CAR_Public/100518.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, May 18, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 96

                            Headlines

ANZ BANK: S.D.N.Y. Sanctions Shareholder-Plaintiffs' Lawyers
BANK OF AMERICA: 12-Year-Old Overdraft Case Resurfaces in Calif.
COINSTAR INC: "Piechur" Suit Remanded to St. Clair County Court
CUMULUS MEDIA: Defends "Mas" Suit in Northern California
DENTSPLY INT'L: Calif. Supreme Court Denies Petition for Review

DENTSPLY INT'L: Seeks Dismissal of New Complaints in California
DENTSPLY INT'L: Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal Ruling
HARMAN INT'L: Bid to Junk Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
HARMAN INT'L: Motion to Dismiss ERISA Violations Lawsuit Pending
HARTE HANKS: Approval of Settlement Agreement Remains Pending

HARTFORD LIFE: Settles RICO-Violations Suit for $54 Million
IMAX CORP: Snow Capital Files Motion for Class Certification
IMAX CORP: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Ontario
J.B. HUNT: Wage Violations Suit Remains Pending in California
K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Missouri Court Dismisses "Crocker" Suit

K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Court Dismisses ERISA-Violations Suit
K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: "Public Pension" Suit in Missouri Dismissed
K-V PHARMA: Remains a Defendant in 3 Suits Over Product Recalls
LITHIA MOTORS: No Arbitration Date Set in "Dunham" Suit
MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Settlement Gets Court's Final Approval

NCR CORP: Appeal in "Death Benefits" Suit Remains Pending
OSHKOSH CORP: Wisconsin Court Dismisses Amended Complaint
PAN AM 73: Suit Against Crowell & Moring Now in Two Courts
REVLON INC: Defends Consolidated Suit Over Exchange Offer
REVLON INC: "Garofalo" Suit in Delaware Remains Stayed

ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Remains a Defendant in Suit Over Artwork Sale
SELECTIVE INSURANCE: Units Remain Defendants in Various Suits
SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Virginia Galura's Claim Remains Pending
SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Defending Consolidated Customer Arbitration
STRYKER CORP: Faces Securities Suit in New York

TRANSOCEAN LTD: Nov. 15 Deepwater Horizon Claim Deadline Set
TRANSOCEAN LTD: Shareholder Class Action Suit Filed in E.D. La.
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Continues to Defend Lawsuit in Columbia
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Calif. Units Defend Two Wage and Hours Suits
WESTERN DIGITAL: Certification Hearing in "Durrani" Set for Oct.

                            *********

ANZ BANK: S.D.N.Y. Sanctions Shareholder-Plaintiffs' Lawyers
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett at the New York Law Journal reports that sanctions
are being leveled at attorneys for plaintiffs in a securities
class action who based their complaint on a mistaken reading of a
business magazine that they later withdrew.

Southern District Judge Denise Cote ordered:

          Kenneth J. Vianale, Esq.
          VIANALE & VIANALE, LLP
          2499 Glades Road, Suite 112
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: 561-392-4750

and a second plaintiffs lawyer to pay all the defendants'
attorney fees and costs after rejecting Mr. Vianale's defense
that he misread a news article on internal e-mails that allegedly
incriminated the defendant company.

To the degree that the news article was the "inspiration" for a
central allegation in the original complaint, Judge Cote said,
"plaintiff's misreading of that news article -- and subsequent
lack of diligence or further inquiry -- was an act of gross
negligence bordering on recklessness."

Judge Cote, who dismissed the suit in December, also ordered:

          Jules Brody, Esq.
          Stull Stull & Brody
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: 212-687-7230

who signed the complaint, and the law firms of both attorneys, to
pay the sanctions in In re Australia and New Zealand Banking
Group Limited Securities Litigation, Case No. 08-cv-11278
(S.D.N.Y.).

The plaintiffs were investors who purchased American Depository
Receipts in Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ANZ)
between March 2, 2007, and July 27, 2008.

They claimed ANZ made false and misleading statements on its
financial results -- chiefly by failing to disclose the risk
posed by its relationship with Opes Prime Group Limited, an
Australian margin lending and stock firm that owed ANZ $650
million when it went into receivership on March 27, 2008.

The original complaint filed in December 2008 stated in paragraph
25 that "In March 2007, in a series of internal emails,
executives of ANZ recognized that Opes was in financial
difficulties and that as a result, ANZ's loans to Opes Prime
would be in jeopardy. Nevertheless, no public disclosure was made
by ANZ."

But in a consolidated amended complaint filed May 21, 2009, the
allegation about the internal e-mails was not included.  Instead,
Judge Cote said, the new "core allegation" was that ANZ failed to
disclose in public statements that it had inadequate internal
controls for its equity finance unit.

Mr. Vianale submitted a declaration in February 2010 that
conceded the source of the original paragraph 25 allegation was
an article in the June 2008 edition of the Australian periodical
Business Spectator, entitled, "Did ANZ light the fuse?"

The article states that, following Opes' collapse in March 2008,
ANZ told the magazine it was exiting the securities lending
business, "but emails obtained by Business Spectator suggest this
process was happening much earlier," as early as March 7.

Mr. Vianale's declaration, Judge Cote said, explained that he
"mistook the article's 'March 7' reference as one to March 7,
2007, instead of March 7, 2008."

Mr. Vianale "thereby concedes that the allegation in paragraph 25
was false," Judge Cote said.

While Mr. Vianale insisted that his mistake was not "concocted"
or made in bad faith, Judge Cote said the attorney did not
explain why he misread the article or why the error was not
caught before the original complaint was filed.

The judge was proceeding under the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995's requirement that she make specific findings
on the compliance of attorneys with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.

"Plaintiff can identify no evidence whatsoever for the allegation
that internal emails were exchanged at ANZ in or about March 2007
concerning Opes Prime's financial difficulties," Judge Cote said.

And the error in paragraph 25, she said, "was not an isolated
misstatement concerning a collateral or trivial fact, but rather,
a material allegation central to the viability of the entire
pleading."

The complaint's "spurious" allegation, she said, allowed the
class period to start 12 months earlier than it otherwise could
have.

"Such indifference to the truth of the pleading's single most
important factual allegation -- coming, ironically, in the
context of initiating a lawsuit that accuses another party of
making reckless misstatements of material fact -- is the sort of
conduct that Rule 11 and the PSLRA seek to deter," she said.

While Mr. Vianale took responsibility for his error, Judge Cote
said, "he does not explain how he came to rest his entire case on
a misread news article."

Mr. Vianale declined comment, as did an attorney with Stull Stull
& Brody.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Samuel W. Seymour, Esq.
          Penny Shane, Esq.
          Daniel R. Margolis, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004-2498
          Telephone: 212-558-4000
          E-mail: seymours@sullcrom.com
                  shanep@sullcrom.com
                  margolisd@sullcrom.com

and they also declined comment.

On May 28, Sullivan & Cromwell is due to submit "an application
for attorney fees and costs, supported by contemporaneous time
records" to Judge Cote.


BANK OF AMERICA: 12-Year-Old Overdraft Case Resurfaces in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Petra Pasternak at The Recorder reports that nearly a year after
the California Supreme Court sided with Bank of America by
reversing a more than $1 billion judgment against it, the
plaintiffs are trying to revive their class action.

They want to start over with an amended complaint -- and a San
Francisco judge has given them the okay.  Now Bank of America is
trying to get the 1st District Court of Appeal to step in and
declare an end to the almost 12-year-old litigation.

The 1st District and the Supreme Court "clearly dealt a death
knell" to the litigation and intended that judgment be entered in
favor of the bank, its lawyers at Morrison & Foerster argue in
their writ petition. "The trial court swept away 12 years of
litigation and fed two published appellate opinions into the
shredder," they wrote.

The bank was sued in 1998 by Paul Miller, a disabled man who
accused the bank of improperly tapping deposited Social Security
and other benefits to cover overdraft fees and penalties. After
getting a class of more than 1 million members certified,
attorneys at the Sturdevant Law Firm and the Brandi Law Firm won
at trial before Judge Anne Bouliane, who has since retired. The
1st District reversed, and was affirmed by the Supreme Court.

But when Miller v. Bank of America was remanded to San Francisco
Superior Court Judge Curtis Karnow, the bank asked that judgment
be entered in its favor -- and the plaintiffs asked to amend
their complaint.

In his March ruling, Karnow allowed it.

With the two sides arguing over whether the appellate courts had
ruled against Miller on just a "single account" theory, or also
on the "two account" theory the plaintiffs want to focus on now,
Karnow found that "The courts were silent on this issue: They
overtly neither confirmed nor denied that both theories had been
adjudicated."

The judge added that, while Bank of America accurately noted that
the plaintiffs lawyers "swung for the fences" the first time
around by arguing in the broadest possible terms that the bank's
practices under either scenario went against case law, the
plaintiffs' shift now doesn't amount to gamesmanship. "The
fundamental explanation here is that Miller's lawyers were
mistaken in their understanding of [Kruger v. Wells Fargo Bank].
Now that the law is clear, it is fair that the case be tried on
the merits."

