CAR_Public/100614.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, June 14, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 115

                            Headlines

ADVANCE AMERICA: Approval of S.C. Unit Settlement Pending
ADVANCE AMERICA: Expects 3rd Circuit to Set Appeal Proceedings
ADVANCE AMERICA: Expects Stay on "Johnson" Suit to be Lifted
ADVANCE AMERICA: Appeal in "Kucan" Lawsuit Still Pending
ADVANCE AMERICA: In Settlement Talks With "Vaugh" Plaintiffs

ADVANCE AMERICA: Appeal in "Betts and Reuter" Suit Pending
ADVANCE AMERICA: Expects Trial in "Stone" Suit to Start 2011
AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: Seeks Dismissal of Complaint in Florida
AGRIA CORP: Inks $3.75 Million Settlement in Shareholder Action
AMERICAN EQUITY: Defends Consolidated Action in California

AMERICAN EQUITY: Trial in "Stephens" Set for September 2010
ASSURED GUARANTY: MDL Court Denies Dismissal of 2nd Complaint
ASSURED GUARANTY: Court Directs Filing of Consolidated Complaint
ATRICURE INC: Continues Defense in "Levine" Suit In New York
ATRICURE INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Ohio

BAXTER INT'L: Court Grants Summary Judgment in ERISA Suit
BAXTER INT'L: Continues to Defend Plasma-Derived Therapies Suit
BAXTER INT'L: Expects Settlement Approval in Second Quarter 2010
BAXTER INT'L: Continues to Defend Heparin-Related Suits
BLACKSTONE GROUP: Appeal on Dismissal of Complaint Still Pending

BLUEKNIGHT ENERGY: Court Dismisses Claims v. 3 Former Execs
BP PLC: Heninger Garrison Files Negligence Suit in Alabama
BP PLC: Another Shareholder Suit Filed in W.D. Louisiana
BP PLC: S.C. Businesses & Homeowners Sue for Oil Spill Losses
CARE INVESTMENT: Incurs $1MM in Defense Costs of Securities Suit

CC MEDIA: Asks Court for Hearing Date on Reconsideration Motion
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Bodet Names Another Unit as Defendant
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: "Lebryk" Suit Still Pending in Illinois
CRM HOLDINGS: Seeks to Coordinate Self-Insured Trusts Lawsuits
CRM HOLDINGS: NY Court Mulls Lead Plaintiffs Appointment Request

DISH NETWORK: Court Denies Plaintiffs' Default Judgment Motion
DISH NETWORK: Appeal in Channel Bundling Suit Dismissal Pending
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: British Columbia Settlement Approval Pending
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Settlement Becomes Final in "Smith" Suit
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Approval of Maritimes Settlement Pending

DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Arbitration Motions Set for Hearing in July
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: To Seek Stay If Manitoba Class Action Proceeds
DYNEGY INC: Updates on Gas Index Pricing Litigation in Nevada
EL PASO PIPELINE: Appeal Deadline Passes in "Will Price" Suit
ELBIT IMAGING: Appeal to Dismissal of Certification Bid Pending

ELBIT IMAGING: Minority Shareholders' Suit Still in Early Stages
ELBIT IMAGING: Ruling on 3rd Party's Representation Bid Pending
ENERGYSOLUTIONS: Faces Consolidated Amended Complaint in N.Y.
FBR CAPITAL: Unit Still Awaits Ruling in Thornburg Mortgage Suit
FIRST AMERICAN: Court Redefines Title Insurance Plaintiff Class

FLAMEL TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery in "Billhofer" Suit Ongoing
GORDON TRUCKING: Sued Over "Systematic Scheme of Wage Abuse"
HANSEN MEDICAL: Court Consolidates 3 Securities Class Actions
INVENTIV HEALTH: Being Sold for Too Little, Del. Suit Claims
KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Property Contamination

LIVE NATION: TicketMaster Still Facing UPS Consumer Suit in Fla.
LIVE NATION: Reconsideration Motion Still Pending in Calif.
LIVE NATION: Consumer Class Actions Still Pending in California
LIVE NATION: Canadian Consumer Class Action Litigation Pending
MARSHALL & ILSLEY: Faces ERISA Class Action Suits in Wisconsin

MAZDA CANADA: Quebec Super. Ct. Certifies Faulty Lock Class
MEDIVATION INC: Defends Two Dimebon-Related Suits in California
METROPCS COMMUNICATIONS: Continues Defense in Securities Lawsuit
MUELLER WATER: U.S. Pipe Continues Defense in Alabama Suit
NAVISTAR INT'L: Suit Complains About 1993 Health Care Settlement

NOVO NORSICK: Class Action Suit Filed by Prandin Direct Purchaser
ORANGE COUNTY: Agrees to Process Food Stamp Applications Faster
OWENS COMMUNITY: 3rd Complaint Filed in Accreditation Lawsuit
PREMIER MEDICAL: Accused of Not Providing Meal and Rest Periods
PROGRESS ENERGY: Trial Court Dismisses Cost-Recovery Fee Suit

PUBLIC STORAGE: "Brinkley" Wage and Hour Suit Still Deferred
SENORX INC: Directors Accused of Selling Company for Too Little
SMURFIT-STONE: CEO Faces ERISA Violations Suit in Illinois
SMURFIT-STONE: Executives Faces Two ERISA Violations Suits
SPANSION INC: Settles Employee WARN Act Lawsuit for $8.57 Million

SUPERIOR OFFSHORE: S.D. Tex. Doesn't Certify Shareholder Class
THOMAS WEISEL: Continues Defense in Bare Escentuals Suit
THOMAS WEISEL: Appeal Pending in Noah Education Suit Dismissal
THOMAS WEISEL: Reaches Settlement in Netlist Suit
THOMAS WEISEL: Discovery in Merix Suit in Oregon Still Ongoing

THOMAS WEISEL: Remains a Defendant in Suit vs. Orion Energy
THOMAS WEISEL: Continues Defense in Suit v. Mobile USA
THOMAS WEISEL: Continues Defense in Suit v. GT Solar
THOMAS WEISEL: Reaches Settlement in Suit Against Vonage
THOMAS WEISEL: Faces Suit re CardioNet Public Offering in Calif.

TOYOTA MOTOR: Delay Appointing Lead Counsel in Shareholder Suits
TRAVELCENTERS AMERICA: Added as Defendant in Suit v. Comdata
UNITED STATES: New Deal Pays 9/11 Ground Zero Workers $712.5 Mil.
UNIVERSAL SERVICES: Sued for Failing to Pay Overtime Wages
WEBMD HEALTH: Discovery in TCPA-Violations Lawsuit Ongoing

                            *********

ADVANCE AMERICA: Approval of S.C. Unit Settlement Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc., is awaiting court
approval of a settlement reached regarding eight putative class
actions against the company's subsidiary, Advance America, Cash
Advance Centers of South Carolina, Inc., and several other
unaffiliated defendants, according to Advance America, Cash
Advance Centers, Inc.'s May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

The eight actions were filed in South Carolina by these parties:

   (1) John and Rebecca Morgan filed a complaint on August 27,
       2007, in the Horry County Court of Common Pleas;

   (2) Margaret Horne filed a complaint on September 6, 2007, in
       the Spartanburg County Court of Common Pleas;

   (3) Tawan Smalls filed a complaint on September 10, 2007, in
       the Charleston County Court of Commons Pleas;

   (4) Chadric and Lisa Wiley filed a complaint on September 27,
       2007, in the Richland County Court of Common Pleas;

   (5) Mildred Weaver filed a complaint on September 27, 2007,
       in the Darlington County Court of Common Pleas;

   (6) Lisa Johnson and Gilbert Herbert filed a complaint on
       October 2, 2007, in the Georgetown County Court of Common
       Pleas;

   (7) Kimberly Kinney filed a complaint on October 12, 2007 in
       the Marion County Court of Common Pleas; and

   (8) Carl G. Ferrell filed a complaint on October 30, 2008.

The allegations and relief sought are similar in each case.
Plaintiffs allege that the company's South Carolina subsidiary
violated the South Carolina Deferred Presentment Services Act and
the Consumer Protection Code by failing to perform a credit check
and evaluate a customer's ability to repay the advance.  

Each complaint seeks an injunction to prohibit the Company from
continuing its operations, the return of fees and interest,
unspecified actual damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees
and costs.  Each of the lawsuits has been joined to ongoing
litigation in the South Carolina state court system pursuant to
an order of the South Carolina Supreme Court consolidating all
cases brought against the industry.

In December 2009, a group of industry defendants, including the
Company, reached an agreement in principle, subject to reaching a
definitive agreement and obtaining court approval, for the
settlement and release of all claims brought by the South
Carolina Claimants.  The company recorded a charge for the fourth
quarter of 2009 of approximately $0.9 million to cover the
estimated costs of that settlement.

Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. --
http://www.advanceamerica.net/-- provides cash advance services,  
with approximately 2,600 centers and 71 limited licensees in 32
states, the United Kingdom, and Canada.  The company offers
convenient, less-costly credit options to consumers whose needs
are not met by traditional financial institutions.  The company
is a founding member of the Community Financial Services
Association of America, whose mission is to promote laws that
provide substantive consumer protections and to encourage
responsible industry practices.


ADVANCE AMERICA: Expects 3rd Circuit to Set Appeal Proceedings
--------------------------------------------------------------
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc., expects the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Court to schedule
proceedings for the appeal relating to a putative class action
lawsuit alleging illegal loans, according to the company's
May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On January 18, 2007, Raymond King and Sandra Coates, who were
customers of BankWest Inc., the lending bank for which the
Company previously marketed, processed, and serviced cash
advances in Pennsylvania, filed a putative class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court, Eastern District of
Pennsylvania alleging various causes of action, including that
the company's Pennsylvania subsidiary made illegal cash advance
loans in Pennsylvania in violation of Pennsylvania's usury law,
the Pennsylvania Consumer Discount Company Act, the Pennsylvania
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, the
Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act, and the
Pennsylvania Credit Services Act.  The complaint alleges that
BankWest Inc. was not the "true lender" and that the company's
Pennsylvania subsidiary was the "lender in fact."  The complaint
seeks compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, punitive damages,
and the trebling of any compensatory damages.

In January 2008, the trial court entered an order compelling the
purported class representatives to arbitrate their claims on an
individual basis, unless determined otherwise by the arbiter.  
All parties appealed that order and the appeal was stayed pending
a decision from the United States Supreme Court in Stolt-Nielsen
S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp.  The Company anticipates
the Third Circuit Court will now schedule proceedings for the
appeal.

Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. --
http://www.advanceamerica.net/-- provides cash advance services,  
with approximately 2,600 centers and 71 limited licensees in 32
states, the United Kingdom, and Canada.  The company offers
convenient, less-costly credit options to consumers whose needs
are not met by traditional financial institutions.  The company
is a founding member of the Community Financial Services
Association of America, whose mission is to promote laws that
provide substantive consumer protections and to encourage
responsible industry practices.


ADVANCE AMERICA: Expects Stay on "Johnson" Suit to be Lifted
------------------------------------------------------------
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc., anticipates that the
stay as to an appeal of an order compelling arbitration of claims
against it will be lifted, according to the company's
May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On August 1, 2007, Sharlene Johnson, Helena Love, and Bonny
Bleacher filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania against
the company and two of its subsidiaries alleging that they
provided lines of credit to borrowers in Pennsylvania without a
license required under Pennsylvania law and with interest and
fees in excess of the amounts permitted by Pennsylvania law.
The complaint seeks, among other things, a declaratory judgment
that the monthly participation fee charged to customers with a
line of credit is illegal, an injunction prohibiting the
collection of the monthly participation fee, and payment of
damages equal to three times the monthly participation fees paid
by customers since June 2006, which could total approximately
$135 million in damages, plus attorneys' fees and costs.

In January 2008, the trial court entered an order compelling the
purported class representatives to arbitrate their claims on an
individual basis, unless determined otherwise by the arbiter. All
parties appealed that order and the appeal was stayed, pending a
decision from the United States Supreme Court in Stolt-Nielsen
S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp.  In April 2010, the
United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Stolt-Nielsen.  
Accordingly, the Company anticipates the stay will be lifted and
the Third Circuit Court will schedule proceedings for the appeal
of the trial court's order.

Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. --
http://www.advanceamerica.net/-- provides cash advance services,  
with approximately 2,600 centers and 71 limited licensees in 32
states, the United Kingdom, and Canada.  The company offers
convenient, less-costly credit options to consumers whose needs
are not met by traditional financial institutions.  The company
is a founding member of the Community Financial Services
Association of America, whose mission is to promote laws that
provide substantive consumer protections and to encourage
responsible industry practices.


ADVANCE AMERICA: Appeal in "Kucan" Lawsuit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.'s appeal of a class
certification in North Carolina remains pending, according to the
company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On July 27, 2004, John Kucan, Welsie Torrence, and Terry Coates,
each of whom was a customer of Republic Bank & Trust Company, the
lending bank for whom the Company previously marketed, processed,
and serviced cash advances in North Carolina, filed a putative
class action lawsuit in the General Court of Justice for the
Superior Court Division for New Hanover County, North Carolina
against the Company and Mr. William M. Webster IV, Chairman of
the Company's Board of Directors and the Company's former Chief
Executive Officer, alleging, among other things, that the
relationship between the Company's North Carolina subsidiary and
Republic was a "rent a charter" relationship and therefore
Republic was not the "true lender" of the cash advances it
offered.  The lawsuit also claims that the cash advances were
made, administered, and collected in violation of numerous North
Carolina consumer protection laws.  The lawsuit seeks an
injunction barring the subsidiary from continuing to do business
in North Carolina, the return of the principal amount of the cash
advances made to the plaintiff class since August 2001, along
with three times the interest or fees associated with those
advances plus attorneys' fees and other unspecified costs.  

The company sought to enforce the arbitration provisions in the
customer agreements.  The trial court granted class certification
and ruled that the arbitration clause is unenforceable.  The
company has appealed the ruling.

Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. --
http://www.advanceamerica.net/-- provides cash advance services,  
with approximately 2,600 centers and 71 limited licensees in 32
states, the United Kingdom, and Canada.  The company offers
convenient, less-costly credit options to consumers whose needs
are not met by traditional financial institutions.  The company
is a founding member of the Community Financial Services
Association of America, whose mission is to promote laws that
provide substantive consumer protections and to encourage
responsible industry practices.


ADVANCE AMERICA: In Settlement Talks With "Vaugh" Plaintiffs
------------------------------------------------------------
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc., is in settlement
negotiations with class action plaintiffs in Missouri, according
to the company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

On March 10, 2008, Trishia Hooper and Josephine Vaughn filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri against the Company's
Missouri subsidiary, Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of
Missouri, Inc. The action alleges that the arbitration clause and
class action waiver in the Company's subsidiary's customer loan
agreements are unconscionable, that the Company's subsidiary's
practices violate the Missouri statutes governing unfair and
deceptive trade practices, interest rates, loan renewals, debt
reduction, and consideration of borrower's ability to repay. The
lawsuit seeks certification as a class action, unspecified
monetary damages, and a declaratory judgment that the arbitration
clause and class action waiver is unconscionable and injunctive
relief. The matter has been stayed until May 21, 2010, to allow
the parties to continue settlement negotiations.

Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. --
http://www.advanceamerica.net/-- provides cash advance services,  
with approximately 2,600 centers and 71 limited licensees in 32
states, the United Kingdom, and Canada.  The company offers
convenient, less-costly credit options to consumers whose needs
are not met by traditional financial institutions.  The company
is a founding member of the Community Financial Services
Association of America, whose mission is to promote laws that
provide substantive consumer protections and to encourage
responsible industry practices.


ADVANCE AMERICA: Appeal in "Betts and Reuter" Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.'s appeal of a Florida
trial court's denial of its motion for arbitration remains
pending, according to the company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2010.

The Company and the Company's subsidiary, McKenzie Check Advance
of Florida, LLC, are defendants in a putative class action
lawsuit commenced by former customers, Wendy Betts and Donna
Reuter, on January 11, 2001, and a third named class
representative, Tiffany Kelly, in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach
County, Florida. This putative class action alleges that
McKenzie, by and through the actions of certain officers,
directors, and employees, engaged in unfair and deceptive trade
practices and violated Florida's criminal usury statute, the
Florida Consumer Finance Act, and the Florida Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The suit seeks
unspecified damages, and the named defendants could be required
to refund fees and/or interest collected, refund the principal
amount of cash advances, pay multiple damages, and pay other
monetary penalties. Ms. Reuter's claim has been held to be
subject to binding arbitration, which the Company expects to
proceed in parallel with this case. However, the trial court has
denied the defendants' motion to compel arbitration of Ms.
Kelly's claims and the Company has appealed this decision.

                    Second Lawsuit Stayed

A second Florida lawsuit was filed on August 24, 2004, in the
Circuit Court of Palm Beach County by former customers Gerald
Betts and Ms. Reuter against the Company, the Company's Florida
subsidiary, Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of Florida,
Inc., and certain officers and directors. The allegations, relief
sought, and the Company's defenses in this lawsuit are nearly
identical to those alleged in the first Betts and Reuter lawsuit
described above. The case is currently stayed, pending a decision
from the Florida Supreme Court in Pendergast v. Sprint Nextel
Corp., which is a separate case, to which the Company is not a
party, involving arbitration issues.

Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. --
http://www.advanceamerica.net/-- provides cash advance services,  
with approximately 2,600 centers and 71 limited licensees in 32
states, the United Kingdom, and Canada.  The company offers
convenient, less-costly credit options to consumers whose needs
are not met by traditional financial institutions.  The company
is a founding member of the Community Financial Services
Association of America, whose mission is to promote laws that
provide substantive consumer protections and to encourage
responsible industry practices.


ADVANCE AMERICA: Expects Trial in "Stone" Suit to Start 2011
------------------------------------------------------------
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc., expects a class
action lawsuit alleging unfair competition in California to
proceed to trial next year, according to company's May 10, 2010,
Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On July 16, 2008, Kerri Stone filed a putative class action
complaint in the Superior Court of California in San Diego
against the Company and its California subsidiary. Defendants
removed the case to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California.  

The amended complaint alleges violations of the California
Deferred Deposit Transaction Law and the California Unfair
Competition Law and seeks an order requiring defendants to
disgorge and/or make restitution of all revenue and loan
principal, pay three times the amount of damages the class
members actually incurred, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
of suit, and punitive damages.  The complaint also seeks certain
injunctive relief.  The parties are engaged in discovery and the
Company anticipates that the case will proceed to trial during
the first half of 2011.

Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. --
http://www.advanceamerica.net/-- provides cash advance services,  
with approximately 2,600 centers and 71 limited licensees in 32
states, the United Kingdom, and Canada.  The company offers
convenient, less-costly credit options to consumers whose needs
are not met by traditional financial institutions.  The company
is a founding member of the Community Financial Services
Association of America, whose mission is to promote laws that
provide substantive consumer protections and to encourage
responsible industry practices.


AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: Seeks Dismissal of Complaint in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
Affirmative Insurance Holdings, Inc., is awaiting the court's
decision regarding the company's motion to dismiss a second
amended complaint filed in a putative class action in Palm Beach
County, Florida, according to the company's May 10, 2010, Form
10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2010.  

In October 2009, plaintiff Dalton Johnson filed a putative class
action in Palm Beach County, Florida against Affirmative
Insurance Company.  Affirmative Insurance Company is a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Affirmative Insurance Holdings.

The complaint alleges that Affirmative failed to apply a
statutorily-permitted fee schedule for hospital emergency care
and services enacted into law in January 2008, thereby exhausting
prematurely the PIP benefits available to Affirmative's insureds.
In February 2010, the case was dismissed.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in March 2010.  Affirmative
has filed a second motion to dismiss.

Affirmative Insurance Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.affirmativeholdings.com/-- is a distributor and   
producer of non-standard personal automobile insurance policies
and related products and services for individual consumers.  The
company offers insurance directly to individual consumers through
retail stores in 10 states (Louisiana, Texas, Illinois, Alabama,
Florida, Missouri, Indiana, South Carolina, Kansas and
Wisconsin), including its franchised stores in Florida and
distributing its own insurance policies through 8,000 independent
agents or brokers in 10 states (Louisiana, Texas, Illinois,
California, Michigan, Florida, Missouri, Indiana, South Carolina
and New Mexico).


AGRIA CORP: Inks $3.75 Million Settlement in Shareholder Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Agria Corporation (NYSE: GRO), a China-based agriculture company
with investments in key agriculture markets of China and New
Zealand, today announced it has entered into a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) with the lead plaintiff in the consolidated
securities class action. The MOU reflects an agreement in
principle providing for the settlement and release and dismissal
with prejudice of any and all claims that were asserted, or could
have been asserted, against all defendants in or relating to In
re Agria Corporation Securities Litigation, Consolidated Case No.
1:08-cv-3536 (WHP), including all of the underwriter defendants
and all served and un-served defendants named in the consolidated
complaint dated February 3, 2009. The settlement contemplated by
the MOU is subject to a number of material conditions, including
court approval.

Under the agreement in principle, the amount to be paid on behalf
of all defendants to lead plaintiff for the benefit of the class
in settlement of the abovementioned class action is $3.75
million. Agria's insurance companies are expected to pay the
settlement in its entirety, so there is expected to be no impact
to Agria's financials from this settlement.

By entering into the MOU, neither Agria nor the other defendants
admit wrongdoing or liability. If a final settlement agreement is
concluded pursuant to the MOU, all claims in the litigation would
be dismissed against Agria and all other defendants.

                    About Agria Corporation

Agria Corporation (NYSE: GRO) -- http://www.agriacorp.com/-- is  
a China-based agriculture company with investments in key
agriculture markets of China and New Zealand. Its operations in
China are engaged in research and development, production and
sale of upstream agriculture products in three categories --
seeds, sheep products and seedlings.


AMERICAN EQUITY: Defends Consolidated Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------
American Equity Investment Life Holding Company defends a
consolidated action relating to the suitability of sales of
deferred annuity products to persons over the age of 65,
according to the company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

The company is a defendant in the matter McCormack, et al. v.
American Equity Investment Life Insurance Company, et al., in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Western Division and Anagnostis v. American Equity, et al.,
coordinated in the Central District, entitled, In Re: American
Equity Annuity Practices and Sales Litigation, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Western
Division (complaint filed Sept. 7, 2005).

The suit is a consolidated action involving several lawsuits
filed by individuals, and the individuals are seeking class
action status for a national class of purchasers of annuities
issued by the company.

The named plaintiffs in this consolidated case are Bernard
McCormack, Gust Anagnostis by and through Gary S. Anagnostis and
Robert C. Anagnostis, Regina Bush by and through Sharon
Schipiour, Lenice Mathews by and through Mary Ann Maclean and
George Miller.  The allegations generally attack the suitability
of sales of deferred annuity products to persons over the age of
65.

The plaintiffs seek recessionary and injunctive relief including
restitution and disgorgement of profits on behalf of all class
members under California Business & Professions Code section
17200 et seq. and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act; compensatory damages for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding
and abetting of breach of fiduciary duty; unjust enrichment and
constructive trust; and other pecuniary damages under California
Civil Code section 1750 and California Welfare & Institutions
Codes section 15600 et seq.

American Equity Investment life Holding Company, through its
wholly-owned operating subsidiaries, is a full service
underwriter fixed annuity and life insurance products, with a
primary emphasis on the sale of index and fixed rate index
annuities.


AMERICAN EQUITY: Trial in "Stephens" Set for September 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the matter Stephens v. American Equity Investment Life
Insurance Company, et. al., has been set for September 2010,
according to American Equity Investment Life Holding Company's
May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.  

The case was filed in the San Luis Obispo Superior Court, San
Francisco, California on Nov. 29, 2004.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of individuals who are
California residents and who either purchased their annuity from
the company through a co-defendant marketing organization or who
purchased one of a defined set of particular annuities issued by
the company.  The named plaintiffs in this case are: Chalys M.
Stephens and John P. Stephens.

Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and restitution on behalf of
all class members under California Business & Professions Code
section 17200 et seq.; compensatory damages for breach of
contract and breach of fiduciary duty; other pecuniary damages
under California Civil Code section 1750 and California Welfare &
Institutions Codes section 15600 et seq.; and punitive damages
under common law causes of action for fraud and breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

On Nov. 3, 2008, the court issued an order certifying the class.

Trial in this matter has been set for September 2010.

American Equity Investment life Holding Company, through its
wholly-owned operating subsidiaries, is a full service
underwriter fixed annuity and life insurance products, with a
primary emphasis on the sale of index and fixed rate index
annuities.


