
been one of the main culprits for losses reported in the
financial industry."

In that letter, Williams failed to disclose how much the loan
loss reserves were underfunded, the lawsuit says.

In another letter dated Aug. 13, 2008, Williams characterized the
bank as "well capitalized" and said it continued to have "strong
core earnings," the plaintiffs say. Twelve days later, the
Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta and Florida's Office of Financial
Regulation took a formal enforcement action against Orion,
requiring it to strengthen its board oversight, improve its
assets and change its loan policies. It was ordered to stop
paying dividends without approval from regulators.

Later, regulators issued a cease-and-desist order against Orion,
the harshest form of enforcement, after the bank's finances
worsened.

On Dec. 21, 2009, participants in the employee stock plan
received a letter saying their shares were "now worthless."

Orion Bank lost $75 million in the third quarter of last year
before regulators swooped in to shut it down.

Founded in the Florida Keys in 1977, Orion grew to become one of
the most successful community banks in the nation and the largest
in Southwest Florida. It became the 11th bank in Florida to fail
in 2009.

Last year, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. shut down 140
troubled banks. There have been 64 bank closures this year.


PINNACLE GROUP: S.D.N.Y. Certifies Riverside Tenants' Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Call it sweet revenge," Samuel Newhouse at the Brooklyn Daily
Eagle says, reporting that the Pinnacle Group NY, owners of the
Riverside Apartments in Brooklyn Heights, had previously irked
some of its residents with a 2008 plan to knock over some ancient
trees and build a parking lot behind the red brick apartment
building on Columbia Place.

Now some of those residents may get a chance to sue Pinnacle for
alleged harassment.

The 2008 plan by Pinnacle and owner Joel Wiener to build the
garage between the building and the BQE caused a small scuffle
before the plan was eventually scuttled after the state Division
of Housing and Community Renewal rejected the proposal.

But now in response to complaints by other Pinnacle tenants in
New York City, a U.S. District Court judge has certified rent-
regulated tenants of the more than 400 apartment buildings
Pinnacle owns citywide as a class for the purpose of filing a
class-action lawsuit. The plaintiffs filing in this suit claim
that Pinnacle used various tactics to raise rent on tenants
living in rent-regulated apartments.

Members of the Riverside Tenants Association could not be reached
immediately for comment. However, a commenter on
BrooklynHeightsBlog.com suggested that the tenants association
"will certainly join the Wiener Pile-On."

Manhattan Federal Court Judge Colleen McMahon ruled that all
tenants who lived in rent-regulated apartments owned by Pinnacle
Group NY between July 11, 2004, and April 27, 2010 are eligible
to sue Pinnacle as part of a class-action lawsuit, reported
Crain's New York.

Eligible tenants will likely receive information about the class-
action lawsuit within the next two weeks.

Pinnacle Group NY was previously targeted by the New York
Attorney General and had to pay $1 million to its tenants.


ROYAL BANK: Continues to Defend Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------
The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc continues to defend a class
action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

RBS and a number of its subsidiaries and certain individual
officers and directors have been named as defendants in a class
action.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges certain false and
misleading statements and omissions in public filings and other
communications during the period March 1, 2007 to Jan. 19, 2009,
and variously asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act 1933, Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities
Exchange Act 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The putative class is composed of:

     (1) all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired RBS
         securities between March 1, 2007 and 19 Jan. 19, 2009;
         and/or

     (2) all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Series
         Q, R, S, T and/or U non-cumulative dollar preference
         shares issued pursuant or traceable to the April 8,
         2005, SEC registration statement and were damaged
         thereby.

Plaintiffs seek unquantified damages on behalf of the putative
class.

RBS Group has also received notification of similar prospective
claims in the United Kingdom and elsewhere but no court
proceedings have been commenced in relation to these claims.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 27, 2010,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc -- http://www.rbs.com/-- is  
the holding company of a global banking and financial services
group.  The company operates in the United Kingdom, the United
States, and internationally through its two principal
subsidiaries, The Royal Bank of Scotland plc and National
Westminster Bank Plc.  Both the Royal Bank and NatWest are United
Kingdom clearing banks.  The company's business segments include:
UK Retail, UK Corporate, Wealth, Global Banking and Markets
(GBM), Global Transaction Services, Ulster Bank, US Retail and
Commercial and RBS Insurance.  In March 2010, the company sold
its wholesale banking operations in Colombia (RBSC) to The Bank
of Nova Scotia.  On Jan. 14, 2009, RBS, through its subsidiary,
RBS China Investments S.a.r.l, sold its entire 4.26% stake in
Bank of China.  In March 2010, Australia and New Zealand Banking
Group Limited acquired the Company's retail and commercial
businesses in Hong Kong.