In BofA's briefs at the 1st District, though, MoFo insists that
the two-account theory has been considered and denied. "After Mr.
Miller lost on appeal, he asked first [the 1st District], then
the Supreme Court, to modify their opinions based on his 'two-
account' theory. . . .  Both requests were denied.  The two-
account theory had its day in court and is a dead issue," states
the petition, signed by senior of counsel Miriam Vogel.

They also argue that Karnow's order denies the bank finality,
violating its right to due process.

James Sturdevant argues in the plaintiffs' brief that the bank's
writ petition is without merit in part because the bank itself
put the spotlight on the single-account scenario. "At every
pivotal point in the appellate proceedings in this case, the bank
asserted that the only issue at stake was the legality of seizing
exempt funds to recover overdrafts and overdraft [fees] from the
same account."

The plaintiffs also say the defense should have asked the 1st
District and the Supreme Court to spell out instructions to enter
judgment for the bank if that's what it wanted.

The bank countered: "When the umpire calls the third strike for
the third out at the end of the ninth inning, the game is over --
even if he doesn't say 'game over.'"


COINSTAR INC: "Piechur" Suit Remanded to St. Clair County Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint against Coinstar, Inc.'s wholly owned
subsidiary, Redbox Automated Retail, LLC, has been remanded back
to the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St.
Clair County, Illinois, according to the company's April 29,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

In October 2009, an Illinois resident, Laurie Piechur,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
filed a class action complaint against Redbox in the Circuit
Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County,
Illinois.

The plaintiff alleges that, among other things, Redbox charges
consumers illegal and excessive late fees in violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and
other state statutes.

In November 2009, Redbox removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois.  In February 2010,
this court remanded the case to the Circuit Court for the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois.

Redbox has moved to dismiss the plaintiff's claims.

Coinstar, Inc. -- http://www.coinstar.com/-- is a multi-national  
company offering a range of 4th Wall solutions for retailers'
storefronts.  The company's services consist of self-service coin
counting; self-service digital versatile disc (DVD) kiosks where
consumers can rent or purchase movies; entertainment services,
such as skill-crane machines, bulk vending machines and kiddie
rides, money transfer services, and electronic payment (e-
payment) services, such as stored value cards, payroll cards,
prepaid debit cards and prepaid wireless products via point-of-
sale terminals and stored value kiosks.  The company operates in
four segments: Coin and Entertainment services, DVD services,
Money Transfer services and E-payment Services.


CUMULUS MEDIA: Defends "Mas" Suit in Northern California
--------------------------------------------------------
Cumulus Media Inc. defends a purported class action filed by a
former employee of Susquehanna Radio Corp.

On Jan. 21, 2010, Brian Mas, a former employee of Susquehanna
Radio, filed a purported class action lawsuit against the company
claiming:

     (i) unlawful failure to pay required overtime wages,

    (ii) late pay and waiting time penalties,

   (iii) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements,

    (iv) failure to indemnity for necessary expenses and losses,
         and

     (v) unfair trade practices under California's Unfair
         Competition Act.

The plaintiff is requesting restitution, penalties and injunctive
relief, and seeks to represent other California employees
fulfilling the same job during the immediately preceding four
year period.

On April 2, 2010, Cumulus Media, on the basis of diversity
jurisdiction, removed the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, and the Clerk assigned Case
No. 10-cv-01396 to the proceeding.

No further updates were repored in the company's April 29, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Cumulus Media Inc. -- http://www.cumulus.com/-- is the second  
largest radio broadcaster in the United States based on station
count, controlling approximately 345 radio stations in 67 U.S.
media markets.  In combination with its affiliate, Cumulus Media
Partners, LLC, the company believes it is the fourth largest
radio broadcast company in the United States when based on net
revenues.  The company's headquarters are in Atlanta, Georgia.


DENTSPLY INT'L: Calif. Supreme Court Denies Petition for Review
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court has denied DENTSPLY International,
Inc.'s petition for review of the California Court of Appeals'
ruling reversing the decertification of a purported class-action
lawsuit that accuses the company of misrepresenting its Cavitron
ultrasonic scalers, according to the company's April 29, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On June 18, 2004, Marvin Weinstat, D.D.S. and Richard Nathan,
D.D.S. filed a class action suit in San Francisco County,
California alleging that the company misrepresented that its
Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers are suitable for use in oral
surgical procedures.

The Complaint seeks a recall of the product and refund of its
purchase price to dentists who have purchased it for use in oral
surgery.

The Court certified the case as a class action in June 15, 2006,
with respect to the breach of warranty and unfair business
practices claims.

The class is defined as California dental professionals who
purchased and used one or more Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers for
the performance of oral surgical procedures.

The company filed a motion for decertification of the class and
this motion was granted.  Plaintiffs appealed the decertification
of the class to the California Court of Appeals and the Court of
Appeals has reversed the decertification decision of the trial
Court.

The Company filed a Petition for Review of the Court of Appeals
decision with the California Supreme Court.  

In April 2010 the California Supreme Court denied the Company's
Petition.

DENTSPLY International, Inc. -- http://www.dentsply.com/-- is a  
designer, developer, manufacturer and marketer of a range of
products for the dental market.


DENTSPLY INT'L: Seeks Dismissal of New Complaints in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
DENTSPLY International, Inc., has moved to dismiss the new
complaint filed by the same plaintiffs in the matter Hilderbrand,
et al. v. Dentsply International, et al., according to the
company's April 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

On Dec. 12, 2006, a complaint was filed by Carole Hildebrand,
D.D.S. and Robert Jaffin, D.D.S. in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.  The Plaintiffs subsequently added Dr. Mitchell
Goldman as a named class representative.

The case was filed by the same law firm that filed the Weinstat
case in California.

The Complaint asserts putative class action claims on behalf of
dentists located in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

The Complaint seeks damages and asserts that the company's
Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scaler was negligently designed and sold
in breach of contract and warranty arising from
misrepresentations about the potential uses of the product
because it cannot assure the delivery of potable or sterile
water.

Plaintiffs have filed their Motion for class certification to
which the company has filed its response.

The company also filed other motions, including a Motion to
dismiss the claims of Drs. Hildebrand and Jaffin for lack of
standing, which Motion was recently granted by the Court.

The company also filed other motions, including a Motion to
dismiss the claims of Drs. Hildebrand and Jaffin for lack of
standing.  The Court granted this Motion for lack of standing of
the individuals and did not allow the plaintiffs to amend the
complaint to substitute their corporate practices.

The plaintiffs have now filed another complaint in which they
named the corporate practices of Drs. Hildebrand and Jaffin as
class representatives.  The company has moved to dismiss this
complaint.

DENTSPLY International, Inc. -- http://www.dentsply.com/-- is a  
designer, developer, manufacturer and marketer of a range of
products for the dental market.


DENTSPLY INT'L: Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has affirmed the
decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
dismissing claims against DENTSPLY International, Inc., according
to the company's April 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

On Jan. 5, 1999, the Department of Justice filed a Complaint
against the company in the U.S. District Court in Wilmington,
Delaware alleging that the company's tooth distribution practices
violated the antitrust laws and seeking an order for the Company
to discontinue its practices.  This case has been concluded and
the District Court, upon the direction of the Court of Appeals,
issued an injunction in May 2006, preventing DENTSPLY from taking
action to restrict its tooth dealers in the U.S. from adding new
competitive teeth lines.

Subsequent to the Department of Justice's filing of a complaint
in 1999, several private party class actions were commenced
based on allegations similar to those in the DoJ case, on behalf
of dental laboratories, and denture patients in 17 states who
purchased Trubyte teeth or products containing Trubyte teeth.

These cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware.  The private party suits seek damages in an
unspecified amount.

At the company's behest, the Court declared the lack of standing
of the laboratory and patient class action suits to pursue
damage claims.

The plaintiffs in the laboratory case appealed this decision to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which largely
upheld the decision of the District Court in dismissing the
plaintiffs' damages claims against DENTSPLY, with the exception
of allowing the plaintiffs to pursue a damage claim based on a
theory of resale price maintenance between the company and its
tooth dealers.

The plaintiffs then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the
Third Circuit's decision, but the request was denied.

The plaintiffs in the laboratory case filed an amended complaint
asserting that DENTSPLY and its tooth dealers, and the dealers
among themselves, engaged in a conspiracy to violate the
antitrust laws.

DENTSPLY and the dealers have filed motions to dismiss the
plaintiffs' new claims, except for the resale price maintenance
claims.

The District Court granted the motions filed by DENTSPLY and the
dealers, leaving only the resale price maintenance claim.  

The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their claims to the
Third Circuit.

The Third Circuit held oral arguments in January 2010 and issued
its decision in April 2010 affirming the decision of the District
Court.