ASSURED GUARANTY: MDL Court Denies Dismissal of 2nd Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Assured Guaranty Ltd. continues to face a second consolidated
amended class action complaint after an MDL court denied its
motion to dismiss, according to the company's May 10, 2010, Form
10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

During 2008, nine putative class action lawsuits were filed in
federal court alleging federal antitrust violations in the
municipal derivatives industry, seeking damages and alleging,
among other things, a conspiracy to fix the pricing of, and
manipulate bids for, municipal derivatives, including guaranteed
investment contracts.

These cases have been coordinated and consolidated for pretrial
proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York as MDL 1950, In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-2516.

Five of these cases named both Assured Guaranty Municipal
Holdings, Inc., and Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp.:

   (a) Hinds County, Mississippi v. Wachovia Bank, N.A. filed on
       or about March 13, 2008;

   (b) Fairfax County, Virginia v. Wachovia Bank, N.A. filed on
       or about March 12, 2008;

   (c) Central Bucks School District, Pennsylvania v. Wachovia
       Bank N.A. filed on or about June 4, 2008;

   (d) Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, Maryland v. Wachovia
       Bank N.A. filed on or about July 3, 2008; and

   (e) Washington County, Tennessee v. Wachovia Bank N.A. filed
       on or about July 14, 2008.

In April 2009, the MDL 1950 court granted the defendants' motion
to dismiss on the federal claims, but granted leave for the
plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint.  On June 18, 2009,
interim lead plaintiffs' counsel filed a Second Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint.  The complaints in these lawsuits
generally seek unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys'
fees and other costs.  The company cannot reasonably estimate the
possible loss or range of loss that may arise from these
lawsuits; although the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint currently describes some of AGMH's and AGM's
activities, it does not name those entities as defendants.

On March 25, 2010, the MDL 1950 court denied the named
defendants' motions to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint.

                         AGMH-Only Cases

Four of the cases named only AGMH and also alleged that the
defendants violated California state antitrust law and common law
by engaging in illegal bid-rigging and market allocation, thereby
depriving the cities of competition in the awarding of GICs and
ultimately resulting in the cities paying higher fees for these
products:

   (a) City of Oakland, California, v. AIG Financial Products
       Corp. filed on or about April 23, 2008;

   (b) County of Alameda, California v. AIG Financial Products
       Corp. filed on or about July 8, 2008;

   (c) City of Fresno, California v. AIG Financial Products
       Corp. filed on or about July 17, 2008; and

   (d) Fresno County Financing Authority v. AIG Financial
       Products Corp. filed on or about December 24, 2008.

When the four plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in
September 2009, the plaintiffs did not name AGMH as a defendant.
However, the complaint does describe some of AGMH's and AGM's
activities.  The consolidated complaint generally seeks
unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other
costs.  The Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss
or range of loss that may arise from these lawsuits.  Motions to
dismiss the consolidated complaint filed by these California
municipalities were filed on February 9, 2010.

Assured Guaranty Ltd. is a holding company based in Hamilton,
Bermuda that provides, through its operating subsidiaries, credit
enhancement products to the public finance, structured finance
and mortgage markets.  The Company markets its products directly
and through financial institutions, serving the U.S. and
international markets.



ASSURED GUARANTY: Court Directs Filing of Consolidated Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Assured Guaranty Ltd. awaits outcome of a putative class action
filed by Jefferson County, Alabama, according to the company's
May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

In August 2008 a number of financial institutions and other
parties, including Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp., were named
as defendants in a civil action brought in the circuit court of
Jefferson County, Alabama relating to the county's problems
meeting its debt obligations on its $3.2 billion sewer debt:
Charles E. Wilson vs. JPMorgan Chase & Co et al (filed on or
about August 8, 2008 in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County,
Alabama), Case No. 01-CV-2008-901907.00, a putative class action.

The action was brought on behalf of rate payers, tax payers and
citizens residing in Jefferson County, and alleges conspiracy and
fraud in connection with the issuance of the County's debt.  The
complaint in this lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and other costs.  

At a hearing on March 1, 2010, the court on its own motion struck
all of the plaintiffs' complaints with leave to amend.  The court
instructed plaintiffs to file one consolidated complaint on May
7, 2010.  On May 6, 2010, plaintiffs requested and received an
extension until May 28, 2010, to file the consolidated complaint.  
The company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range
of loss that may arise from this lawsuit.

Assured Guaranty Ltd. is a holding company based in Hamilton,
Bermuda that provides, through its operating subsidiaries, credit
enhancement products to the public finance, structured finance
and mortgage markets.  The Company markets its products directly
and through financial institutions, serving the U.S. and
international markets.


ATRICURE INC: Continues Defense in "Levine" Suit In New York
------------------------------------------------------------
AtriCure, Inc., continues to defend itself in a purported
securities class action in New York alleging securities
violations, according to the company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010.

AtriCure and certain of its current and former officers were
named as defendants in a purported securities class action
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (Levine v. AtriCure, Inc., Case No.
06 CV 14324 (United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York)). The suit alleges violations of the
federal securities laws and seeks damages on behalf of purchasers
of the Company's common stock during the period from our initial
public offering in August 2005 through February 16, 2006. The
Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. This motion was denied in September 2007,
and a motion for reconsideration of that denial was denied in
January 2009.

Although the Company admitted no wrongdoing, as of December 31,
2009, the Company recorded a liability of $2.0 million, which
represented an estimate of the potential defense and/or
settlement costs. In addition, the Company recorded a related
receivable of $2.0 million from its insurance carrier for the
potential defense and/or settlement costs, as recovery is deemed
probable.

AtriCure, Inc. -- http://www.atricure.com/-- is a medical device  
company that develops, manufactures and sells cardiac surgical
ablation systems designed to create precise lesions, or scars, in
cardiac, or heart, tissue.  The company's primary product line,
which accounts for a majority of its revenues, is the AtriCure
Isolator system.  AtriCure's Isolator system consists primarily
of a compact power generator known as an ablation and sensing
unit (ASU), a switchbox unit (ASB), which allows physicians to
toggle between multiple products and multiple configurations of
its Isolator clamps, including its Isolator Synergy clamps.  
AtriCure also sells a multifunctional bipolar pen, or
multifunctional pen, which is often used by physicians in
combination with its Isolator system to ablate cardiac tissue and
for temporary pacing, sensing, stimulating and recording during
the evaluation of cardiac arrhythmias.


ATRICURE INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------
A federal court dismissed allegations that AtriCure, Inc., caused
the filing of false claims for reimbursement in a securities
class action lawsuit in Ohio, according to the company's May 10,
2010, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On December 12, 2008 AtriCure, Inc. and certain of its current
executive officers were named in a putative class action lawsuit
which is now captioned In re AtriCure, Inc., Securities
Litigation, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Western Division. The plaintiffs allege
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seek
unspecified damages against AtriCure, Inc., and certain of its
current executive officers. The plaintiffs allege, among other
things, that the defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements that failed to disclose that the Company
improperly promoted certain products to physicians and caused the
filing of false claims for reimbursement. The class period
alleged ran from May 10, 2007 through October 31, 2008.

In July 2009 the Company filed a motion to dismiss, and in
September 2009, the plaintiffs filed their memorandum in
opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss to which the
Company responded on November 9, 2009.

On March 29, 2010, the court granted in part and denied in part
the Company's motion to dismiss and, in particular, dismissed the
claim that the Company caused the filing of false claims for
reimbursement. The Company intends to continue to vigorously
defend this lawsuit.

AtriCure, Inc. -- http://www.atricure.com/-- is a medical device  
company that develops, manufactures and sells cardiac surgical
ablation systems designed to create precise lesions, or scars, in
cardiac, or heart, tissue.  The company's primary product line,
which accounts for a majority of its revenues, is the AtriCure
Isolator system.  AtriCure's Isolator system consists primarily
of a compact power generator known as an ablation and sensing
unit (ASU), a switchbox unit (ASB), which allows physicians to
toggle between multiple products and multiple configurations of
its Isolator clamps, including its Isolator Synergy clamps.  
AtriCure also sells a multifunctional bipolar pen, or
multifunctional pen, which is often used by physicians in
combination with its Isolator system to ablate cardiac tissue and
for temporary pacing, sensing, stimulating and recording during
the evaluation of cardiac arrhythmias.


BAXTER INT'L: Court Grants Summary Judgment in ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
granted summary judgment in favor of Baxter International Inc.,
in a purported class action alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, according to
the company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

In October 2004, a purported class action was filed against
Baxter and its current Chief Executive Officer and then current
Chief Financial Officer and their predecessors for alleged
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, as amended.

Plaintiff alleges that these defendants, along with the
Administrative and Investment Committees of the company's 401(k)
plans, breached their fiduciary duties to the plan participants
by offering Baxter common stock as an investment option in each
of the plans during the period of January 2001 to October 2004.

In March 2006, the trial court certified a class of plan
participants who elected to acquire Baxter common stock through
the plans between January 2001 and the present.

In April 2008, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
denied Baxter's interlocutory appeal and upheld the trial court's
denial of Baxter's motion to dismiss.

On Sept. 28, 2009, the trial court partially granted Baxter's
motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing claims related
to the 2004 timeframe.

Fact discovery has been completed in this matter and expert
discovery is proceeding.

Summary judgment in the company's favor was granted in May 2010.

Baxter International Inc. -- http://www.baxter.com/-- develops,  
manufactures and markets products that save and sustain the
lives of people with hemophilia, immune disorders, infectious
diseases, kidney disease, trauma and other chronic and acute
medical conditions.  As a diversified healthcare company, Baxter
applies a combination of expertise in medical devices,
pharmaceuticals and biotechnology to create products that advance
patient care worldwide.


BAXTER INT'L: Continues to Defend Plasma-Derived Therapies Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc., continues to defend a suit alleging
that it artificially increased the price of plasma-derived
therapies.

The company is a defendant, along with others, in eleven lawsuits
brought in various U.S. federal courts alleging that Baxter and
certain of its competitors conspired to restrict output and
artificially increase the price of plasma-derived therapies since
2004.

The complaints attempt to state a claim for class action relief
and in some cases demand treble damages.  These cases have been
consolidated for pretrial proceedings before the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

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

Baxter International Inc. -- http://www.baxter.com/-- develops,  
manufactures and markets products that save and sustain the
lives of people with hemophilia, immune disorders, infectious
diseases, kidney disease, trauma and other chronic and acute
medical conditions.  As a diversified healthcare company, Baxter
applies a combination of expertise in medical devices,
pharmaceuticals and biotechnology to create products that advance
patient care worldwide.


BAXTER INT'L: Expects Settlement Approval in Second Quarter 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc., expects that the class settlement in
lawsuits over product reimbursements will receive final approval
in the second quarter of 2010, according to the company's May 10,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The company is a defendant, along with others, in less than a
dozen lawsuits which allege that Baxter and other defendants
manipulated product reimbursements by, among other things,
reporting artificially inflated average wholesale prices for
Medicare and Medicaid eligible drugs.

The cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes before the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

In April 2008, the court preliminarily approved a class
settlement resolving Medicare Part B claims and independent
health plan claims against Baxter and others, which had
previously been reserved for by the company.  Final approval of
this settlement is expected in the second quarter of 2010.

Baxter International Inc. -- http://www.baxter.com/-- develops,  
manufactures and markets products that save and sustain the
lives of people with hemophilia, immune disorders, infectious
diseases, kidney disease, trauma and other chronic and acute
medical conditions.  As a diversified healthcare company, Baxter
applies a combination of expertise in medical devices,
pharmaceuticals and biotechnology to create products that advance
patient care worldwide.


BAXTER INT'L: Continues to Defend Heparin-Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc., continues to defend purported class
actions over the recall of heparin products, according to the
company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

In connection with the recall of heparin products in the United
States, approximately 740 lawsuits, some of which are purported
class actions, have been filed alleging that plaintiffs suffered
various reactions to a heparin contaminant, in some cases
resulting in fatalities.

In June 2008, a number of these federal cases were consolidated
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio for
pretrial case management under the Multi District Litigation
rules.  A trial date for the first of these cases is scheduled
for early 2011.

In September 2008, a number of state court cases were
consolidated in Cook County, Illinois for pretrial case
management, with a scheduled trial date for the first of these
cases in May 2011.  Discovery is ongoing with respect to
these matters.