ROYAL BANK: Remains a Defendant in Securities-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc remains a defendant in a
number of purported class action and other lawsuits in the United
States that relate to the securitisation and securities
underwriting businesses.

In general, the cases involve the issuance of mortgage backed
securities, collateralised debt obligations, or public debt or
equity where the plaintiffs have brought actions against the
issuers and underwriters of such securities (including RBS
companies) claiming that certain disclosures made in connection
with the relevant offerings of such securities were false or
misleading with respect to alleged "sub-prime" mortgage exposure.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 27, 2010,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc -- http://www.rbs.com/-- is  
the holding company of a global banking and financial services
group.  The company operates in the United Kingdom, the United
States, and internationally through its two principal
subsidiaries, The Royal Bank of Scotland plc and National
Westminster Bank Plc.  Both the Royal Bank and NatWest are United
Kingdom clearing banks.  The company's business segments include:
UK Retail, UK Corporate, Wealth, Global Banking and Markets
(GBM), Global Transaction Services, Ulster Bank, US Retail and
Commercial and RBS Insurance.  In March 2010, the company sold
its wholesale banking operations in Colombia (RBSC) to The Bank
of Nova Scotia.  On Jan. 14, 2009, RBS, through its subsidiary,
RBS China Investments S.a.r.l, sold its entire 4.26% stake in
Bank of China.  In March 2010, Australia and New Zealand Banking
Group Limited acquired the Company's retail and commercial
businesses in Hong Kong.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Judge Fischer Tells Parties to Solve Discovery Spat
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad at The National Law Journal reports that a
federal judge in Los Angeles has declined a request by plaintiffs
lawyers in a shareholder class action to force attorneys for
Toyota Motor Corp. to turn over documents that were provided to
Congress, which has been investigating vehicle recalls associated
with sudden unintended acceleration defects.

Instead, U.S. District Judge Dale Fischer of the Central District
of California on Monday ordered the parties to reach a discovery
agreement on their own within a week.

The suit, filed on Feb. 8, is the first shareholder class action
to allege that Toyota's executives and directors made false and
misleading statements to shareholders regarding the defects. The
recall caused Toyota's stock price to drop from $90.42 on Jan. 21
to $71.78 on Feb. 4.

In court documents, lawyers for the plaintiff, Harry Stackhouse,
had asked Fischer to lift a stay on discovery and instead order
that documents relevant to the case be preserved or turned over.
Under securities law, discovery is stayed in a shareholder case
if a judge has yet to rule on pleading motions, such as a motion
to dismiss.

To support their argument, the lawyers pointed to "serious
allegations" that Toyota failed to disclose the defects. They
specifically mentioned a $16.4 million fine that the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration imposed after finding that
Toyota waited four months to report the defects.

The lawyers also brought up claims in a wrongful termination suit
brought by a former in-house attorney at Toyota, Dimitrios
Biller, that Toyota destroyed or hid evidence in hundreds of
products liability suits. They noted that U.S. Rep. Edolphus
Towns, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Oversight and Government
Reform Committee, found that documents provided by Biller
indicate "Toyota deliberately withheld electronic records that it
was legally required to produce in response to discovery orders
in litigation," according to documents filed by Stackhouse's
lawyers.

"While the documents produced to Congress remain hidden from
public scrutiny, Toyota has embarked on a massive public campaign
to shape its defenses to the ever-broadening allegations against
them," wrote one of Stackhouse's lawyers:

          Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: 415-288-4545
          E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com

"Such a situation puts plaintiff Harry Stackhouse in an untenable
position, necessitating plaintiff to respond to serious
allegations of document destruction while the evidence purporting
to show such misconduct remains hidden from view, and Toyota's
defenses to such conduct go unchallenged."

Toyota's counsel:

          Jeffrey S. Facter, Esq.
          SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
          525 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: 415-616-1100
          E-mail: jfacter@shearman.com

said in court documents that the plaintiff's claims were based on
news reports, the allegations of a disgruntled ex-employee and
statements from a single Congressman. He said that agreements
concerning discovery requests should wait until a lead plaintiff
is appointed in the consolidated shareholder class actions.