DENTSPLY International, Inc. -- http://www.dentsply.com/-- is a  
designer, developer, manufacturer and marketer of a range of
products for the dental market.


HARMAN INT'L: Bid to Junk Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Harman International Industries, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a
consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit before the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia remains pending.

                         Kim Litigation

On Oct. 1, 2007, a purported class-action suit was filed by
Cheolan Kim against the company and certain of its officers,
seeking compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons
who purchased the company's common stock between April 26, 2007,
and Sept. 24, 2007.

The original complaint purported to allege claims for violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint alleged that the defendants omitted to disclose
material adverse facts about the company's financial condition
and business prospects.  It also contended that had these facts
not been concealed at the time the company's merger agreement
with Kohlberg, Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P., and Goldman, Sachs &
Co. was entered, there would not have been a merger deal, or it
would have been at a much lower price, and the price of the
company's common stock therefore would not have been artificially
inflated during the class period.

The plaintiffs alleged that, following the reports that the
proposed merger was not going to be completed, the price of the
company's common stock declined causing the plaintiff class
significant losses.

On Jan. 16, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
which extends the class period through Jan. 11, 2008.  It
contends that, in addition to the violations alleged in the
original complaint, the company also violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) and Rule 10b-5 by purportedly knowingly failing to disclose
"significant problems" relating to its personal navigation device
"sales forecasts, production, pricing, and inventory" prior to
Jan. 14, 2008.

The amended complaint claims that when "Defendants revealed for
the first time on Jan. 14, 2008 that shifts in PND sales would
adversely impact earnings per share by more than $1.00 per share
in fiscal 2008," that led to a further decline in the company's
share value and additional losses to the plaintiff class.

                     Boca Raton Litigation

On Nov. 30, 2007, the Boca Raton General Employees' Pension Plan
filed a purported class-action suit against the company and
certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, seeking compensatory damages and costs on
behalf of all persons who purchased the company's common stock
between April 26, 2007, and Sept. 24, 2007.

The allegations in the Boca Raton complaint are essentially
identical to the allegations in the original Kim complaint, and
like the original Kim complaint, the Boca Raton complaint alleges
claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

                         Consolidation

On Feb. 15, 2008, the Court ordered the consolidation of the Kim
action with Boca Raton General Employees' Pension Plan v. Harman
International Industries, Incorporated, et al., and designated
the short caption of the consolidated action as In re Harman
International Industries Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action
No. 07-cv-01757 (D.C.) (Roberts, J.).  That same day, the Court
ordered the administrative closing of Boca Raton Litigation.

Also on that same day, the Court appointed Arkansas Public
Retirement System as lead plaintiff and approved the law firm
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld and Toll, P.L.L.C., to serve as Lead
Counsel.

On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management
purposes only, the consolidation of Russell v. Harman with In re
Harman International Industries Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil
Action No. 07-cv-01757 (D.C.) (Roberts, J.).

On May 2, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class-
action complaint.  The consolidated complaint, which extends the
class period through Feb. 5, 2008, contends that the company and
certain of its officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) and Rule 10b-5 by issuing false and misleading disclosures
regarding the company's financial condition in fiscal 2007 and
fiscal 2008.

In particular, the consolidated complaint alleges that the
defendants knowingly or recklessly failed to disclosure material
adverse facts about MyGIG radios, PNDs and the company's capital
expenditures.

The consolidated complaint also alleges that when the company's
true financial condition became known to the market, the price of
the company's stock declined significantly, causing losses to the
plaintiff class.

                     Motion to Dismiss

On July 3, 2008, defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint in its entirety.  Lead Plaintiff opposed defendants'
motion to dismiss on Sept. 2, 2008, and defendants filed a reply
in further support of their motion to dismiss on Oct. 2, 2008.

The motion is now fully briefed.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 29, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
          Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, NW
          West Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-408-4600
          Fax: 202-408-4699
          E-mail: dsommers@cmht.com     

Representing the defendants is:

          Thomas F. Cullen, Esq.
          Jones Day
          51 Louisiana Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20001-2105
          Phone: 202-879-3939
          E-mail: tfcullen@jonesday.com


HARMAN INT'L: Motion to Dismiss ERISA Violations Lawsuit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to dismiss Russell v. Harman International Industries,
Incorporated et al., Case No. 07-cv-02212 (D.C.) (Roberts, J.),
which alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, remains pending.

On Dec. 7, 2007, Patrick Russell filed a purported class action
lawsuit alleging violations of ERISA in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia.  The plaintiff is seeking, on
behalf of all participants in and beneficiaries of the Harman
International Industries Inc. Retirement Savings Plan,
compensatory damages for losses to the Plan as well as injunctive
relief, constructive trust, restitution, and other monetary
relief.

The complaint alleges that from April 26, 2007, to the present,
the defendants failed to prudently and loyally manage the Plan's
assets, thereby breaching their fiduciary duties in violation of
ERISA, by causing the Plan to invest in company stock
notwithstanding that the stock allegedly was "no longer a prudent
investment for the Participants' retirement savings."

The suit further claims that, during the Class Period, the
defendants failed to monitor the Plan fiduciaries, and failed to
provide the Plan fiduciaries with, and to disclose to Plan
participants, adverse facts regarding the company and its
businesses and prospects.

The plaintiff also contends that the defendants breached their
duties to avoid conflicts of interest and to serve the interests
of participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan with undivided
loyalty.

As a result of these alleged fiduciary breaches, the complaint
asserts that the Plan has "suffered substantial losses, resulting
in the depletion of millions of dollars of the retirement savings
and anticipated retirement income of the Plan's Participants."

On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management
purposes only, the consolidation of the case with In re Harman
International Industries Inc. Securities Litigation.

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety on Aug.
5, 2008.  The Russell Plaintiff opposed defendants' motion to
dismiss on Sept. 19, 2008, and defendants filed a reply in
further support of their motion to dismiss on Oct. 20, 2008.

The motion is now fully briefed.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 29, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          John Bucher Isbister, Esq.
          Tydings & Rosenberg, LLP
          100 East Pratt Street
          Baltimore, MD 21202-1062
          Phone: 410-752-9714
          Fax: 410-727-5460
          E-mail: jisbister@tydingslaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Thomas F. Cullen, Esq.
          Jones Day
          51 Louisiana Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20001-2105
          Phone: 202-879-3939
          E-mail: tfcullen@jonesday.com


HARTE HANKS: Approval of Settlement Agreement Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harte-Hanks, Inc.'s subsidiary, Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc.,
continues to await court approval of a settlement agreement
resolving a class action lawsuit for $7 million, according to the
company's April 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

On March 23, 2001, Shoppers employee Frank Gattuso and former
employee Ernest Sigala filed a putative class action against
Shoppers, claiming that Shoppers failed to comply with a
California statutory provision requiring an employer to indemnify
employees for expenses incurred on behalf of the employer.  The
plaintiffs allege that Shoppers failed to reimburse them for
expenses of using their automobiles as outside sales
representatives and failed to accurately itemize these expenses
on plaintiffs' wage statements.  The suit was filed in Los
Angeles County Superior Court.

The class that plaintiffs seek to represent has been limited to
all California Harte-Hanks outside sales representatives who were
not separately reimbursed apart from their base salary and
commissions for the expenses they incurred in using their own
automobiles after early 1998.  The plaintiffs seek
indemnification and compensatory damages, statutory damages,
exemplary damages, penalties, interest, costs of suit, and
attorneys' fees.

Shoppers filed a cross-complaint seeking a declaratory judgment
that the plaintiffs have been indemnified for their automobile
expenses by the higher salaries and commissions paid to them as
outside sales representatives.  The cross-complaint also alleges
conversion, unjust enrichment, constructive trust and rescission
and restitution based on mutual mistake.

On Jan. 30, 2002, the trial court ruled that California Labor
Code Section 2802 requires employers to reimburse employees for
mileage and other expenses incurred in the course of employment,
but that an employer is permitted to pay increased wages or
commissions instead of indemnifying actual expenses.

On May 28, 2003, the trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.

On Oct. 27, 2005, the California Court of Appeal issued a
unanimous opinion affirming the trial court's rulings, including
the interpretation of Labor Code Section 2802 and denial of class
certification.

On Nov. 23, 2005, the Court of Appeal denied the plaintiffs'
petition for rehearing.

On Nov. 5, 2007, the California Supreme Court affirmed the trial
court's ruling that Labor Code Section 2802 permits lump sum
reimbursement and that an employer may satisfy its obligations to
indemnify employees for reasonable and necessary business
expenses under Labor Code Section 2802 by paying enhanced taxable
compensation.

The Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the trial court for
further proceedings related to the class certification issue and
directed the trial court to consider whether the following issues
could properly be resolved on a class-wide basis:

     (1) did Shoppers adopt a practice or policy of reimbursing
         outside sales representatives for automobile expenses
         by paying them higher commission rates and base
         salaries than it paid to inside sales representatives,

     (2) did Shoppers establish a method to apportion the
         enhanced compensation payments between compensation for
         labor performed and expense reimbursement and

     (3) was the amount paid for expense reimbursement
         sufficient to fully reimburse the employees for the
         automobile expenses they reasonably and necessarily
         incurred.

On July 29, 2008, the trial court stated its intention to issue a
split class action certification ruling, certifying a class
action with respect to the first two questions listed immediately
above (adoption of a policy or practice, and establishment of an
apportionment method) and denying class certification on the
third question listed immediately above (sufficiency of
reimbursement).

On May 19, 2009, the trial court issued its written partial class
certification order.

This matter was set for a class trial in April 2010 on the first
two questions (adoption of a policy or practice, and
establishment of an apportionment method).

On Jan. 25, 2010, Shoppers, reached an agreement in principle
with Shoppers employee Mr. Gattuso and former employee Mr.
Sigala, individually and on behalf of a certified class, to
settle and resolve the class action lawsuit.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Shoppers, without any
admission of liability, agreed, subject to certain conditions,
that it will pay to the class settlement fund a total of $7
million.  The proposed settlement is subject to the entry of an
order of the trial court granting preliminary approval and,
following notice to class members, final approval of the
settlement and providing for the dismissal of the lawsuit with
prejudice against all class members.

The parties have agreed in principle to promptly negotiate, sign
and submit a formal, binding stipulation of settlement to the
trial court to resolve this matter.  Pursuant to the agreement in
principle, in return for the above consideration, each member of
the class, including Gattuso and Sigala, will release all claims
against Shoppers and its affiliates that in any way arose from or
related to the matters which were the subject of, or could have
been the subject of, the claims alleged in the class action
lawsuit.

Harte-Hanks, Inc. -- http://www.harte-hanks.com/-- is a  
worldwide direct and targeted marketing company that provides
direct marketing services and shopper advertising opportunities
to a range of local, regional, national and international
consumer and business-to-business marketers.  The company manages
its operations through two operating segments: Direct Marketing,
which operates both nationally and internationally, and Shoppers,
which operates in local and regional markets in California and
Florida.


HARTFORD LIFE: Settles RICO-Violations Suit for $54 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hartford Life Insurance Company has agreed to settle a putative
nationwide class action asserting claims under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act for $54 million,
according to the company's April 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

In October 2005, a putative nationwide class action was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against
the company and several of its subsidiaries on behalf of persons
who had asserted claims against an insured of a Hartford property
& casualty insurance company that resulted in a settlement in
which some or all of the settlement amount was structured to
afford a schedule of future payments of specified amounts funded
by an annuity from a Hartford life insurance company (Structured
Settlements).

The operative complaint alleges that since 1997 the company has
systematically deprived the settling claimants of the value of
their damages recoveries by secretly deducting 15% of the annuity
premium of every Structured Settlement to cover brokers'
commissions, other fees and costs, taxes, and a profit for the
annuity provider, and asserts claims under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and state law.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, punitive damages, pre-
judgment interest, attorney's fees and costs, and injunctive or
other equitable relief.

The company vigorously denies that any claimant was misled or
otherwise received less than the amount specified in the
structured-settlement agreements.

In March 2009, the district court certified a class for the RICO
and fraud claims composed of all persons, other than those
represented by a plaintiffs' broker, who entered into a
Structured Settlement since 1997 and received certain written
representations about the cost or value of the settlement.

The district court declined to certify a class for the breach-of-
contract and unjust-enrichment claims.

The company's petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit for permission to file an interlocutory appeal of
the class-certification ruling was denied in October 2009.

In April 2010, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle on a nationwide class basis, under which the company would
pay $54 million in exchange for a full release and dismissal of
the litigation.

The settlement is contingent upon the execution of a final
stipulation of settlement and the preliminary and final approval
of the court.

The settlement was recorded in the accompanying financial
statements for the period ended March 31, 2010.

Hartford Life Insurance Company is an indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary of The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., an
insurance and financial services company.  HLIC is among the
largest providers of insurance and investment products in the
United States.  The company also assumes fixed annuity products
and living and death benefit riders on variable annuities from
The Hartford's Japan operations and also cedes insurance risks to
affiliates and third party reinsurance companies.


IMAX CORP: Snow Capital Files Motion for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
Snow Capital Investment Partners, L.P., as lead plaintiff, has
filed a motion for class certification in a suit against IMAX
Corp., according to the company's April 29, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The company and certain of its officers and directors were named
as defendants in eight purported class action lawsuits filed
between Aug. 11, 2006 and Sept. 18, 2006, alleging violations of
U.S. federal securities laws.

These eight actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

On Jan. 18, 2007, the Court consolidated all eight class action
lawsuits and appointed Westchester Capital Management, Inc. as
the lead plaintiff and Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP as lead
plaintiff's counsel.

On Oct. 2, 2007, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class
action complaint.  The amended complaint, brought on behalf of
shareholders who purchased the company's common stock between
Feb. 27, 2003 and July 20, 2007, alleges primarily that the
defendants engaged in securities fraud by disseminating
materially false and misleading statements during the class
period regarding the company's revenue recognition of theater
system installations, and failing to disclose material
information concerning the company's revenue recognition
practices.

The amended complaint also added PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the
company's auditors, as a defendant.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified compensatory damages, costs, and
expenses.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
Dec. 10, 2007.  On Sept. 16, 2008, the Court issued a memorandum
opinion and order, denying the motion.

On Oct. 6, 2008, the defendants filed an answer to the amended
complaint.  On Oct. 31, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification.

Fact discovery on the merits commenced on Nov. 14, 2008 and is
ongoing.

On March 13, 2009, the Court granted a second prospective lead
plaintiff's request to file a motion for reconsideration of the
Court's order naming Westchester Capital Management, Inc. as the
lead plaintiff and issued an order denying without prejudice
plaintiff's class certification motion pending resolution of the
motion for reconsideration.

On June 29, 2009, the Court granted the motion for
reconsideration and appointed Snow Capital Investment Partners,
L.P. as the lead plaintiff and Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP as lead plaintiff's counsel.

Westchester Capital Management, Inc., appealed this decision, but
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied its
petition on Oct. 1, 2009.  

On April 22, 2010, the new lead plaintiff filed its motion for
class certification.

The lawsuit is at an early stage and as a result the company is
not able to estimate a potential loss exposure at this time.
IMAX Corp. -- http://www.imax.com/-- together with its wholly  
owned subsidiaries, is an entertainment technology company
specializing in motion picture technologies and large-format film
presentations.  Its principal business is the design and
manufacture of large-format digital and film-based theater
systems, sale or lease of such systems, and the conversion of
two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) Hollywood feature
films for exhibition on such systems worldwide.


IMAX CORP: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Ontario
---------------------------------------------------------
IMAX Corp. continues to defend a class action lawsuit alleging
violations of Canadian securities laws, according to the
company's April 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

A class action lawsuit was filed on Sept. 20, 2006 in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice against the company and certain of its
officers and directors, alleging violations of Canadian
securities laws.

This lawsuit was brought on behalf of shareholders who acquired
the company's securities between Feb. 17, 2006 and Aug. 9, 2006.  
The lawsuit is in an early stage and seeks unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, as well as costs and expenses.

For reasons released Dec. 14, 2009, the Court granted leave to
the Plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim to plead certain
claims pursuant to the Securities Act (Ontario) against the
company and certain individuals and granted certification of the
action as a class proceeding.

These are procedural decisions, and do not contain any binding
conclusions on the factual or legal merits of the claim.  The
company has commenced certain appeal proceedings with respect to
each of the Court's decisions and it is not known when the
Ontario court will render decisions on those appeal proceedings.

IMAX Corp. -- http://www.imax.com/-- together with its wholly  
owned subsidiaries, is an entertainment technology company
specializing in motion picture technologies and large-format film
presentations.  Its principal business is the design and
manufacture of large-format digital and film-based theater
systems, sale or lease of such systems, and the conversion of
two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) Hollywood feature
films for exhibition on such systems worldwide.


J.B. HUNT: Wage Violations Suit Remains Pending in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc., remains a defendant in
certain class-action allegations in which the plaintiffs are
current and former California-based drivers who allege claims for
unpaid wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, and other
items.

Further proceedings have been stayed in these matters pending the
California Supreme Court's decision in a case unrelated to the
company's involving similar issues.  

No further details were reported in the company's April 29, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc. -- http://www.jbhunt.com/--  
is a holding company.  The company provides a range of
transportation services to a group of customers throughout the
continental United States, Canada and Mexico. It has arrangements
with the North American rail carriers to transport freight in
containers and trailers. It also provides customized freight
movement, revenue equipment, labor, systems and delivery
services. It also provides integrated capacity and transportation
and logistics services and solutions by utilizing a network of
thousands of third-party carriers. Its business operations are
primarily organized through four business segments: intermodal
(JBI), dedicated contract services (DCS), full-load dry-van (JBT)
and integrated capacity solutions (ICS). It transports, or
arranges for the transportation of a range of freight, including
general merchandise, specialty consumer items, food and
beverages, building materials, soaps and cosmetics, and
chemicals.