Baxter International Inc. -- http://www.baxter.com/-- develops,  
manufactures and markets products that save and sustain the
lives of people with hemophilia, immune disorders, infectious
diseases, kidney disease, trauma and other chronic and acute
medical conditions.  As a diversified healthcare company, Baxter
applies a combination of expertise in medical devices,
pharmaceuticals and biotechnology to create products that advance
patient care worldwide.


BLACKSTONE GROUP: Appeal on Dismissal of Complaint Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal of the dismissal of a consolidated class action against
Blackstone Group LP is still pending in New York, according to
the company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

In 2008, six substantially identical complaints were brought
against Blackstone and some of its executive officers purporting
to be class actions on behalf of purchasers of common units in
Blackstone's June 2007 initial public offering.  These lawsuits
were subsequently consolidated into one complaint filed in
Southern District of New York in October 2008 against Blackstone;
Stephen A. Schwarzman, Blackstone's chairman and chief executive
officer; Peter G. Peterson, Blackstone's former senior chairman;
Hamilton E. James, Blackstone's president and chief operating
officer; and Michael A. Puglisi, Blackstone's chief financial
officer at the time of the IPO.  

The amended complaint alleged that:

   (1) the IPO prospectus was false and misleading for failing
       to disclose that (a) certain investments made by
       Blackstone's private equity funds were performing poorly
       at the time of the IPO and were materially impaired and
       (b) prior to the IPO the U.S. real estate market had
       started to deteriorate, adversely affecting the value of
       Blackstone's real estate investments; and

   (2) the financial statements in the IPO prospectus were
       materially inaccurate principally because they overstated
       the value of the investments.  

In September 2009, the District Court judge dismissed the
complaint with prejudice, ruling that even if the allegations in
the complaint were assumed to be true, the alleged omissions were
immaterial.  The plaintiffs are appealing the District Court's
ruling.

The Blackstone Group L.P. -- http://www.blackstone.com/-- is a
global alternative asset manager and provider of financial
advisory services.  


BLUEKNIGHT ENERGY: Court Dismisses Claims v. 3 Former Execs
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma
dismissed certain claims against three former executives in a
consolidated class action lawsuit, according to Blueknight Energy
Partners, L.P. formerly known as SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P.'s
May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.  

Between July 21, 2008 and September 4, 2008, these class action
complaints were filed:

   (1) Poelman v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P., et al., Civil
       Action No. 08-CV-6477, in the United States District
       Court for the Southern District of New York (filed
       July 21, 2008).  The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this
       case on August 26, 2008;

   (2) Carson v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al., Civil
       Action No. 08-cv-425, in the Northern District of
       Oklahoma (filed July 22, 2008);

   (3) Charles D. Maurer SIMP Profit Sharing Plan f/b/o Charles
       D. Maurer v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al., Civil
       Action No. 08-cv-6598, in the United States District
       Court for the Southern District of New York (filed
       July 25, 2008);

   (4) Michael Rubin v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al.,
       Civil Action No. 08-cv-7063, in the United States
       District Court for the Southern District of New York
       (filed August 8, 2008);

   (5) Dharam V. Jain v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al.,
       Civil Action No. 08-cv-7510, in the United States
       District Court for the Southern District of New York
       (filed August 25, 2008); and

   (6) William L. Hickman v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et
       al., Civil Action No. 08-cv-7749, in the United States
       District Court for the Southern District of New York
       (filed September 4, 2008).

Pursuant to a motion filed with the MDL Panel, the Maurer case
has been transferred to the Northern District of Oklahoma and
consolidated with the Carson case.  The Rubin, Jain, and Hickman
cases have also been transferred to the Northern District of
Oklahoma.

A hearing on motions for appointment as lead plaintiff was held
in the Carson case on October 17, 2008.  At that hearing, the
court granted a motion to consolidate the Carson and Maurer cases
for pretrial proceedings, and the consolidated litigation is now
pending as In Re: SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. Securities
Litigation , Case No. 08-CV-425-GKF-PJC.  The court entered an
order on October 27, 2008, granting the motion of Harvest Fund
Advisors LLC to be appointed lead plaintiff in the consolidated
litigation.  

On January 23, 2009, the court entered a Scheduling Order
providing, among other things, that the lead plaintiff may file a
consolidated amended complaint within 70 days of the date of the
order, and that defendants may answer or otherwise respond within
60 days of the date of the filing of a consolidated amended
complaint.  

On January 30, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a motion to modify
the stay of discovery provided for under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act.  The court granted Plaintiff's motion, and
the company and certain other defendants filed a Petition for
Writ of Mandamus in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals that was
denied after oral argument on April 24, 2009.

The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on May
4, 2009.  In that complaint, filed as a putative class action on
behalf of all purchasers of our units from July 17, 2007 to July
17, 2008, lead plaintiff asserts claims under the federal
securities laws against us, our General Partner, certain of our
current and former officers and directors, certain underwriters
in our initial and secondary public offerings, and certain
entities who were investors in SemCorp and their individual
representatives who served on SemCorp's management committee.

Among other allegations, the amended complaint alleges that our
financial condition throughout the class period was dependent
upon speculative commodities trading by SemCorp and its Chief
Executive Officer, Thomas L. Kivisto, and that defendants
negligently and intentionally failed to disclose this speculative
trading in our public filings during the class period. The
amended complaint further alleges there were other material
omissions and misrepresentations contained in our filings during
the class period.  The amended complaint alleges claims for
violations of sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 for damages and rescission with respect to all persons
who purchased our units in the initial and secondary offerings,
and also asserts claims under section 10b, Rule 10b-5, and
section 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.  The
amended complaint seeks certification as a class action under the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, compensatory and rescissory
damages for class members, pre-judgment interest, costs of court,
and attorneys' fees.

On July 22, 2009, all of the defendants filed motions to dismiss
the amended complaint.  The lead plaintiff filed a response in
opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss on September 1,
2009.  On October 8, 2009, the defendants filed a reply in
support of their motion to dismiss.  The lead plaintiff filed a
supplemental opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss on
October 29, 2009.  

On April 30, 2010, the court dismissed all claims against Brent
Cooper (SemCorp's former treasurer) and dismissed the Section
10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim against W. Anderson Bishop (a former
member of the Board) and Brian F. Billings (a former member of
the Board).  The court denied the remainder of the motions to
dismiss, including the motion to dismiss that the Partnership
filed.  Under the operative scheduling order, all remaining
defendants must answer or otherwise respond to the consolidated
complaint within thirty days.

Blueknight Energy Partners, L.P., formerly SemGroup Energy
Partners, L.P., -- http://www.bkep.com/-- owns, operates and   
develops a portfolio of midstream energy assets.  The company
provides integrated terminalling, storage, processing, gathering
and transportation services for companies engaged in the
production, distribution and marketing of crude oil and liquid
asphalt cement.  It manages its operations through three
operating segments: crude oil terminalling and storage services,
crude oil gathering and transportation services and asphalt
services.  The company owns and operates two pipeline systems,
the Mid-Continent system and the Longview system, that gather
crude oil purchased by the Private Company and its other
customers and transports it to refiners, to common carrier
pipelines for ultimate delivery to refiners or to terminalling
and storage facilities owned by the company and others.


BP PLC: Heninger Garrison Files Negligence Suit in Alabama
----------------------------------------------------------
The Birmingham, Alabama law firm of Heninger Garrison Davis filed
a class action oil spill lawsuit (Case Number 1:10-cv-00221) in
the United States District Court of Alabama, Southern Division
against Transocean Ltd., Transocean Holdings, Inc., Transocean
Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc., Transocean Deepwater, Inc.,
BP, p.l.c., BP Exploration and Production, Inc., BP America,
Inc., BP Products North America, Inc., Anadarko Petroleum
Corporation, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., and Cameron
International Corporation. The complaint alleges that the Gulf of
Mexico oil spill was caused by the negligence of the owners and
operators of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in addition to
defective shut off valves at the well head, among other things.

Lewis Garrison, a founding member of Heninger Garrison Davis,
LLC, stated "Those responsible for this disaster, British
Petroleum and others, have caused an event of biblical
proportions. Entire ecosystems will be eradicated by this
discharge of millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf coast
region. Nothing can ever truly compensate the injuries that have
been and will be caused by this event, and nothing may ever
restore the region to what it was before this disaster occurred."
Mr. Garrison and the other Alabama oil spill attorneys of
Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC are passionate advocates for all of
their clients, but this matter affects their families, friends,
current and former clients and even their own property. While
some law firms outside of the region may see this as an
opportunity, Heninger Garrison Davis sees this as an obligation
to do whatever is in their power to assist those who suffer from
this oil spill in the recovery of the damages they have sustained
by doing what they do best, vigorously represent the individual
against billion dollar multi-national corporations. It is
important that all Alabama residents who have suffered or will
suffer from this oil spill disaster seek the advice of competent
Alabama oil spill lawyers prior to entering into any premature
settlement which might waive their rights to losses they aren't
even aware of at this point.

               About Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC

Heninger Garrison Davis, with offices in Birmingham, Alabama and
Atlanta, Georgia, is a General Civil Trial Practice including
Personal Injury, Wrongful Death, Commercial Litigation, Consumer
Fraud, Trucking Accidents, Products Liability, Medical
Malpractice, Fraud, Insurance Litigation, Patent Litigation,
Toxic Exposure Litigation, Asbestos Litigation, Social Security,
Patent Litigation, and Workers' Compensation law. The Alabama oil
spill lawyers of Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC are familiar with
complex environmental hazard litigation, representing over 1,000
individuals in Calhoun County, Alabama who have been harmed by
PCB pollution. As Alabama residents, the partners of the firm
share the same sorrow and indignation as other residents of the
state and entire Gulf Coast region over the human, emotional,
property, wildlife, habitat and both environmental and economic
ecosystem devastation of this oil spill disaster.


BP PLC: Another Shareholder Suit Filed in W.D. Louisiana
--------------------------------------------------------
Tresa Baldas at The National Law Journal reports that this time,
plaintiffs lawyers filing an oil spill lawsuit against BP PLC
decided to just bypass the federal trial court in New Orleans
with its raft of conflicted-out judges. Instead, the team of
seven firms filed a securities fraud class action in the Western
District of Louisiana on Monday.

The class action is before U.S. District Judge Rebecca Doherty in
Lafayette, La. "From what we understand, she has no conflict,"
said Daniel Becnel Jr. of the Becnel Law Firm in Reserve, La.,
one of several lawyers bringing the case.

Seven of the 12 active federal trial judges in New Orleans -- the
Eastern District of Louisiana -- have recused themselves from oil
spill cases citing such conflicts as ownership of BP stock and
close relatives who are plaintiffs lawyers with oil spill cases.

The case in the Western District, Johnson Investment Counsel Inc.
v. BP, was filed on behalf of purchasers of BP's American
depository receipts.  ADRs are a means of trading stock in a non-
U.S. company -- in this case, London-based BP -- on U.S. stock
exchanges.

The plaintiffs allege that BP made "false and misleading
statements" concerning its safety protocols and safety record,
thus hurting investors.

"The deceptive statements and reckless omissions from BP's
spokespersons as detailed in this Complaint amply demonstrate
that BP's procedures for minimizing its financial losses from
drilling rig problems were no more than fantasies," the complaint
says. "BP was simply not the enterprise that its public
communications pictured."

In the complaint, plaintiffs allege the following: BP's safety
procedures "completely failed"; BP "never disclosed to the
investing public that its safety procedures had never been
tested" for certain conditions; BP never disclosed that its
safety procedures created a broken and confusing chain of
command; and BP never disclosed that its operating procedures
permitted inexperienced senior personnel to be placed in charge
of final well tests.

Furthermore, the lawsuit says, the stock market has recognized
BP's alleged deceptions with a major drop in the company's share
price, from a high of $62 to a low of $42.56 as of May 25.

Other plaintiffs firms involved in the case are Houston's Lanier
Law Firm; Roda & Nast of Lancaster, Pa.; Salas & Co. of New
Orleans; Parker Waichman Alonso of Port Washington, N.Y..;
Neblett, Beard & Arsenault of Alexandria, La.; and Cincinnati's
Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley.

BP officials were unavailable for comment. The company is facing
other investor lawsuits in New Orleans, Alabama and Alaska.