At least six shareholders have filed suits against Toyota. A
hearing on consolidating those actions and appointing a lead
plaintiff and lead counsel is scheduled for June 7.


UNITED STATES: Indian Trust Fund Settlement Legal Fees at Issue
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Baxter at The American Lawyer reports that Congressional
approval of one of the largest class action settlements in U.S.
history is getting hung up on the issue of legal fees for
plaintiffs lawyers.

The $3.4 billion Indian trusts settlement agreed to in December
could be scuttled if Congress doesn't approve the terms of the
agreement by May 28, according to The Associated Press.

The tentative settlement would close the books on a class action
filed in 1996 on behalf of 300,000 American Indians. The
plaintiffs in the suit claimed that as trustee for 145 million
acres of land under the Dawes Act of 1887, the U.S. Department of
the Interior mismanaged trust accounts and allowed the federal
government to give the best land to white settlers. The
settlement calls for plaintiffs to be paid $1.4 billion -- about
$1,500 per class member -- and for a $2 billion fund to be set up
to buy American Indian land.

The potential snag now, as reported by sibling publication The
Blog of Legal Times, is a move by Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming
to cap attorney fees in the case at $50 million. That has one of
the plaintiffs lawyers who spent years litigating the matter
crying foul.

Dennis Gingold -- a solo practitioner in Washington, D.C., who
serves as lead counsel to the plaintiffs -- told the AP that he
will terminate the settlement and resume litigation unless
Congress approves the agreement without altering any of its
terms. Gingold told The BLT that Barrasso's sentiments fly in the
face of a previous fee cap of $100 million agreed to in December,
which would give Gingold and his co-counsel at Kilpatrick
Stockton fees totaling between $50 million and $100 million.

Were Gingold and Kilpatrick Stockton to split $100 million, they
would be taking a total cut of roughly 7 percent of the $1.4
billion settlement figure; the lawyers' share shrinks to about 3
percent if the $2 billion trust called for under the proposed
settlement is figured in. Either way, the fees would be well
below what has been paid out to plaintiffs lawyers in other major
class actions such as the one against Enron, as noted by lead
plaintiff Elouise Cobell, a former treasurer of Montana's
Blackfeet Nation, in a story by Legal Newsline.

Calls to Gingold and Kilpatrick Stockton litigation partner Keith
Harper were not returned by the time of this post. The American
Lawyer named both lawyers Litigators of the Week last year for
their efforts in reaching an agreement. Kilpatrick disclosed in
December 2008 that it had already plowed more than $22 million in
legal fees and expenses into the case.

Two years ago The National Law Journal, a sibling publication,
named Harper one of its 50 Most Influential Minority Lawyers in
America. Before joining Kilpatrick Stockton, Harper was a
litigator with the American Indian Rights Fund in Washington,
D.C.

Before Harper and Gingold can be compensated for their efforts,
the settlement must overcome the final stages of political and
legal scrutiny. Gingold told The BLT last week that Barrasso was
one of the few opponents raising hackles over the agreement's
terms, noting that plaintiffs "have very strong supporters in the
House and Senate."

Even if Congress approves the settlement by the May 28 deadline
-- the third such deadline the case has seen to date -- it must
also be approved by U.S. district court Judge James Robertson.


WELLPOINT INC: State's Appeal in "Gold" Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the State of Connecticut in a putative class action
against WellPoint, Inc., remains pending in the Connecticut
Supreme Court.

The company is currently defending several putative class actions
filed as a result of the 2001 Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc.
(AICI), demutualization.  The suits name AICI as well as Anthem,
Inc. (Anthem, n/k/a WellPoint, Inc.).

AICI's 2001 Plan of Conversion provided for the conversion of
AICI from a mutual insurance company into a stock insurance
company pursuant to Indiana law.  Under the Plan, AICI
distributed the fair value of the company at the time of
conversion to its Eligible Statutory Members (ESMs), in the form
of cash or Anthem common stock in exchange for their membership
interests in the mutual company.

The lawsuits generally allege that AICI distributed value to the
wrong ESMs or distributed insufficient value to the ESMs.

In the suit captioned Ronald Gold, et al. v. Anthem, Inc. et al.,
cross motions for summary judgment were granted in part and
denied in part with regard to the issue of sovereign immunity
asserted by co-defendant, the State of Connecticut.

The State has appealed this denial to the Connecticut Supreme
Court.  The company filed a cross-appeal.