K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Missouri Court Dismisses "Crocker" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri has
dismissed a consolidated complaint against K-V Pharmaceutical
Company alleging breach of fiduciary duty, according to the
company's April 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2009.

On Feb. 3, 2009, plaintiff Harold Crocker filed a putative class-
action complaint against the company in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri captioned Crocker v. KV
Pharmaceutical Co., et al., No. 4-09-cv-198-CEJ.

The Crocker case was followed shortly thereafter by two similar
cases, also in the Eastern District of Missouri:

     (1) Bodnar v. KV Pharmaceutical Co., et al.,
         No. 4:09-cv-00222-HEA, filed on Feb. 9, 2009, and

     (2) Knoll v. KV Pharmaceutical Co., et al.,
         No. 4:09-cv-00297-JCH, filed on Feb. 24, 2009.

The two later cases were consolidated into Crocker so that only a
single action now exists, and the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated
Amended Complaint on June 26, 2009.

The Complaint purports to state claims against the company and
certain current and former employees for alleged breach of
fiduciary duties to participants in the company's 401(k) plan.  
Defendants, including the company and certain of its directors
and officers, moved to dismiss the amended complaint on Aug. 25,
2009, and briefing of those motions was completed on Oct. 19,
2009.

The court granted the motion to dismiss of the company and all
individual defendants on March 24, 2010.

A motion to alter or amend the judgment and second amended
consolidated complaint was filed on April 21, 2010.

K-V Pharmaceutical Company -- http:/www.kvpharmaceutical.com/ --
is a fully-integrated specialty pharmaceutical company that
develops, manufactures, markets, and acquires technology-
distinguished branded prescription pharmaceutical products.  The
company markets its technology-distinguished products through
Ther-Rx Corporation, its branded drug subsidiary.


K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Court Dismisses ERISA-Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action against K-V Pharmaceutical Company
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act and Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act has
been dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, according to the company's April 29, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.  

The company was named as a defendant in an ERISA and WARN
putative class action filed on March 12, 2009, and styled John
Foster on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
KV Pharmaceutical Company.

The putative class action is being brought on behalf of
terminated or laid off employees who allegedly were not provided
60 days advance written notice as required by the WARN Act.  
Service was received on April 8, 2009.

A motion to dismiss or in the alternative a motion for summary
judgment was filed on April 28, 2009 and on March 12, 2010, the
court dismissed the case with prejudice pursuant to the company's
motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment.

The time for filing an appeal has passed and the matter is
concluded.

K-V Pharmaceutical Company -- http:/www.kvpharmaceutical.com/ --
is a fully-integrated specialty pharmaceutical company that
develops, manufactures, markets, and acquires technology-
distinguished branded prescription pharmaceutical products.  The
company markets its technology-distinguished products through
Ther-Rx Corporation, its branded drug subsidiary.


K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: "Public Pension" Suit in Missouri Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri has
dismissed the matter Public Pension Fund Group v. KV Pharma. Co.,
et al., Case No. 4:08-CV-1859 (CEJ), according to K-V
Pharmaceutical Company's April 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2009.  

On Dec. 2, 2008, plaintiff Joseph Mas filed a complaint against
the company, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri styled Mas v. KV Pharma. Co., et al., Case No. 08-CV-
1859.

On Jan. 9, 2009, plaintiff Herman Unvericht filed a complaint
against the company captioned Unvericht v. KV Pharma. Co., et
al., Case No. 09-CV-0061, also in the Eastern District of
Missouri.

On Jan. 21, 2009, plaintiff Norfolk County Retirement System
filed a complaint against the company, again in the Eastern
District of Missouri.  The suit is Norfolk County Retirement
System v. KV Pharma. Co., et al., Case No. 09-CV-00138.

The operative complaints in these three cases purport to state
claims arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of stock
purchasers.

On April 15, 2009, the Honorable Carol E. Jackson consolidated
the Unvericht and Norfolk County cases into the Mas case already
before her.

The amended complaint for the consolidated action, styled Public
Pension Fund Group v. KV Pharma. Co., et al., Case No. 4:08-CV-
1859 (CEJ), was filed on May 22, 2009.

Defendants, including the company and certain of its directors
and officers, moved to dismiss the amended complaint on July 27,
2009, and briefing was completed on the motions to dismiss on
Sept. 3, 2009.

The court granted the motion to dismiss of the company and all
individual defendants in February 2010.

On March 18, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion for relief from
the order of dismissal and to amend their complaint, and also
filed a notice of appeal.

The company filed its opposition to plaintiffs' motion for relief
from judgment and to amend the complaint on April 8, 2010.
Briefing was expected to be completed on April 29, 2010.

K-V Pharmaceutical Company -- http:/www.kvpharmaceutical.com/ --
is a fully-integrated specialty pharmaceutical company that
develops, manufactures, markets, and acquires technology-
distinguished branded prescription pharmaceutical products.  The
company markets its technology-distinguished products through
Ther-Rx Corporation, its branded drug subsidiary.


K-V PHARMA: Remains a Defendant in 3 Suits Over Product Recalls
---------------------------------------------------------------
K-V Pharmaceutical Company remains a defendant in three putative
class actions relating to its voluntary product recalls,
according to the company's April 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2009.

The company and/or ETHEX Corp. are named defendants in at least
36 pending product liability lawsuits that relate to the
voluntary product recalls initiated by the company in late 2008
and early 2009.  The plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege damages
as a result of the ingestion of purportedly oversized tablets
allegedly distributed in 2007 and 2008.  The lawsuits are pending
in federal and state courts in various jurisdictions.

Of the 36 pending lawsuits, including seven that have settled but
have not yet been dismissed, the plaintiffs in 3 lawsuits allege
economic harm, the plaintiffs in 23 lawsuits allege that a death
occurred, the plaintiffs in 16 lawsuits allege personal injury
and the plaintiffs in the remaining lawsuits allege non-fatal
physical injuries. Plaintiffs' allegations of liability are based
on various theories of recovery, including, but not limited to
strict liability, negligence, various breaches of warranty,
misbranding, fraud and other common law and/or statutory claims.  
Plaintiffs seek substantial compensatory and punitive damages.

Three of the lawsuits are putative class actions, one of the
lawsuits is on behalf of 22 claimants, and the remaining lawsuits
are individual lawsuits.

In addition to the 36 pending lawsuits, there are at least 208
pending pre-litigation claims (at least 28 of which involve a
death) that may or may not eventually become lawsuits.  The
company has also resolved a significant number of related product
liability lawsuits and pre-litigation claims.  In addition to
self insurance, the company possesses third party product
liability insurance, which the company believes is applicable to
the pending lawsuits and claims.

K-V Pharmaceutical Company -- http:/www.kvpharmaceutical.com/ --
is a fully-integrated specialty pharmaceutical company that
develops, manufactures, markets, and acquires technology-
distinguished branded prescription pharmaceutical products.  The
company markets its technology-distinguished products through
Ther-Rx Corporation, its branded drug subsidiary.


LITHIA MOTORS: No Arbitration Date Set in "Dunham" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
No arbitration date has been set in the matter styled, Dunham, et
al. v. Lithia Support Services, et al., 3AN-06-6338 Civil, filed
in the Superior Court for the State of Alaska, according to
Lithia Motors, Inc.'s April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

On March 22, 2006, seven former employees in Alaska brought suit
against the company seeking overtime wages, additional liquidated
damages and attorney fees.

The complaint was later amended to include a total of 11 named
plaintiffs.

The court ordered the dispute to arbitration.

In February 2008, the arbitrator granted the plaintiffs' request
to establish a class of plaintiffs consisting of all present and
former service and parts department employees totaling
approximately 150 individuals who were paid on a commission
basis.

The company has filed a motion requesting reconsideration of this
class certification, but the arbitrator died before issuing his
opinion.

The reconsideration sought a ruling whether these employees or
some of these employees are exempt from the applicable state law
that provides for the payment of overtime under certain
circumstances.  The replacement arbitrator has now been appointed
and recently ruled to remove all service and parts managers from
the case.

A class action opt-out notice was mailed to the service and parts
employees in October 2009.

No arbitration date has been set.

Lithia Motors, Inc. -- http://www.lithia.com-- is an operator of  
automotive franchises and retailer of new and used vehicles and
services.


MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Settlement Gets Court's Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
gave its final approval to the settlement between Monster
Worldwide, Inc., and the plaintiffs in a civil action captioned
Taylor v. McKelvey, et al., Case No. 06-cv-08322, according to
the company's April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

The suit was filed against the company, as well as certain former
officers and directors of the company in connection with the
company's historical stock option granting practices.