BP PLC: S.C. Businesses & Homeowners Sue for Oil Spill Losses
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that businesses and
homeowners in six coastal counties in South Carolina have filed
class actions against BP, Halliburton and Transocean, claiming
the oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is already hurting
tourism and housing values in the Palmetto state.

Plaintiffs in the three federal class actions concede that not a
drop of oil spilled in the Gulf may yet have reached South
Carolina, but they say that the stigma created by "ominous and
scary reports" that the spill is in the Gulf Stream and could
reach the state's beaches has set the stage for an economic
disaster.

The classes claim the defendants' combined negligence caused the
April 20 explosion on the oil rig, its subsequent sinking and the
catastrophic oil spill.

Officials estimate that more than 40 million gallons of oil have
leaked from the well.  The leak was partially capped this week,
but that hasn't stopped an additional 330,000 gallons of oil from
pouring into the gulf on a daily basis, according to published
reports.

Each of the class actions contends that the large spill -- now
estimated to be roughly the size of South Carolina -- has reached
the Gulf of Mexico's "loop current."  They say it "will cause
detrimental effects and damages upon the entire South Carolina
marine environment," and harm a host of economic interests,
including attractions, hotels, restaurants, coastal retail
establishments and the owners of vacation rental properties.

The complaints were filed on behalf of property owners in
waterfront communities, several tourism business and the
Litchfield real estate company's offices in Charleston, Horry,
Georgetown, Colleton, Jasper and Beaufort Counties.

"Once it became clear that early oil spill containment efforts
had failed, the tourism and housing industry in coastal counties
in South Carolina was immediately affected," one complaint
states. "Vacationers [have] simply been unwilling to take any
chances that their vacations might be adversely affected by the
oil spill.

As a result, another complaint states, the "plaintiffs have
experienced a significant dip in customer attendance that appears
to be getting worse by the day."

Among those affected, or about to be affected, is the Litchfield
Company, which "specializes in the listing and sale of properties
located on or near the coast of South Carolina," according to the
third complaint.

Litchfield claims that housing prices in coastal communities,
which only recently started to rebound after the recession, are
again on the decline.

Each of the plaintiff classes seeks damages of no less than $5
million on claims of negligence, strict liability for abnormally
dangerous activity, strict products liability for manufacturing
defect, and violations of the oil pollution act.

A copy of the Complaint in The Litchfield Company, LLC v. BP,
P.L.C., et al., Case No. 10-cv-01462 (D. S.C.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/09/SCSpill.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          W. Baxter Harwell, Esq.
          Aaron S. Jophlin, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          232 King St.
          Georgetown, SC 29440
          Telephone: 843-546-2408

               - and -

          Thomas C. Brittain, Esq.
          T. Case Brittain, Jr., Esq.
          Andrew Preston Brittain, Esq.
          THE BRITTAIN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          4614 Oleander St.
          Myrtle Beach, SC 29577
          Telephone: 843-449-8562

CARE INVESTMENT: Incurs $1MM in Defense Costs of Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Care Investment Trust, Inc., has incurred approximately $1.0
million to defend itself against a securities class action
complaint in New York and any incremental costs to defend will be
paid by Care's insurer, according to the company's May 10, 2010,
Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.  

On September 18, 2007, a class action complaint for violations of
federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, alleging that the Registration
Statement relating to the initial public offering of shares of
the company's common stock, filed on June 21, 2007, failed to
disclose that certain of the assets in the contributed portfolio
were materially impaired and overvalued and that the company was
experiencing increasing difficulty in securing its warehouse
financing lines.

On January 18, 2008, the court entered an order appointing co-
lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel.  On February 19, 2008, the
co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint citing additional
evidentiary support for the allegations in the complaint.  The
company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on April 22,
2008.  The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to
dismiss on July 9, 2008, to which the company filed its reply on
September 10, 2008.

On March 4, 2009, the court denied the company's motion to
dismiss. Care filed its answer on April 15, 2009.  At a
conference held on May 15, 2009, the Court ordered the parties to
make a joint submission setting forth:

   (i) the specific statements that Plaintiffs claim are false
       and misleading;

  (ii) the facts on which Plaintiffs rely as showing each
       alleged misstatement was false and misleading; and

(iii) the facts on which Defendants rely as showing those
       statements were true.

The parties filed the Joint Statement on June 3, 2009.  On
July 31, 2009, the parties entered into a stipulation that
narrowed the scope of the proceeding to the single issue of the
warehouse financing disclosure in the Registration Statement.  
Fact discovery closed on April 23, 2010.

The Court ordered the parties to file an abbreviated joint pre-
trial statement by June 9, 2010, and scheduled a pre-trial
conference for June 11, 2010, at which the Court will determine
based on the joint pre-trial statement whether to permit the
company and the other defendants to file a summary judgment
motion.  

Care Investment Trust Inc. -- http://www.carereit.com/-- is a   
real estate investment trust (REIT) formed principally to invest
healthcare-related real estate and mortgage debt.  The company's
investments in healthcare real estate include medical office
buildings and assisted and independent living facilities and
Alzheimer facilities.  As of Dec. 31, 2008, its portfolio of
assets consisted of real estate and mortgage related assets for
senior housing facilities, skilled nursing facilities, medical
office properties and first mortgage liens on healthcare related
assets.  Care is externally managed and advised by CIT Healthcare
LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of CIT Group Inc.


CC MEDIA: Asks Court for Hearing Date on Reconsideration Motion
---------------------------------------------------------------
CC Media Holdings, Inc., is asking a California court to set a
hearing date for argument on its 2008 motion for reconsideration
of a class certification order, according to the company's
May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The company is a co-defendant with Live Nation (which was spun
off as an independent company in December 2005) in 22 putative
class actions filed beginning in May 2006 by different named
plaintiffs in various district courts throughout the country.
These actions generally allege that the defendants monopolized or
attempted to monopolize the market for "live rock concerts" in
violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.  Plaintiffs claim that
they paid higher ticket prices for defendants' "rock concerts" as
a result of defendants' conduct. They seek damages in an
undetermined amount.

On April 17, 2006, the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict
Litigation centralized these class action proceedings in the
Central District of California.

On March 2, 2007, plaintiffs filed motions for class
certification in five "template" cases involving five regional
markets: Los Angeles, Boston, New York, Chicago and Denver.
Defendants opposed that motion and, on October 22, 2007, the
district court issued its decision certifying the class for each
regional market.  On February 20, 2008, defendants filed a Motion
for Reconsideration of the Class Certification Order, which is
still pending.

Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Approval of the Class Notice Plan
on September 25, 2009, but the Court denied the Motion as
premature and ordered the entire case stayed until the 9th
Circuit issues its en banc opinion in Dukes v. Wal-Mart, 509 F.3d
1168 (9th Cir. 2007), a case that may change the standard for
granting class certification in the 9th Circuit.  

On April 26, 2010, the 9th Circuit issued its opinion adopting a
new class certification standard which will require district
courts to resolve Rule 23 factual disputes that overlap with the
merits of the case.  In response, Defendants asked the court to
set a hearing date for argument on their Motion for
Reconsideration of the Class Certification Order.

In the Master Separation and Distribution Agreement between the
company and Live Nation that was entered into in connection with
the spin-off of Live Nation in December 2005, Live Nation agreed,
among other things, to assume responsibility for legal actions
existing at the time of, or initiated after, the spin-off in
which the company is a defendant if those actions relate in any
material respect to the business of Live Nation.  Pursuant to the
Agreement, Live Nation also agreed to indemnify the company with
respect to all liabilities assumed by Live Nation, including
those pertaining to the claims.

CC Media Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.ccmediaholdings.com/-- is   
a diversified media company.  The company was formed in May 2007,
for the purpose of acquiring the business of Clear Channel
Communications, Inc.  The company operates in three business
segments: Radio Broadcasting, Americas Outdoor Advertising
(consisting primarily of operations in the United States, Canada
and Latin America) and International Outdoor Advertising.  The
company offers advertisers a platform of media assets across
geographies, radio programming formats and outdoor products.  On
March 14, 2008, Clear Channel completed the sale of its
television business to Newport Television, LLC.  Clear Channel
also completed the planned divestiture of certain of its non-core
radio stations during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008.  The total
number of non-core radio stations divested were 102 during 2008


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Bodet Names Another Unit as Defendant
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charter Communications, LLC, has been added as defendant in a
class action filed in Louisiana alleging violations of the
Sherman Act, according to Charter Communications, Inc.'s May 10,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for quarter ended March 31, 2010.

In March 2009, Gerald Paul Bodet, Jr. filed a putative class
action against Charter and Charter Communications Holding
Company, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana, according to CCH II, LLC's and CCH II Capital
Corp.'s May 10, 2010, Forms 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

In April 2010, plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint which
also named Charter Communications, LLC, as a defendant.  In the
Third Amended Complaint, plaintiff alleges that the defendants
violated the Sherman Act, state antitrust law and state unjust
enrichment law by forcing subscribers to rent a set top box in
order to subscribe to cable video services which are not
available to subscribers by simply plugging a cable into a cable-
ready television.  Defendants' response to the Third Amended
Complaint was May 14, 2010.

Charter Communications, Inc. -- http://www.charter.com/-- is a   
broadband communications company and the fourth-largest cable
operator in the United States.  Charter provides a full range of
advanced broadband services, including advanced Charter Digital
Cable(R) video entertainment programming, Charter High-Speed(R)
Internet access, and Charter Telephone(R).  Charter Business(TM)
similarly provides scalable, tailored, and cost-effective
broadband communications solutions to business organizations,
such as business-to-business Internet access, data networking,
video and music entertainment services, and business telephone.  
Charter's advertising sales and production services are sold
under the Charter Media(R) brand.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: "Lebryk" Suit Still Pending in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charter Communications, Inc., continues to defend a suit styled
Derrick Lebryk and Nicholas Gladson v. Charter Communications,
Inc., Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC, CCHC, LLC and
Charter Communications Holding, LLC, according to the company's
May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for quarter ended March 31, 2010.

In June 2009, Derrick Lebryk and Nichols Gladson filed a putative
class action against Charter, Charter Communications Holding
Company, LLC, CCHC, LLC and Charter Communications Holding, LLC,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.  
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the Sherman
Act based on similar allegations as those alleged in Bodet v.
Charter, et al.  The Charter defendants deny any liability and
plan to vigorously contest these cases.

Charter Communications, Inc. -- http://www.charter.com/-- is a   
broadband communications company and the fourth-largest cable
operator in the United States.  Charter provides a full range of
advanced broadband services, including advanced Charter Digital
Cable(R) video entertainment programming, Charter High-Speed(R)
Internet access, and Charter Telephone(R).  Charter Business(TM)
similarly provides scalable, tailored, and cost-effective
broadband communications solutions to business organizations,
such as business-to-business Internet access, data networking,
video and music entertainment services, and business telephone.  
Charter's advertising sales and production services are sold
under the Charter Media(R) brand.


CRM HOLDINGS: Seeks to Coordinate Self-Insured Trusts Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
CRM Holdings, Ltd., is seeking to coordinate the pretrial
proceedings of lawsuits relating to its administration of group
self-insured trusts before a single justice in New York,
according to CRM's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

On November 24, 2008, FS Kids, LLC, Mask Foods, Inc., Valu Home
Centers, Inc., KBLM Foods, Inc., KDJB Foods, Inc., Gaige &  Son
Grocery, Inc., TJ's Market, Inc., BB&T Supermarkets Inc., BNR-
Larson, LLC, and Gift Express of New York, Inc., all of which
were former members of WRWCTNY, on their own behalf and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, sued CRM in New York Supreme
Court, Erie County.

On August 26, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
seeking class action certification and alleging that CRM:

   (1) breached its contract with WRWCTNY;

   (2) breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing owed to
       WRWCTNY;

   (3) breached its fiduciary duties owed to WRWCTNY;

   (4) was negligent in administering WRWCTNY;

   (5) engaged in deceptive business practices;

   (6) was unjustly enriched; and

   (7) should indemnify the plaintiffs for any assessments that
       they may incur.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages arising from the plaintiffs'
joint and several liability for the deficit of WRWCTNY which, as
of September 30, 2007, was estimated at $19 million, and from any
unpaid claims of the plaintiffs' injured employees in an amount
presently undetermined.  In September 2009, CRM filed a motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaint.  CRM's motion to
dismiss was denied by the court on March 11, 2010.