Oral argument was held in November 2008 and the parties are
awaiting a ruling.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 28, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Based in Indianapolis, Ind., WellPoint, Inc., is a health
benefits company, serving 34.6 million medical members as of
March 31, 2009.  The company is an independent licensee of the
Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, an association of
independent health benefit plans.


WELLPOINT INC: Continues to Defend "Ormond" Suit in Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------------
WellPoint, Inc., continues to defend the class action styled Mary
E. Ormond, et al. v. Anthem, Inc., et al., pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.

The company is currently defending several putative class actions
filed as a result of the 2001 Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc.
(AICI), demutualization.  The suits name AICI as well as Anthem,
Inc. (Anthem, n/k/a WellPoint, Inc.).

AICI's 2001 Plan of Conversion provided for the conversion of
AICI from a mutual insurance company into a stock insurance
company pursuant to Indiana law.

Under the Plan, AICI distributed the fair value of the company at
the time of conversion to its Eligible Statutory Members, or
ESMs, in the form of cash or Anthem common stock in exchange for
their membership interests in the mutual company.

The lawsuits generally allege that AICI distributed value to the
wrong ESMs or distributed insufficient value to the ESMs.

In the Ormond suit, the company's Motion to Dismiss was granted
in part and denied in part on March 31, 2008.  The court
dismissed the claims for violation of federal and state
securities laws, for violation of the Indiana Demutualization Law
and for unjust enrichment.

On Sept. 29, 2009, a class was certified in the Ormond suit.  The
class consists of all ESMs residing in Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky or
Connecticut who received cash compensation in connection with the
demutualization.  The class does not include employers located in
Ohio and Connecticut that received compensation under the Plan.

No further updateds were reported in the company's April 28,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Based in Indianapolis, Ind., WellPoint, Inc. is a health benefits
company, serving 34.6 million medical members as of March 31,
2009.  The company is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross
and Blue Shield Association, an association of independent health
benefit plans.


WELLPOINT INC: Plaintiffs Appealing Dismissal of "Mell" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the matter Ronald E. Mell, Sr., et al. v. Anthem,
Inc., et al., have filed a notice of appeal on the dismissal of
the suit, according to WellPoint, Inc.'s April 28, 2010, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The company is currently defending several putative class actions
filed as a result of the 2001 Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc.
(AICI), demutualization.  The suits name AICI as well as Anthem,
Inc. (Anthem, n/k/a WellPoint, Inc.).

AICI's 2001 Plan of Conversion provided for the conversion of
AICI from a mutual insurance company into a stock insurance
company pursuant to Indiana law.

Under the Plan, AICI distributed the fair value of the company at
the time of conversion to its Eligible Statutory Members, or
ESMs, in the form of cash or Anthem common stock in exchange for
their membership interests in the mutual company.

The lawsuits generally allege that AICI distributed value to the
wrong ESMs or distributed insufficient value to the ESMs.

On Nov. 4, 2009, a class was certified in the Mell suit.  That
class consisted of persons who were employees or retirees who
were continuously enrolled in the health benefit plan sponsored
by the City of Cincinnati between the dates of June 18, 2001 and
Nov. 2, 2001.

On March 3, 2010, the Court issued an order granting the
company's motion for summary judgment.  As a result, the Mell
suit has been dismissed.  The plaintiffs have filed a notice of
appeal.

Based in Indianapolis, Ind., WellPoint, Inc. is a health benefits
company, serving 34.6 million medical members as of March 31,
2009.  The company is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross
and Blue Shield Association, an association of independent health
benefit plans.


WELLPOINT INC: Continues to Defend "Jorling" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
WellPoint, Inc., continues to defend the matter Jeffrey D.
Jorling, et al., v. Anthem, Inc. (n/k/a WellPoint, Inc.) et al.,
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana.

The company is currently defending several putative class actions
filed as a result of the 2001 Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc.
(AICI), demutualization.  The suits name AICI as well as Anthem,
Inc. (Anthem, n/k/a WellPoint, Inc.).

AICI's 2001 Plan of Conversion provided for the conversion of
AICI from a mutual insurance company into a stock insurance
company pursuant to Indiana law.

Under the Plan, AICI distributed the fair value of the company at
the time of conversion to its Eligible Statutory Members, or
ESMs, in the form of cash or Anthem common stock in exchange for
their membership interests in the mutual company.

The lawsuits generally allege that AICI distributed value to the
wrong ESMs or distributed insufficient value to the ESMs.