The ERISA Class Action was filed on October 2006 as a putative
class action litigation, purportedly brought on behalf of all
participants in the company's 401(k) Plan.

The complaint, as amended in February 2007 and February 2008,
alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary obligations
to Plan participants under Sections 404, 405, 409 and 502 of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act by allowing Plan
participants to purchase and to hold and maintain company stock
in their Plan accounts without disclosing to those Plan
participants the company's historical stock option grant
practices.

The plaintiffs and the company entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding on Sept. 14, 2009 and entered into a Class Action
Settlement Agreement on Nov. 9, 2009.

The Settlement Agreement sets forth the terms pursuant to which
the parties intend, subject to Court approval and certification
of the proposed class described in the second amended complaint,
to settle the ERISA Class Action.

The Settlement Agreement provides for a payment of $4.3 million
in full settlement of the claims asserted in the ERISA Class
Action, a substantial majority of which will be paid by insurance
and contribution from another defendant.

The effectiveness of the Settlement Agreement is subject to Court
approval and certification of the proposed class.

On Dec. 3, 2009, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement, which included certification of the class
members.  

On Feb. 9, 2010, the Court granted final approval to the
Settlement Agreement, pursuant to which the ERISA Class Action
was settled and dismissed with prejudice for a payment of $4.3
million.

Monster Worldwide, Inc. -- http://www.monster.com/-- provides a  
global online employment solution, Monster.  With a presence in
markets in North America, Europe and Asia, Monster works by
connecting employers with job seekers at all levels and by
providing personalized career advice to consumers globally.  
Monster Worldwide delivers targeted audiences to advertisers.   
The company operates in three business segments: Monster Careers-
Monster Careers-International, and Internet
Advertising & Fees.


NCR CORP: Appeal in "Death Benefits" Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
NCR Corp.'s appeal on the decision of the federal court in Ohio
granting motions for summary judgment against the company in two
companion class actions remains pending.

In August 2009, a federal court in Ohio granted motions for
summary judgment against the company in two companion class
actions brought on behalf of certain unionized retirees, who
claimed that the company's 2003 decision to terminate certain
benefits payable on death violated collective bargaining
agreements and other rights.

The company has appealed the decision to the Sixth Circuit Court
of Appeals.

No updates were reported in the company's April 29, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

NCR Corporation is a global technology company and leader in
automated teller machines, self-checkouts and other self- and
assisted-service solutions, serving customers in more than 100
countries.  NCR's software, hardware, consulting and support
services help organizations in retail, financial, entertainment,
travel, healthcare and other industries interact with consumers
across multiple channels.


OSHKOSH CORP: Wisconsin Court Dismisses Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin has
dismissed an amended consolidated complaint filed against Oshkosh
Corp., according to the company's April 29, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On Sept. 19, 2008, a purported shareholder of the company filed a
complaint seeking certification of a class action lawsuit
docketed as Iron Workers Local No. 25 Pension Fund on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. Oshkosh Corporation
and Robert G. Bohn.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the company
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially
inadequate disclosures and material omissions leading to the
company's issuance of revised earnings guidance and announcement
of an impairment charge on June 26, 2008.

Since the initial lawsuit, other suits containing substantially
similar allegations were filed.

These lawsuits have been consolidated and an amended complaint
has been filed.

The amended complaint substantially expands the class period in
which securities law violations are alleged to have occurred and
names Charles L. Szews, David M. Sagehorn and the company's
independent auditor as additional defendants.

On July 24, 2009, the defendants filed their motions to dismiss
the lawsuit, and the motions have been fully briefed.

On March 30, 2010, the judge presiding over the case dismissed
the lawsuit with prejudice.

Oshkosh Corp. -- http://www.oshkoshcorporation.com/-- designs,  
manufactures and markets a broad range of specialty access
equipment, commercial, fire & emergency and military vehicles and
vehicle bodies.  Oshkosh Corporation manufactures, distributes
and services products under the brands of Oshkosh(R), JLG(R),
Pierce(R), McNeilus(R), Medtec(R), Jerr-Dan(R), Oshkosh Specialty
Vehicles, Frontline(TM), SMIT(TM), CON-E-CO(R), London(R)and
IMT(R)Oshkosh products are valued worldwide in businesses where
high quality, superior performance, rugged reliability and long-
term value are paramount.


PAN AM 73: Suit Against Crowell & Moring Now in Two Courts
----------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Coyle at The National Law Journal reports that a
multimillion-dollar dispute between Washington, D.C.'s Crowell &
Moring and two victims of the 1986 hijacking of Pan Am Flight 73
is now heading for parallel proceedings on the east and west
coasts.

Last week, U.S. District Judge John Bates of the District of
Columbia issued an order compelling arbitration of the victims'
claims that a joint prosecution agreement with the law firm was
unenforceable.  And U.S. District Judge Gary Fees in Los Angeles
rejected the firm's attempt to keep the victims' lawsuit in
federal court.

The two victims, Giatri and Gargi Dave, sisters, sued Crowell and
its Flight 73 Liaison Group last January because of the law
firm's demand that they share any awards made pursuant to a
treaty between the United States and Libya with 184 fellow
plaintiffs in a 2006 lawsuit against Libya.

Crowell's suit against Libya was dismissed after the United
States and Libya entered a bilateral agreement to settle all
terrorism-related claims. Gargi Dave was awarded $3 million for
her injuries through the bilateral agreement. Crowell contends
the money should be shared with the 2006 lawsuit plaintiffs
because of the joint prosecution agreement.

The Dave sisters sued Crowell and the Flight 73 Liaison Group in
state court, seeking a declaration that the firm was not entitled
to any of the treaty funds because it had no role in the
settlement. They also sued for breach of contract and
interference with contract. The law firm removed the case to
federal court.

Fees on May 7 said the Daves' case "plainly arises under state
law" and he remanded the suit to state court.

While that action was pending, the Liaison Group sought to compel
arbitration of the sisters' claims. In an opinion released May
12, Judge Bates ruled the Daves had not demonstrated that the
arbitration provision was unconscionable. "Nor have thy shown
that they agreed to the provision as a result of fraud," he
wrote.

Judge Bates, however, denied the Liaison Group's motion for a
preliminary injunction which, the group argued, was necessary to
prevent the Daves from dissipating their injury award.

Roger Alford of Pepperdine University School of Law, serving as a
legal consultant to the Daves' counsel:

          Kathryn Lee Boyd, Esq.
          4582 Calle San Juan
          Newbury, Park, CA 91320
          Telephone: 805-405-9133
          E-mail: leeboyd.law@gmail.com

said she expects that the Daves will try to stay the arbitration.
There is some authority under California law, she noted, that
would support a stay where there are parallel proceedings.

The Liaison Group is represented by:

          Edward J. Shapiro, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington DC 20004-1304
          Telephone: 202-637-2273
          E-mail: edward.shapiro@lw.com


REVLON INC: Defends Consolidated Suit Over Exchange Offer
---------------------------------------------------------
Revlon, Inc., continues to defend a consolidated action arising
out of its October 2009 exchange offer, according to the
company's April 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

In October 2009, Revlon consummated its voluntary exchange offer
in which, among other things, the company issued to stockholders
(other than MacAndrews & Forbes) 9,336,905 shares of its
Preferred Stock in exchange for the same number of shares of
Class A Common Stock tendered in the Exchange Offer.

On April 24, 2009, May 1, 2009, May 5, 2009 and May 12, 2009,
respectively, four purported class actions were filed by each of
Vern Mercier, Arthur Jurkowitz, Suri Lefkowitz and T. Walter
Heiser in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

On May 4, 2009, a purported class action was filed by Stanley E.
Sullivan in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County.
Each such litigation was brought against Revlon, Inc., Revlon,
Inc.'s then directors and MacAndrews & Forbes, and challenged a
merger proposal made by MacAndrews & Forbes on April 13, 2009,
which would have resulted in MacAndrews & Forbes and certain of
its affiliates owning 100% of Revlon, Inc.'s outstanding Common
Stock.  Each action sought, among other things, to enjoin the
proposed transaction.

On June 24, 2009, the Chancery Court consolidated the four
Delaware actions (Initial Consolidated Action), and appointed
lead counsel for plaintiffs.

On Aug. 10, 2009, an agreement in principle was reached to settle
the Initial Consolidated Action, as set forth in a Memorandum of
Understanding (as amended in September 2009).

On Dec. 24, 2009, an amended complaint was filed in the Sullivan
action alleging, among other things, that defendants should have
disclosed in the company's Offer to Exchange information
regarding the company's financial results for the fiscal quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On Jan. 6, 2010, an amended complaint was filed by plaintiffs in
the Initial Consolidated Action making allegations similar to
those in the amended Sullivan complaint.  Revlon initially
believed that by filing the amended complaint, plaintiffs in the
Initial Consolidated Action had formally repudiated the
Settlement Agreement, and on Jan. 8, 2010, defendants filed a
motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement.