Following the court's decision, in April 2010, CRM submitted an
application to the New York State Litigation Coordinating Panel,
seeking to coordinate pretrial proceedings in the following
lawsuits before a single justice of the New York State Supreme
Court, Albany County:

   (1) FS Kids LLC, et al. v. Compensation Risk Managers, LLC;

   (2) Armstrong Brands, Inc., et al. v. Compensation Risk
       Managers, LLC;

   (3) Arlen Senior Contracting of Central Islip, LLC, et al. v.
       Compensation Risk Managers, LLC;

   (4) 70 Sheldon Inc., et al. v. Compensation Risk Managers,
       LLC;

   (5) Healthcare Industry Trust of New York, et al. v.
       Compensation Risk Managers, LLC, et al.;

   (6) New York State Workers Compensation Board v. Compensation
       Risk Managers, LLC et al.; and

   (7) any future lawsuits which relate to CRM's administration
       of group self-insured trusts in the State of New York.  

In connection with CRM's application, the Litigation Coordination
Panel issued an order staying each of the lawsuits for which
coordination was sought pending the Panel's decision.  CRM's
application is currently pending before the Panel.

CRM Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.crmholdingsltd.com/ -- is a   
provider of workers' compensation insurance products.  The
company's main business activities include underwriting primary
workers' compensation policies, underwriting workers'
compensation reinsurance and excess insurance policies, and
providing fee-based management and other services to self-insured
entities.  Primary workers' compensation insurance is provided to
employers in California, Arizona, Florida, Nevada, New Jersey,
New York and other states.  The company reinsures some of the
primary business it underwrites and provides excess workers'
compensation coverage for self-insured organizations.  Finally,
fee-based management services are provided to self-insured groups
in California.  The company reports its business in four
segments: primary insurance, reinsurance, fee-based management
services, and corporate and other.  On Sept. 8, 2008, the company
ceased the operations of CRM and Eimar.


CRM HOLDINGS: NY Court Mulls Lead Plaintiffs Appointment Request
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court is considering a request to appoint the lead
plaintiffs in a securities class action lawsuit filed against CRM
Holdings Ltd. in New York, according to the company's
May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010..

On February 5, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased
the securities of CRM Holdings between December 21, 2005 and
November 5, 2008.  

The complaint was filed by Beverly L. Munter, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, and charges CRM Holdings
and certain of the company's executive officers and directors
with violations of federal securities laws.  The complaint
alleges that throughout the class period the defendants knew or
recklessly disregarded that their public statements concerning
CRM Holdings' financial performance and prospects were materially
false and misleading.  Specifically, the defendants are alleged
to have made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose:

   (1) that the defendants and their affiliates engaged in a
       fraudulent scheme and course of business to grow
       membership in eight self-insured groups previously
       administered by CRM, by charging premiums below
       commercial rates;

   (2) that the membership growth inflated gross trust revenues
       while reducing net paid premium income to the level that
       the assets of the self-insured groups would become
       insufficient to cover liabilities;

   (3) that, accordingly, the self-insured groups would fall
       below "fully funded" status;

   (4) that, as part of their fraudulent scheme and course of
       business to cover up the difference between assets and
       liabilities, the defendants and their affiliates
       disguised the true financial conditions of the self-
       insured groups by engaging in certain improprieties
       designed to result in minimal projected claims liability,
       including under-reserving individual claims and utilizing
       improper actuarial/accounting methods;

   (5) that the defendants and their affiliates provided the New
       York State Workers' Compensation Board with materially
       false and/or misleading financial and actuarial reports
       for the self-insured groups which reflected artificially
       reduced liabilities;

   (6) that, as a result of the above, the company was exposed
       to hundreds of millions of dollars in liabilities
       relating to the under-funding of the self-insured groups;

   (7) that the company lacked adequate internal and financial
       controls; and

   (8) that, as a result, the company's financial statements
       were materially false and misleading.  

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members.

In April 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion for the appointment
of lead plaintiffs and the approval of lead class counsel. The
plaintiffs' motion is currently pending before the court. The
Company and defendant directors and officers have been served
with the complaint and will have 60 days to respond once the
plaintiffs file a consolidated amended complaint.

CRM Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.crmholdingsltd.com/ -- is a   
provider of workers' compensation insurance products.  The
company's main business activities include underwriting primary
workers' compensation policies, underwriting workers'
compensation reinsurance and excess insurance policies, and
providing fee-based management and other services to self-insured
entities.  Primary workers' compensation insurance is provided to
employers in California, Arizona, Florida, Nevada, New Jersey,
New York and other states.  The company reinsures some of the
primary business it underwrites and provides excess workers'
compensation coverage for self-insured organizations.  Finally,
fee-based management services are provided to self-insured groups
in California.  The company reports its business in four
segments: primary insurance, reinsurance, fee-based management
services, and corporate and other.  On Sept. 8, 2008, the company
ceased the operations of CRM and Eimar.


DISH NETWORK: Court Denies Plaintiffs' Default Judgment Motion
--------------------------------------------------------------
A motion by the plaintiffs for default judgment against DISH
Network Corporation in a class suit in Colorado has been by the
court, according to the company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2010.

During 2000, lawsuits were filed by retailers in Colorado state
and federal courts attempting to certify nationwide classes on
behalf of certain of the company's retailers.  The plaintiffs are
requesting the Courts declare certain provisions of, and changes
to, alleged agreements between us and the retailers invalid and
unenforceable, and to award damages for lost incentives and
payments, charge backs, and other compensation.

The company has asserted a variety of counterclaims.  The federal
court action has been stayed during the pendency of the state
court action.

The company filed a motion for summary judgment on all counts and
against all plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs filed a motion for
additional time to conduct discovery to enable them to respond to
the company's motion.  The state court granted limited discovery
which ended during 2004.

The plaintiffs claimed the company did not provide adequate
disclosure during the discovery process.  The state court agreed,
and denied the company's motion for summary judgment as a result.

In April 2008, the state court granted plaintiff's class
certification motion and in January 2009, the state court entered
an order excluding certain evidence that the company can present
at trial based on the prior discovery issues.  The state court
also denied plaintiffs' request to dismiss our counterclaims.

In May 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for default judgment based
on new allegations of discovery misconduct.

In April 2010, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for default
judgment, but upheld its prior order excluding certain evidence.
The final impact of the court's evidentiary ruling cannot be
fully assessed at this time.

DISH Network Corporation -- http://www.dishnetwork.com/-- is a  
pay-television provider across the United States.  The company
provides programming, which includes more than 280 basic video
channels, 60 Sirius Satellite Radio music channels, 30 movie
channels, 35 regional and specialty sports channels, 2,500 local
channels, 220 Latino and international channels, and 50 channels
of pay-per-view content.  As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company
provided local channel coverage to markets covering about 97% of
United States television households.  In addition, it provided
high definition (HD) local channels to markets representing
approximately 93% of United States television households.


DISH NETWORK: Appeal in Channel Bundling Suit Dismissal Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of a purported
class action against DISH Network Corporation remains pending.

During 2007, a purported class of cable and satellite subscribers
filed an antitrust action against the company.  The suit also
names as defendants DirecTV, Comcast, Cablevision, Cox, Charter,
Time Warner, Inc., Time Warner Cable, NBC Universal, Viacom, Fox
Entertainment Group, and Walt Disney Company.

The suit alleges, among other things, that the defendants engaged
in a conspiracy to provide customers with access only to bundled
channel offerings as opposed to giving customers the ability to
purchase channels on an "a la carte" basis.

On Oct. 16, 2009, the District Court granted defendants' motion
to dismiss with prejudice.

The plaintiffs have appealed.

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

DISH Network Corporation -- http://www.dishnetwork.com/-- is a  
pay-television provider across the United States.  The company
provides programming, which includes more than 280 basic video
channels, 60 Sirius Satellite Radio music channels, 30 movie
channels, 35 regional and specialty sports channels, 2,500 local
channels, 220 Latino and international channels, and 50 channels
of pay-per-view content.  As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company
provided local channel coverage to markets covering about 97% of
United States television households.  In addition, it provided
high definition (HD) local channels to markets representing
approximately 93% of United States television households.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: British Columbia Settlement Approval Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Financial Corp. is awaiting court approval of a settlement
entered by its wholly owned subsidiaries, National Money Mart
Company and Dollar Financial Group, Inc., to settle a British
Columbia class action litigation pursuant to which plaintiffs
claimed that the business model used by Money Mart in British
Columbia resulted in the collection of fees in excess of the
statutory limit for payday loans made since 1997.  

On May 6, 2010, Money Mart and DFG entered into the settlement
agreement with the plaintiffs in the British Columbia Litigation.  
The Settlement Agreement requires court approval to become
effective, and a court hearing to review and approve the
Settlement Agreement was scheduled for May 17, 2010, according to
Dollar Financial's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

On January 29, 2003, a former customer, Kurt MacKinnon, commenced
an action against Money Mart and 26 other Canadian lenders on
behalf of a purported class of British Columbia residents who,
Mr. MacKinnon claims, were overcharged in payday-loan
transactions.  The action alleges violations of laws proscribing
usury and unconscionable trade practices and seeks restitution
and damages, including punitive damages, in an unknown amount.

Under the summary terms of the Settlement Agreement, Money Mart
will create a settlement fund in an amount of C$24.75 million,
consisting of C$12.375 million in cash and C$12.375 million in
vouchers.  Fees payable to plaintiffs' counsel will be paid from
this fund.  The remaining amount of the fund will be available to
class members who make claims, with Money Mart receiving a credit
for any unpaid debts incurred through November 1, 2009, and owed
by claimants to Money Mart.  Money Mart will release all debts
incurred through November 1, 2009, by class members who do not
make a claim, up to the total check cashing fees paid by those
class members through that date.  The vouchers will be in paper
form, will not be transferable, will be subject to cash
redemption for six months after their three-year life, and will
be available to be applied during the three years, generally in
C$5.00 increments, to product transactions on most of Money
Mart's products.  Any amounts remaining in the settlement fund
after the redemption period will be returned to Money Mart.

Dollar Financial Corp -- http://www.dfg.com/-- is a leading   
diversified international financial services company primarily
serving unbanked and under-banked consumers. Its customers are
typically service sector individuals who require basic financial
services but, for reasons of convenience and accessibility,
purchase some or all of their financial services from the Company
rather than from banks and other financial institutions. To meet
the needs of these customers, the Company provides a range of
consumer financial products and services primarily consisting of
check cashing, short-term consumer loans, automobile loans and
services, pawn lending, Western Union money order and money
transfer products, currency exchange, gold buying, reloadable
VISA(R) and MasterCard(R) branded debit cards, electronic tax
filing, and bill payment services.

At December 31, 2009, the Company's global store network
consisted of 1,172 stores, including 1,043 company-operated
financial services stores and 129 franchised and agent locations
in the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Republic of
Ireland, and Poland. The financial services store network is the
largest network of its kind in each of Canada and the United
Kingdom and the second-largest network of its kind in the United
States. The Company's customers, many of whom receive income on
an irregular basis or from multiple employers, are drawn to the
convenient neighborhood locations, extended operating hours and
high-quality customer service. The Company's financial products
and services, principally check cashing, money transfer, pawn
lending and short-term consumer loan programs, provide immediate
access to cash for living expenses or other needs.



DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Settlement Becomes Final in "Smith" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Effective March 3, 2010, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
approved a settlement relating to an action against Dollar
Financial Group, Inc., or OPCO, and the settlement became final
upon the expiration of a 30-day appeal period, according to
Dollar Financial Corp.'s May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On August 19, 2003, a former customer in Ontario, Canada,
Margaret Smith commenced an action against OPCO and the company's
Canadian subsidiary, National Money Mart Company, on behalf of a
purported class of Ontario borrowers who, Ms. Smith claimed, were
subjected to usurious charges in payday-loan transactions.  The
action alleged violations of a Canadian federal law proscribing
usury and sought restitution and damages, including punitive
damages, and injunctive relief prohibiting further alleged
usurious charges.

Dollar Financial Corp -- http://www.dfg.com/-- is a leading   
diversified international financial services company primarily
serving unbanked and under-banked consumers. Its customers are
typically service sector individuals who require basic financial
services but, for reasons of convenience and accessibility,
purchase some or all of their financial services from the Company
rather than from banks and other financial institutions. To meet
the needs of these customers, the Company provides a range of
consumer financial products and services primarily consisting of
check cashing, short-term consumer loans, automobile loans and
services, pawn lending, Western Union money order and money
transfer products, currency exchange, gold buying, reloadable
VISA(R) and MasterCard(R) branded debit cards, electronic tax
filing, and bill payment services.