No further updates on the Jorling suit were reported in the
company's April 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

Based in Indianapolis, Ind., WellPoint, Inc. is a health benefits
company, serving 34.6 million medical members as of March 31,
2009.  The company is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross
and Blue Shield Association, an association of independent health
benefit plans.


WELLPOINT INC: Summary Judgment Bid in Dentists' Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
WellPoint, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in a putative class
action relating to Out-of-Network reimbursement of dental claims
is pending.

The company is currently a defendant in a putative class action
relating to Out-of-Network (OON), reimbursement of dental claims
called American Dental Association v. WellPoint Health Networks,
Inc. and Blue Cross of California.

The lawsuit was filed in March 2002 by the ADA and three dentists
who are suing on behalf of themselves and are seeking to sue on
behalf of a nationwide class of all non-participating dental
providers who were paid less than their actual charges for dental
services provided to WellPoint dental members.

The complaint alleges that WellPoint Health Networks Inc., Blue
Cross of California and other WellPoint affiliates and
subsidiaries improperly set usual, customary and reasonable
payment for OON dental services based on HIAA/Ingenix data.

The plaintiffs claim, among other things, that the HIAA/Ingenix
databases fail to account for differences in geography, provider
specialty, outlier (high) charges, and complexity of procedure.  
The complaint further alleges that WellPoint was aware that this
data was inappropriate to set usual, customary and reasonable
rates.

The dentists sue as assignees of their patients' rights to
benefits under WellPoint's dental plans and assert that WellPoint
breached its contractual obligations in violation of ERISA by
routinely paying OON dentists less than their actual charges and
representing that its OON payments were properly determined
usual, customary and reasonable rates.

The suit is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.  The company has filed a motion for
summary judgment, which is pending.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 28, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Based in Indianapolis, Ind., WellPoint, Inc. is a health benefits
company, serving 34.6 million medical members as of March 31,
2009.  The company is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross
and Blue Shield Association, an association of independent health
benefit plans.


WELLPOINT INC: Wants Consolidated "OON" Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
WellPoint, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated complaint
relating to out-of-network reimbursement remains pending,
according to the company's April 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

The company is currently a defendant in eleven putative class
actions relating to out-of-network reimbursement.

The cases have been made part of a WellPoint-only multi-district
litigation called In re WellPoint, Inc. Out-of-Network "UCR"
Rates Litigation and are pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.

The lawsuits are:

     (1) Darryl and Valerie Samsell v. WellPoint, Inc.,
         WellPoint Health Networks, Inc. and Anthem, Inc., filed
         in February 2009 by two former members on behalf of a
         putative class of members who received out-of-network
         services for which the defendants paid less than billed
         charges.  The plaintiffs allege that the defendants
         violated RICO, the Sherman Antitrust Act, ERISA, and
         federal regulations by relying on databases provided by
         Ingenix in determining out-of-network reimbursement;

     (2) AMA et al. v. WellPoint, Inc., brought in March 2009 by
         the American Medical Association (AMA), four state
         medical associations and two individual physicians on
         behalf of a putative class of out-of-network
         physicians;

     (3) Roberts v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc. et al., brought in
         March 2009 by a WellPoint member as a putative class
         action on behalf of all persons or entities who have
         paid premiums for out-of-network health insurance
         coverage;

     (4) JBW v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc. et al., brought in
         April 2009 by a WellPoint member as a putative class
         action on behalf of all persons who have paid premiums
         for out-of-network health insurance coverage;

     (5) O'Brien, et al. v. WellPoint, Inc., et al., brought in
         May 2009 by three WellPoint members as a putative class
         action on behalf of all persons who received out-of-
         network services;

     (6) Higashi, D.C. d/b/a Mar Vista Institute of Health v.
         Blue Cross of California d/b/a WellPoint, Inc., brought
         in June 2009 by an out-of-network chiropractor as a
         putative class action on behalf of all out-of-network
         chiropractors;

     (7) North Peninsula Surgical Center v. WellPoint,Inc.,
         et al., brought in June 2009 by an out-of-network
         surgical center as a putative class action on behalf of
         all out-of-network surgical centers;

     (8) American Podiatric Medical Association, et al. v.
         WellPoint, Inc., brought in June 2009 by the American
         Podiatric Medical Association, California Chiropractic
         Association, California Psychological Association and
         an out-of-network clinical psychologist as a putative
         class action on behalf of out-of-network podiatrists,
         chiropractors and psychologists;

     (9) Michael Pariser, et al. v. WellPoint, Inc., brought in
         July 2009 by an out-of-network psychologist as a
         putative class action on behalf of all out-of-network
         providers who are not medical doctors or doctors of
         osteopathy;

    (10) Harold S. Bernard, Ph.D., et al. v. WellPoint, Inc.,
         brought in July 2009 by an out-of-network psychologist
         as a putative class action on behalf of all non-medical
         doctor health care providers; and

    (11) Ken Unmacht, Psy.D., et al. v. WellPoint, Inc., brought
         in August 2009 by an out-of-network licensed
         psychotherapist as a putative class action on behalf of
         all non-medical doctor health care providers.