Thereafter, plaintiffs in the Initial Consolidated Action
confirmed their intention to proceed with confirmatory discovery.

In addition to the amended complaints in the Initial Consolidated
Action and the Sullivan action, on Dec. 21, 2009, Revlon, Inc.'s
current directors, a former director and MacAndrews & Forbes were
named as defendants in a purported class action filed in the
Chancery Court by Edward Gutman.

Also on December 21, 2009, a second purported class action was
filed in the Chancery Court against Revlon, Inc.'s current
directors and a former director by Lawrence Corneck.

The Gutman and Corneck actions make allegations similar to those
in the amended complaints in Sullivan and the Initial
Consolidated Action.

On Jan. 15, 2010, the Chancery Court consolidated the Gutman and
Corneck actions with the Initial Consolidated Action
(Consolidated Action).

A briefing schedule was then set to determine the leadership
structure for plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action.

On March 16, 2010, after hearing oral argument on the leadership
issue, the Chancery Court changed the leadership structure for
plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action.  Thereafter, newly
appointed counsel for the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action
and the defendants agreed that the defendants would withdraw
their motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement and that merits
discovery would proceed.

Defendants agreed not to withdraw any of the concessions that had
been provided to the plaintiffs as part of the Settlement
Agreement.  Plaintiffs' counsel has indicated that they will file
an amended complaint in the Consolidated Action.

Revlon, Inc. -- http://www.revlon.com/-- is a worldwide  
cosmetics, hair color, beauty tools, fragrances, skincare, anti-
perspirant deodorants and beauty care products company.  The
company's vision is glamour, excitement and innovation through
high-quality products at affordable prices.  The Company's
brands, which are sold worldwide, include Revlon(R), Almay(R),
ColorSilk(R), Mitchum(R), Charlie(R), Gatineau(R) and Ultima
II(R).


REVLON INC: "Garofalo" Suit in Delaware Remains Stayed
------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action against Revlon, Inc., filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware, remains stayed,
according to the company's April 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.  

On Dec. 31, 2009, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware by John Garofalo
against Revlon, Inc., Revlon, Inc.'s current directors, a former
director and MacAndrews & Forbes alleging federal and state law
claims stemming from the same alleged failure to disclose
information that underlies the amended complaint filed by Stanley
E. Sullivan and the consolidated action pending in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware.

Defendants and plaintiffs have agreed to stay proceedings in this
action for 120 days to permit plaintiffs to participate in the
merits discovery in the consolidated action.

Plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, an award of damages
and the costs and disbursements of such actions, including a
reasonable allowance for the fees and expenses of each such
plaintiff's attorneys and experts.

Revlon, Inc. -- http://www.revlon.com/-- is a worldwide  
cosmetics, hair color, beauty tools, fragrances, skincare, anti-
perspirant deodorants and beauty care products company.  The
company's vision is glamour, excitement and innovation through
high-quality products at affordable prices.  The Company's
brands, which are sold worldwide, include Revlon(R), Almay(R),
ColorSilk(R), Mitchum(R), Charlie(R), Gatineau(R) and Ultima
II(R).


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Remains a Defendant in Suit Over Artwork Sale
--------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. remains a defendant in one suit
being brought on a class action basis relating to artwork sold at
shipboard art auctions.

In July 2009, three purported class actions were filed in U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against Park
West Galleries, Inc., doing business as Park West Gallery, PWG
Florida, Inc., Fine Art Sales, Inc., Vista Fine Art LLC, doing
business as Park West At Sea, and other named and unnamed
parties, including Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. and Celebrity
Cruises Inc. and other unaffiliated cruise line companies.

The actions are being brought on behalf of purchasers of artwork
at shipboard art auctions conducted by Park West on the named
cruise lines.  All three actions were subsequently transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
and are no longer being brought on a class action basis.

Also pending in the Western District of Washington as a result of
transfer are two other actions against Park West and other
unaffiliated cruise line companies that, after being transferred,
were amended to add Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. and Celebrity
Cruises Inc. as defendants.  One of these actions is being
brought on a class action basis.

The substance of the claims in all five actions is virtually the
same.  The suits allege that the artwork Park West sells is not
what it represents to its customers and that Royal Caribbean
Cruises Ltd., Celebrity Cruises Inc. and other named cruise lines
are complicit in the activities of Park West, including engaging
in a conspiracy with Park West in violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and are being enriched
unjustly from the sale of the artwork.

The actions seek from the named defendants refund and restitution
of all monies acquired from the sale of artwork at shipboard
auctions, recovery for the amount of payments for the purchased
artwork, damages on the RICO claims in an indeterminate amount,
permitted statutory damages and unspecified equitable or
injunctive relief.

The suits also seek from certain non-Royal Caribbean parties
additional statutory, breach of contract and breach of warranty
damages in unspecified amounts.  The suits are at their very
early stages of litigation.

No further information was disclosed in the company's April 29,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. -- http://www.royalcaribbean.com/--  
is a global cruise vacation company that operates Royal Caribbean
International, Celebrity Cruises, Pullmantur, Azamara Club
Cruises, CDF Croisieres de France, and TUI Cruises through a 50%
joint venture.  The company has a combined total of 39 ships in
service and three under construction.  It also offers unique
land-tour vacations in Alaska, Asia, Australia, Canada, Europe,
Latin America and New Zealand.


SELECTIVE INSURANCE: Units Remain Defendants in Various Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Selective Insurance Group, Inc.'s seven insurance subsidiaries
remains a defendant in putative class action alleging improper
reimbursement of medical providers paid under workers
compensation and personal and commercial automobile insurance
policies, among others.

The company's insurance subsidiaries also are involved from time
to time in other legal actions, some of which assert claims for
substantial amounts.  These actions include, among others,
putative state class actions seeking certification of a state or
national class.  Such putative class actions have alleged, for
example, improper reimbursement of medical providers paid under
workers compensation and personal and commercial automobile
insurance policies.  

No additional information was disclosed in the company's April
29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Selective Insurance Group, Inc. -- http://www.selective.com/--  
is a holding company for seven property and casualty insurance
companies rated "A+" (Superior) by A.M. Best.  Through
independent agents, the insurance companies offer primary and
alternative market insurance for commercial and personal risks,
and flood insurance underwritten by the National Flood Insurance
Program.


SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Virginia Galura's Claim Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Virginia Galura's claim in the matter Galura, et al. v. Sonic
Automotive, Inc., filed in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough
County, Florida, remains pending, according to the company's
April 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

In this action, originally filed on December 30, 2002, the
plaintiffs allege that the company and its Florida dealerships
sold an antitheft protection product in a deceptive or otherwise
illegal manner, and further sought representation on behalf of
any customer of any of the company's Florida dealerships who
purchased the antitheft protection product since Dec. 30, 1998.

The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief
on behalf of this class of customers.

In June 2005, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
certification of the requested class of customers, but the court
has made no finding to date regarding actual liability in this
lawsuit.

The company subsequently filed a notice of appeal of the court's
class certification ruling with the Florida Court of Appeals.

In April 2007, the Florida Court of Appeals affirmed a portion of
the trial court's class certification, and overruled a portion of
the trial court's class certification.

In November 2009, the Florida trial court granted Summary
Judgment in the company's favor against Plaintiff Enrique Galura,
and his claim has been dismissed.  

Virginia Galura's claim is still pending.

Sonic Automotive, Inc. -- http://www.sonicautomotive.com/--  
operates as an automotive retailer in the U.S.  Each of Sonic's
dealerships provides services, including sales of both new and
used cars and light trucks; sales of replacement parts and
performance of vehicle maintenance, warranty, paint and repair
services, and arrangement of extended service contracts,
financing and insurance and other aftermarket products for its
automotive customers.


SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Defending Consolidated Customer Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sonic Automotive, Inc. continues to defend a consolidated
arbitration filed by customers regarding allegations of deceptive
or illegal sales.

Several private civil actions have been filed against Sonic
Automotive, Inc. and several of the company's dealership
subsidiaries that purport to represent classes of customers as
potential plaintiffs and make allegations that certain products
sold in the finance and insurance departments were done so in a
deceptive or otherwise illegal manner.

One of these private civil actions has been filed in South
Carolina state court against Sonic Automotive, Inc. and 10 of the
company's South Carolina subsidiaries.  This group of plaintiffs'
attorneys has filed another private civil class action lawsuit in
state court in North Carolina seeking certification of a multi-
state class of plaintiffs.  The South Carolina state court action
and the North Carolina state court action have since been
consolidated into a single proceeding in private arbitration.  

On Nov. 12, 2008, claimants in the consolidated arbitration filed
a Motion for Class Certification as a national class action
including all of the states in which the company operates
dealerships.

Claimants are seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief on
behalf of this class of customers.