At December 31, 2009, the Company's global store network
consisted of 1,172 stores, including 1,043 company-operated
financial services stores and 129 franchised and agent locations
in the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Republic of
Ireland, and Poland. The financial services store network is the
largest network of its kind in each of Canada and the United
Kingdom and the second-largest network of its kind in the United
States. The Company's customers, many of whom receive income on
an irregular basis or from multiple employers, are drawn to the
convenient neighborhood locations, extended operating hours and
high-quality customer service. The Company's financial products
and services, principally check cashing, money transfer, pawn
lending and short-term consumer loan programs, provide immediate
access to cash for living expenses or other needs.



DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Approval of Maritimes Settlement Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Financial Group, Inc., or OPCO, is awaiting court approval
of its settlement of purported class actions that have been
commenced against it and Money Mart in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia
and Newfoundland.  

The lawsuits were filed on behalf of a purported class of
borrowers who were allegedly subjected to usurious charges in
payday-loan transactions.  The lawsuits alleged violations of a
Canadian federal law proscribing usury and sought restitution and
damages, including punitive damages, and injunctive relief
prohibiting further alleged usurious charges.

On March 31, 2010, the parties reached an agreement to settle all
of the Maritimes Litigation.  Court approval of the settlement is
required.  A hearing regarding the agreement to settle the
Maritimes Litigation was scheduled for May 26, 2010, according to
Dollar Financial Corp.'s May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

Dollar Financial Corp -- http://www.dfg.com/-- is a leading   
diversified international financial services company primarily
serving unbanked and under-banked consumers. Its customers are
typically service sector individuals who require basic financial
services but, for reasons of convenience and accessibility,
purchase some or all of their financial services from the Company
rather than from banks and other financial institutions. To meet
the needs of these customers, the Company provides a range of
consumer financial products and services primarily consisting of
check cashing, short-term consumer loans, automobile loans and
services, pawn lending, Western Union money order and money
transfer products, currency exchange, gold buying, reloadable
VISA(R) and MasterCard(R) branded debit cards, electronic tax
filing, and bill payment services.

At December 31, 2009, the Company's global store network
consisted of 1,172 stores, including 1,043 company-operated
financial services stores and 129 franchised and agent locations
in the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Republic of
Ireland, and Poland. The financial services store network is the
largest network of its kind in each of Canada and the United
Kingdom and the second-largest network of its kind in the United
States. The Company's customers, many of whom receive income on
an irregular basis or from multiple employers, are drawn to the
convenient neighborhood locations, extended operating hours and
high-quality customer service. The Company's financial products
and services, principally check cashing, money transfer, pawn
lending and short-term consumer loan programs, provide immediate
access to cash for living expenses or other needs.



DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Arbitration Motions Set for Hearing in July
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Financial Corp. is awaiting the outcome of a purported
class action against National Money Mart Company, Dollar
Financial Group, Inc. or OPCO, and two other defendants in
Alberta, according to the company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

On November 6, 2003, Gareth Young, a former customer, commenced a
purported class action against Money Mart, OPCO and two other
defendants in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, Canada, on
behalf of a class of consumers who obtained short-term loans from
Money Mart and the other co-defendants in Alberta, alleging,
among other things, that the charge to borrowers in connection
with those loans is usurious.  The action seeks restitution and
damages, including punitive damages.  In 2004, Money Mart served
Mr. Young a demand for arbitration.  Although OPCO is named as a
co-defendant in the case, OPCO has not been served a statement of
claim in the matter.

On March 5, 2006, a former customer, H. Craig Day, commenced an
action against OPCO, Money Mart and several of the Company's
franchisees in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, Canada on
behalf of a putative class of consumers who obtained short-term
loans from Money Mart in Alberta.  

The allegations, putative class and relief sought in the Day
Litigation action are substantially the same as those in the
Young Litigation, but relate to a claim period that commences
before and ends after the claim period in the Young Litigation
and excludes the claim period described in the Young Litigation;
the Day Litigation it also relates to claims arising after
December 2005, the date of the purported settlement of the Young
Litigation.

In December 2006, the Young Litigation was transferred to
plaintiff's solicitors in the Day Litigation. Both of the actions
comprising the Alberta Litigation were subsequently transferred
back to the plaintiff's original solicitors in the Young
Litigation.

In July 2007, a demand for arbitration was delivered to Mr. Day
on behalf of OPCO, Money Mart and a number of Money Mart's
franchisees.  In April 2010, plaintiffs' solicitors indicated
that they wished to proceed with the claims in the Alberta
Litigation. Money Mart and the franchisees responded by advising
they will be proceeding with motions to enforce the arbitration
clause and to stay the actions.  These motions are tentatively
scheduled to be heard in July 2010.

Neither of the actions comprising the Alberta Litigation has been
certified to date as a class action, Dollar Financial relates.

Dollar Financial Corp -- http://www.dfg.com/-- is a leading   
diversified international financial services company primarily
serving unbanked and under-banked consumers. Its customers are
typically service sector individuals who require basic financial
services but, for reasons of convenience and accessibility,
purchase some or all of their financial services from the Company
rather than from banks and other financial institutions. To meet
the needs of these customers, the Company provides a range of
consumer financial products and services primarily consisting of
check cashing, short-term consumer loans, automobile loans and
services, pawn lending, Western Union money order and money
transfer products, currency exchange, gold buying, reloadable
VISA(R) and MasterCard(R) branded debit cards, electronic tax
filing, and bill payment services.

At December 31, 2009, the Company's global store network
consisted of 1,172 stores, including 1,043 company-operated
financial services stores and 129 franchised and agent locations
in the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Republic of
Ireland, and Poland. The financial services store network is the
largest network of its kind in each of Canada and the United
Kingdom and the second-largest network of its kind in the United
States. The Company's customers, many of whom receive income on
an irregular basis or from multiple employers, are drawn to the
convenient neighborhood locations, extended operating hours and
high-quality customer service. The Company's financial products
and services, principally check cashing, money transfer, pawn
lending and short-term consumer loan programs, provide immediate
access to cash for living expenses or other needs.



DOLLAR FINANCIAL: To Seek Stay If Manitoba Class Action Proceeds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Financial Corp. continues to defend itself and its
subsidiary, National Money Mart Company, against a lawsuit on
behalf of a purported class of consumers in Manitoba, according
to the company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

On April 26, 2004, an action was filed against Money Mart in
Manitoba on behalf of a purported class of consumers who obtained
short-term loans from Money Mart alleging, among other things,
that the charge to borrowers in connection with those loans is
usurious.  The action has not been certified to date as a class
action, the company said.

If the action proceeds, Money Mart intends to seek a stay of the
action on the grounds that the plaintiff entered into an
arbitration and mediation agreement with Money Mart with respect
to the matters which are the subject of the action.

Dollar Financial Corp -- http://www.dfg.com/-- is a leading   
diversified international financial services company primarily
serving unbanked and under-banked consumers. Its customers are
typically service sector individuals who require basic financial
services but, for reasons of convenience and accessibility,
purchase some or all of their financial services from the Company
rather than from banks and other financial institutions. To meet
the needs of these customers, the Company provides a range of
consumer financial products and services primarily consisting of
check cashing, short-term consumer loans, automobile loans and
services, pawn lending, Western Union money order and money
transfer products, currency exchange, gold buying, reloadable
VISA(R) and MasterCard(R) branded debit cards, electronic tax
filing, and bill payment services.

At December 31, 2009, the Company's global store network
consisted of 1,172 stores, including 1,043 company-operated
financial services stores and 129 franchised and agent locations
in the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Republic of
Ireland, and Poland. The financial services store network is the
largest network of its kind in each of Canada and the United
Kingdom and the second-largest network of its kind in the United
States. The Company's customers, many of whom receive income on
an irregular basis or from multiple employers, are drawn to the
convenient neighborhood locations, extended operating hours and
high-quality customer service. The Company's financial products
and services, principally check cashing, money transfer, pawn
lending and short-term consumer loan programs, provide immediate
access to cash for living expenses or other needs.


DYNEGY INC: Updates on Gas Index Pricing Litigation in Nevada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dynegy Inc. disclosed recent developments in certain class action
lawsuits in Nevada, collectively known as "Gas Index Pricing
Litigation" in its May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.  

The company, several of its affiliates, its former joint venture
affiliate and other energy companies were named as defendants in
numerous lawsuits in state and federal court claiming damages
resulting from alleged price manipulation and false reporting of
natural gas prices to various index publications in the 2000-2002
timeframe.  Many of the cases have been resolved and those which
remain are pending in Nevada federal district court.  
Recent developments include:

    * In February 2007, the Tennessee state court dismissed a
      class action on defendants' motion.  Plaintiffs appealed
      and, in October 2008, the appellate court reversed the
      dismissal.  Thereafter, defendants appealed to the
      Tennessee Supreme Court which, in April 2010, reversed the
      appellate court ruling and dismissed all of plaintiffs'
      claims.  The decision is subject to appeal to the U.S.
      Supreme Court.

    * In February 2008, the United States District Court in Las
      Vegas, Nevada granted defendants' motion for summary
      judgment in a Colorado class action and, ultimately,
      dismissed the case and all of plaintiffs' claims.  The
      decision is subject to appeal once the remaining
      defendants' claims are adjudicated.

    * The remaining five cases, three of which seek class
      certification, are also pending in Nevada federal court.  
      All of the cases contain similar claims that individually,
      and in conjunction with other energy companies, the
      company was engaged in an illegal scheme to inflate
      natural gas prices in four states by providing false
      information to natural gas index publications.  In
      November 2009, following defendants' motion for
      reconsideration, the court invited defendants to renew
      their motions for summary judgment, which were filed
      shortly thereafter.  Now fully briefed, the company awaits
      an order or further instruction from the court.  In the
      interim, discovery and plaintiffs' class certification
      motions are stayed.

The company continues to analyze the Gas Index Pricing Litigation
and are vigorously defending the remaining individual matters.  

Dynegy Inc. is a holding company and conducts substantially all
of its business operations through its subsidiaries.  Its current
business operations are focused on the power generation sector of
the energy industry. The Company is based in Houston.


EL PASO PIPELINE: Appeal Deadline Passes in "Will Price" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The deadline to appeal the denial of class certification in a
purported class action lawsuit in Kansas has now passed,
according to El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P.'s May 7, 2010, Form
10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

In 1999, the purported class action lawsuit entitled Will Price,
et al. v. Gas Pipelines and Their Predecessors, et al., was filed
in the District Court of Stevens County, Kansas, against Colorado
Interstate Gas Company and a number of El Paso Pipeline's
affiliates.  The complaint alleges that the defendants
inaccurately measured the volume and heating content of gas that
resulted in the underpayment of royalties to royalty owners on
non-federal and non-Native American lands in Kansas, Wyoming and
Colorado.

The court has denied motions for class certification and the
deadline for an appeal of this order has now passed.  

Headquartered in Houston, El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P. is a
natural gas pipeline and storage company.  The firm, which
consists of Wyoming Interstate Company (WIC) and partial
interests in Colorado Interstate Gas Company (CIG) and Southern
Natural Gas Company (SNG), has 12,500 miles of pipeline, and
storage facilities totaling 89 billion cubic feet.


ELBIT IMAGING: Appeal to Dismissal of Certification Bid Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal to the decision dismissing the motion to
certify their claim as a class action on behalf of certain
shareholders against Elbit Imaging Ltd., among others, remains
pending before the Supreme Court, according to the company's May
10, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Nov. 2, 1999, a number of institutional and other investors,
holding shares in Elscint Ltd., instituted a claim against the
company, Elscint, Europe Israel (M.M.S.) Ltd. (EIL), Control
Centers Ltd, past and present officers in the said companies and
others.  Together with the claim an application was filed to
certify the claim as a class action on behalf of everyone who was
a shareholder in Elscint on Sept. 6, 1999 and until the lodging
of the claim, excluding the company and certain other
shareholders.

The Plaintiffs claim continued and systematic oppression of the
minority shareholders in Elscint, which caused them monetary
damages and which started - so they allege - in the oppressive
agreements Elscint made for the realization of the main part of
its assets, continued with the sale of the control in Elscint to
the EIL and with the breach of a tender offer made by the company
to purchase of the minority shares of Elscint and ended with the
agreements executed by Elscint for the acquisition of the hotel
operations and the Arena commercial center in Israel, from EIL
and Control Centers, respectively ("September 99 Transactions")
at a lower value than the consideration received for them.