A consolidated complaint has been filed for the eleven cases.

The company filed a motion to dismiss, which is pending, and a
motion to enjoin the claims brought by the medical doctors and
doctors of osteopathy based on prior litigation releases.

Based in Indianapolis, Ind., WellPoint, Inc., is a health
benefits company, serving 34.6 million medical members as of
March 31, 2009.  The company is an independent licensee of the
Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, an association of
independent health benefit plans.


* Australian Securities Class Actions Filings Hit Record in 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------
Securities class action filings in Australia set a new record in
2009, breaking the previous record set in 2008, according to a
new study by NERA Economic Consulting. The six filings in 2009
bring the total for 2007-2009 to 14 - exactly half of total
number of filings since the first securities class action case
was filed in Australia in the early 1990s.

According to the study, Trends in Australian Securities Class
Actions: 1 January 1993 - 31 December 2009, a key factor in the
recent increase in securities class action filings has been a
change in the way securities class action litigation is funded in
Australia. Until only a few years ago, there was a strong
disincentive to bring an action due to the risk of incurring
significant legal costs. The emergence of commercial litigation
funding has improved the incentive and ability for investors to
participate in class actions, say the study's authors, NERA
Director Greg Houston, Senior Consultant Svetlana Starykh, and
Analyst Astrid Dahl. Since 2005, the large majority of class
actions have been financed by a commercial litigation funder.

"The emergence over the past few years of commercial litigation
funders as major players is the most recent step in the emergence
of securities class actions as a permanent, significant feature
of Australia's business and litigation environment," said Mr.
Houston. "Although there are still uncertainties that the courts
must resolve in Australia's relatively young securities class
actions regime, we think that the most likely trend is that the
rate of growth in filings evident in recent years will continue."

The NERA study also found that:

    * More than half the securities class actions filed between
      1999 and 2009 alleged either misleading or deceptive
      conduct, or failure by companies to disclose promptly
      information material to the value of their securities.

    * More than half of all securities class actions were brought
      against companies in the financial industry (including
      insurance and real estate).

    * Settlement is the most likely outcome of securities class
      action cases in Australia. Eight of the 12 class actions
      resolved by the end of 2009 were settled. This trend has
      become more pronounced in recent years -- all of the
      resolved cases filed after 2003 were settled. Only two
      Australian securities class action cases have been resolved
      by final judgment.

The report, Trends in Australian Securities Class Actions: 1
January 1993 - 31 December 2009, can be downloaded from:

     http://www.nera.com/publication.asp?p_ID=4122

                             About NERA

NERA Economic Consulting -- http://www.nera.com/-- is a global  
firm of experts dedicated to applying economic, finance, and
quantitative principles to complex business and legal challenges.
For half a century, NERA's economists have been creating
strategies, studies, reports, expert testimony, and policy
recommendations for government authorities and the world's
leading law firms and corporations. We bring academic rigor,
objectivity, and real world industry experience to bear on issues
arising from competition, regulation, public policy, strategy,
finance, and litigation.

NERA's clients value our ability to apply and communicate state-
of-the-art approaches clearly and convincingly, our commitment to
deliver unbiased findings, and our reputation for quality and
independence. Our clients rely on the integrity and skills of our
unparalleled team of economists and other experts backed by the
resources and reliability of one of the world's largest economic
consultancies. With its main office in New York City, NERA serves
clients from more than 25 offices across North America, Europe,
and Asia Pacific.

          Contact: NERA Economic Consulting
                   Asia Pacific Media
                   Greg Houston, + 61 2 8864 6501
                   Director
                   Greg.Houston@nera.com

                      - or -

                   Global Media
                   Benjamin Seggerson, +1 202-466-9232
                   Public Relations Manager
                   ben.seggerson@nera.com

                            *********

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  * * *