The parties have briefed and argued the issue of class
certification and an order from the arbitrator on class
certification is expected in 2010.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 29, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Sonic Automotive, Inc. -- http://www.sonicautomotive.com/--  
operates as an automotive retailer in the U.S.  Each of Sonic's
dealerships provides services, including sales of both new and
used cars and light trucks; sales of replacement parts and
performance of vehicle maintenance, warranty, paint and repair
services, and arrangement of extended service contracts,
financing and insurance and other aftermarket products for its
automotive customers.


STRYKER CORP: Faces Securities Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------
Stryker Corporation faces a class action lawsuit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
according to the company's April 29, 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 Jan. 15, 2010, on behalf of those who
purchased the company's common stock between Jan. 25, 2007, and
Nov. 13, 2008, inclusive.

The lawsuit seeks remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Stryker Corporation -- http://www.stryker.com/-- is one of the  
world's leading medical technology companies and is dedicated to
helping healthcare professionals perform their jobs more
efficiently while enhancing patient care.   The Company provides
innovative orthopaedic implants as well as state-of-the-art
medical and surgical equipment to help people lead more active
and more satisfying lives.


TRANSOCEAN LTD: Nov. 15 Deepwater Horizon Claim Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
At a hearing in Houston, Tex., on Thurs., May 13, 2010, the
Honorable Keith P. Ellison entered an order directing all persons
claiming damages for any and all losses, injuries, damages and
destruction of property occasioned during the voyage of the MODU
Deepwater Horizon, which commenced on Jan. 30, 2010, and
terminated on or about Apr. 22, 2010, to make and file Proofs of
Claim by Nov. 15, 2010.  

As reported in yesterday's edition of the Class Action Reporter,
Triton Asset Leasing GmbH, Transocean Holdings LLC, Transocean
Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc., and Transoveam Deepwater Inc.,
filed a Complaint and Petition for Exoneration from or Limitation
of Liability in the admiralty proceeding captioned In re
the Complaint and Petition of Triton Asset Leasing GmbH, et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-01721 (S.D. Tex) (Ellison, J.), is available at
http://is.gd/c8zj1

Judge Ellison directs the Petitioners to serve notice of this
deadline to file claims on every known potential claimant, and
notice of the deadline will be published in the Houston
Chronicle.


TRANSOCEAN LTD: Shareholder Class Action Suit Filed in E.D. La.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. commenced a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court, Eastern District of
Louisiana, Case No. 10-cv-01467, on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Transocean,
Ltd., between August 5, 2009, and May 7, 2010, inclusive, against
Transocean and certain of its officers and directors for
violations of Secs. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  The action is pending before Judge Zainey.  If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than 60 days from May 13, 2010.  Any member of the purported
class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through
counsel of its choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an
absent class member.  If you wish to discuss this action or have
any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact plaintiff's counsel, Deborah R. Gross or Susan R.
Gross at 866-561-3600 or 215-561-3600 or via e-mail at
debbie@bernardmgross.com or susang@bernardmgross.com

A copy of the complaint is available at the law firm's Web site
at http://www.bernardmgross.com/at no charge.   


Transocean is an international provider of offshore contract
drilling services for oil and gas wells around the globe. The
Complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements and omitted to disclose material information during
the Class Period concerning the Company's deficient safety
efforts, the heightened hazards associated with the blowout
preventers aka "BOPs" used by the Company, the likelihood that
the equipment required to drill at depths such as those
encountered by the Deepwater Horizon would likely render
Transocean's safety protocols, including the BOPs, ineffective;
and the Company's significant exposure to liability as a result
of these unmitigated hazards, which caused Transocean's publicly
traded securities to be artificially inflated during the Class
Period. Defendants claimed that they had remedied past safety
problems and were closely monitoring the Company's equipment,
while omitting to disclose material information concerning
Transocean's safety failures and recurring BOP issues. Defendants
misled investors by concealing that the Company was unable to
eliminate BOP issues and had not rectified the prior BOP failure.
As a result of defendants' false statements, Transocean's common
stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class
Period, reaching a high of $94.88 per share on January 4, 2010.

The plaintiff is represented by Law Offices Bernard M. Gross,
P.C. The firm has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions
and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Continues to Defend Lawsuit in Columbia
---------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management, Inc., continues to defend a lawsuit the seeks
to increase the recovery of a class of ERISA plan participants,
according to the company's April 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

In April 2002, two former participants in the ERISA plans of
Waste Management Holdings, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary the
company acquired in 1998, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia in a case entitled William S.
Harris, et al. v. James E. Koenig, et al.

The lawsuit named as defendants WM Holdings; the members of WM
Holdings' Board of Directors prior to July 1998; the
administrative and investment committees of WM Holdings' ERISA
plans and their individual members; WMI's retirement savings
plan; the investment committees of WMI's plan and its individual
members; and State Street Bank & Trust, the trustee and
investment manager of the ERISA plans.

The lawsuit attempts to increase the recovery of a class of ERISA
plan participants based on allegations related to both the events
alleged in, and the settlements relating to, the securities class
action against WM Holdings that was settled in 1998 and the
securities class action against WMI that was settled in 2001.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaints on the
pleadings, and the Court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motions in the first quarter of 2009.

However, in December 2009, the Court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint to overcome
the dismissal of certain complaints and motion for leave to file
a substitute fourth amended complaint to add two new claims.

Each of Mr. Pope, Mr. Rothmeier and Ms. San Juan Cafferty,
members of the company's Board of Directors, was a member of the
WM Holdings' Board of Directors and therefore is a named
defendant in these actions, as is Mr. Simpson, the company's
Chief Financial Officer, by virtue of his membership on the WMI
ERISA plan Investment Committee at that time.

Waste Management, Inc. -- http://www.wm.com/-- is based in  
Houston, Texas, and is the leading provider of comprehensive
waste management services in North America.  Through
subsidiaries, the company provides collection, transfer,
recycling and resource recovery, and disposal services.  It is
also a leading developer, operator and owner of waste-to-energy
and landfill gas-to-energy facilities.  The company's customers
include residential, commercial, industrial, and municipal
customers throughout North America.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Calif. Units Defend Two Wage and Hours Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management, Inc.'s California subsidiaries continue to
defend wage and hour lawsuits.

There are two separate wage and hour lawsuits pending against
certain of the company's subsidiaries in California.

Each suit seeks class certification.  The actions were
coordinated to proceed in San Diego County.

Both lawsuits make the same general allegations that the
defendants failed to comply with certain California wage and hour
laws, including allegedly failing to provide meal and rest
periods, and failing to properly pay hourly and overtime wages.

No additional information was disclosed in the company's
April 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Waste Management, Inc. -- http://www.wm.com/-- is based in  
Houston, Texas, and is the leading provider of comprehensive
waste management services in North America.  Through
subsidiaries, the company provides collection, transfer,
recycling and resource recovery, and disposal services.  It is
also a leading developer, operator and owner of waste-to-energy
and landfill gas-to-energy facilities.  The company's customers
include residential, commercial, industrial, and municipal
customers throughout North America.


WESTERN DIGITAL: Certification Hearing in "Durrani" Set for Oct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on whether the complaint filed by Ghazala H. Durrani
against Western Digital Technologies, Inc., a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Western Digital Corp., should be certified as a
class action has been scheduled for October 2010, according to
the company's April 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 2,
2010.

On March 20, 2009, plaintiff filed a putative class-action
complaint in the Alameda County (California) Superior Court,
alleging that certain of the company's engineers have been
misclassified as exempt employees under California state law and
are, therefore, due unpaid hourly overtime wages and other
amounts, as well as penalties for allegedly missed meal and rest
periods.

By court order dated April 24, 2009, the case was transferred to
the Orange County (California) Superior Court, where it is now
pending.

On June 16, 2009, the company was dismissed from the case without
prejudice by stipulation, leaving WDTI as the sole remaining
defendant.

On or about June 4, 2009, WDTI filed its answer to the complaint,
denying the substantive allegations thereof and raising several
affirmative defenses.

Formal discovery has commenced, and a court hearing on whether
the case should be certified as a class action has been scheduled
for October 2010.

Western Digital Corporation -- http://www.westerndigital.com/--  
designs, develops, manufactures and sells hard drives.  It sells
its products worldwide to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs)
and original design manufactures (ODMs) for use in
computer systems, subsystems or consumer electronics (CE)
devices, and to distributors, resellers and retailers.  The
company's hard drives are used in desktop computers, notebook
computers and enterprise applications, such as servers,
workstations, network attached storage, storage area networks and
video surveillance equipment.  Additionally, its hard drives are
used in CE applications, such as digital video recorders, and
satellite and cable set-top boxes.  It markets its hard drives
under brand names, including WD Caviar, WD Raptor, WD
VelociRaptor, WD Scorpio, WD Elements, My Passport, My Book, My
DVR Expander and GreenPower.

                            *********

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  * * *