Due to these acts, the Plaintiffs allege that the value of
Elscint's shares fell during the period between Feb. 24, 1999
and up until the date at which the claim was instituted from a
price of $13.25 per share to a price of $7.25 per share.

The main relief which the original claim sought was to order the
company to carry out a tender offer for Elscint's shares at a
price of $14 per share, and alternatively, to purchase Elscint's
shares held by the Plaintiffs at a price to be set by the court.  
Further alternatively, the Plaintiffs sought, in their original
claim, that the court grants an order prohibiting the execution
of the September 99 Transactions and for the restitution of all
money paid, if paid within the framework of the above mentioned
transactions.  Some of the relief sought was also sought as a
derivative action on behalf of Elscint.

On Dec. 16, 2007, Elscint lodged an application for leave to
appeal on a decision of the Registrar of the District Court in
respect of Court fees that Elscint alleges should be paid by the
Plaintiffs for the main claim made in the "updated statement of
claim" which amounts to a sum of at least NIS2.4 million.  On
March 18, 2008, the Supreme Court decided that the motion for
leave to appeal requires reply, and thereafter the Plaintiffs and
all other parties submitted their replies.

On Jan. 11, 2009, the district court dismissed Plaintiffs' motion
to certify the claim as a class action.

On March 26, 2009, the Plaintiffs appealed the decision to
dismiss their motion to certify the claim as a class action
before the Supreme Court.

On May 20, 2009, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for discovery
claiming that the court dismissed only their motion to certify
the claim as a class action, while their personal and/ or
derivative claims were still pending.  On June 30, 2009, the
district court dismissed the Plaintiffs motion for discovery.  
The court expressed, inter alia, its opinion that the Plaintiffs
could not continue to plead this case as a derivative claim, and
ordered the Plaintiffs to file a notice detailing their reasons
as to why should the court not dismiss these proceedings
altogether, while maintaining the Plaintiffs' right to file
individual claims.  On Nov. 5, 2009, 18 out of 31 plaintiffs
filed their stand, according to the court's decision of June 30,
2009, regarding the question whether the claim should be
dismissed in limine.  The rest 13 Plaintiffs have not filed their
stand.

The Plaintiffs claimed that all proceeding before the district
court should be postponed until the Supreme Court gives its
decision on the appeal.

Elbit Imaging Ltd. -- http://www.elbitimaging.com-- is a  
subsidiary of Europe Israel (M.M.S.) Ltd. EI's activities are
divided into the following principal fields: (i) Initiation,
construction, operation, management and sale of shopping and
entertainment centers in Israel, Central and Eastern Europe and
India; (ii) Hotels ownership, primarily in major European
cities, as well as operation, management and sale of same through
its subsidiary, Elscint Ltd.; (iii) Investments in the
research and development, production and marketing of magnetic
resonance imaging guided focused ultrasound treatment equipment,
through its subsidiary, InSightec Ltd.; and (iv) Other activities
consisting of the distribution and marketing of
women's fashion and accessories through wholly-owned Israeli
subsidiary, Elbit Trade & Retail Ltd., and venture-capital
investments.


ELBIT IMAGING: Minority Shareholders' Suit Still in Early Stages
----------------------------------------------------------------
A minority shareholder class-action lawsuit against Elbit Imaging
Ltd., Elscint Ltd., Elscint's past directors and others
is in its preliminary stages, according to the company's May 10,
2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In September 1999, the company, Elscint Ltd., Elscint's past
directors and others were served with a copy of a claim
instituted by a shareholder in Elscint.  Together with the claim
an application was filed to certify the claim as a class-action
suit on behalf of everyone who was a minority shareholder in
Elscint on the date of instituting the claim and was such a
shareholder on Feb. 18, 1999.

The scope of the class action claim (as amended in October 1999)
is estimated by the plaintiff at approximately $158.3 million and
its personal damages (as amended in October 1999) are estimated
by him at approximately $0.6 million.

The plaintiff claims that the company acted, through Elscint's
directors, systemically with the aim of emptying and diluting
Elscint of its business, assets, capital and value, whilst
enriching other companies in the Group at the expense of Elscint
and at the expense of the minority shareholders of Elscint.

The Plaintiff also alleges that the several transactions executed
by the company and Elscint in 1998 for the sale of
substantially all of their assets and business in the CT, MRI and
Focused Ultrasound business as well as a transaction to
grant options ("Option Transaction") to the former chairman of
the company, were all done whilst oppressing the minority
shareholders of Elscint and in contravention of Section 235 of
the Israeli Companies Ordinance.

The relief sought in the claim is to order the company, and
alternatively the other defendants, to purchase from the
Plaintiff and from the other members of the proffered class,
Elscint shares they hold at a price of $27.46 per share, and as
interim relief, in order to limit the Plaintiff's damages, to
oblige the Company to realise its undertakings dated Feb. 18,
1999 to acquire the above said shares at a price of $14 per
share. ("Tender Offer Claim")

According to an agreement reached between the parties in the
case, the hearing in this case was postponed until after the
Supreme Court rules on Leave for Civil Appeal as detailed in the
Nov. 2, 1999 lawsuit.

After a judgement was handed down in Application for Leave to
Appeal in the case detailed in the Nov. 2, 1999 lawsuit, on
Sept. 25, 2007, legal counsel for the Plaintiff addressed the
court asking to renew the hearings in this proceeding.

Following this application, on July 1, 2008, the defendants filed
an "announcement and application" on their behalf,
updating the court on the major events in the proceedings.

On March 31, 2009, the district court stroke out, in limine, the
causes of action in respect of the Options Transaction and the
Tender-Offer Claim.

The scope of the class action claim (as amended in October 1999
and following the stroke out of the aforementioned cause of
actions as detailed below) is estimated by the plaintiff at
approximately $158 million and its personal damages (as amended
in October 1999) are estimated by him at approximately $0.6
million.

The company's legal counsels believe that-to their best
understanding-and also considering, inter alia, that this
matter is in its preliminary stages, and that responses have not
yet been submitted to the application to certify the claim as a
class action, nor have statements of defense been lodged, nor has
any hearing been held on material matters on the motion to the
certify the claim as a class action and/or on the claim itself,
and also considering the fact that they have not yet received all
the information and documents in connection with this claim, and
they have not yet interviewed all the relevant entities - the
probability of the claim being upheld is not greater than 50%.

Elbit Imaging Ltd. -- http://www.elbitimaging.com-- is a  
subsidiary of Europe Israel (M.M.S.) Ltd. EI's activities are
divided into the following principal fields: (i) Initiation,
construction, operation, management and sale of shopping and
entertainment centers in Israel, Central and Eastern Europe and
India; (ii) Hotels ownership, primarily in major European
cities, as well as operation, management and sale of same through
its subsidiary, Elscint Ltd.; (iii) Investments in the
research and development, production and marketing of magnetic
resonance imaging guided focused ultrasound treatment equipment,
through its subsidiary, InSightec Ltd.; and (iv) Other activities
consisting of the distribution and marketing of
women's fashion and accessories through wholly-owned Israeli
subsidiary, Elbit Trade & Retail Ltd., and venture-capital
investments.


ELBIT IMAGING: Ruling on 3rd Party's Representation Bid Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Haifa District Court has yet to rule on the appropriateness
of a third party claimant to serve as a class representative in a
lawsuit against Elbit Imaging Ltd., among others.

On Sept. 6, 2006, a third party instituted two claims before the
Haifa District Court in which he sued the company, Elscint Ltd.,
Europe Israel (M.M.S.) Ltd. ("EIL"), Control Centers Ltd., and
others.

These statements of claim constitute an almost identical copy of
the claim detailed in the Nov. 2, 1999 lawsuit over "September 99
Transactions" and the Plaintiff asked to combine the hearings
with those in the said matter.  In the statements of claim the
Plaintiff asked to approve the claims he had instituted as class
actions, however up to the date of the approval of these
financial statements no separate applications have been served to
the companies for the certification of the claims as class
actions.

In the first claim, the Plaintiff alleges acts of oppression
towards the company's shareholders and in the second claim the
Plaintiff alleges acts of oppression towards Elscint's
shareholders.

The Plaintiff alleges continued and systematic oppression of the
minority shareholders in Elscint and the company, which caused
him monetary damages and which started - so he claims- in the
oppressive agreements Elscint made for the realization of the
main part of its assets, continued with the withholding of
information from the stock exchange and from the public, with the
sale of the control in Elscint to the company's controlling
shareholder and with the breach of a tender offer made by the
company to purchase of the minority shares of Elscint and ended
with the agreements executed by Elscint for the acquisition of
the hotel operations and the Arena commercial center in Israel,
from EIL and Control Centers, respectively ("September 99
Transactions") at a lower value than the consideration received
for them.

The main relief sought in the claim is compensation consists of
(i) punitive damages for the acts of the defendants; and (ii)
damages for "mental anguish" to the plaintiff and to the
proffered class.  In addition, the plaintiff is also suing for
compensation for the difference between the price at which
Elscint shares were actually sold by the Plaintiff and the
proffered class members and in the sum of $14 million, plus
interest and linkage differences since 1999.  Furthermore, the
Plaintiff is also claiming for harm caused to the value of his
holdings in the company's shares.  It will be noted that the
statements of claim in both proceedings require certain
clarifications, due to the wording of the claims.

In the pre-trial session held at the District Court on Feb. 22,
2007, the Court asked the parties to refer to the question of the
appropriateness of the claimant to serve as a class
representative and on the issue of the overlap between the
claims lodged by the plaintiff and the claim detailed in the Nov.
2, 1999 lawsuit.  The parties were given the opportunity to
complete their arguments in this matter, and in this framework
the Plaintiff asked, inter alia, that he be allowed to take legal
representation for the proceedings.  All the parties have
submitted the completion of their arguments in writing.

As of Dec. 31, 2009, no decision has yet been handed down in this
matter.

On Jan. 24, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a request to examine the
documents in Civil Case 1318/99.

On Feb. 14, 2010 the Defendants filed their responses.  The claim
was filed in a case that is not known to the Defendants,
according to the company's May 10, 2010, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

Elbit Imaging Ltd. -- http://www.elbitimaging.com-- is a  
subsidiary of Europe Israel (M.M.S.) Ltd. EI's activities are
divided into the following principal fields: (i) Initiation,
construction, operation, management and sale of shopping and
entertainment centers in Israel, Central and Eastern Europe and
India; (ii) Hotels ownership, primarily in major European
cities, as well as operation, management and sale of same through
its subsidiary, Elscint Ltd.; (iii) Investments in the
research and development, production and marketing of magnetic
resonance imaging guided focused ultrasound treatment equipment,
through its subsidiary, InSightec Ltd.; and (iv) Other activities
consisting of the distribution and marketing of
women's fashion and accessories through wholly-owned Israeli
subsidiary, Elbit Trade & Retail Ltd., and venture-capital
investments.


ENERGYSOLUTIONS: Faces Consolidated Amended Complaint in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
EnergySolutions, Inc., is facing a consolidated amended complaint
in New York concerning the accuracy of its registration
statements related to two public offerings, according to the
company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On October 9, 2009, a purported class-action lawsuit captioned
City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System vs.
EnergySolutions, et al., was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Civil Number 09-CV-
8633, and on October 12, 2009 a second complaint was filed in the
same court captioned Building Trades United Pension Trust Fund
vs. EnergySolutions Inc., et al., Civil Number 09-CV-8648.

On February 18, 2010 the Court consolidated the Related Actions
and appointed the lead plaintiff.

On April 20, 2010 the lead plaintiff filed its consolidated
amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint names as
defendants the Company, current and prior directors, certain
officers of the Company, the lead underwriters in the Company's
initial public offering in November 2007 and the secondary
offering in July 2008 and ENV Holdings, LLC, the former parent of
the Company. The plaintiffs allege that the registration
statements and prospectus for the IPO and the July 2008 Offering
contained inaccurate statements of material facts and omitted
material information required to be disclosed therein regarding
the potential size of the nuclear services market, the Company's
ability to take advantage of opportunities in that market in the
near term, the status and prospects of the Company's rule making
petition to the NRC to permit the use of decommissioning funds
for disposal of major components prior to the cessation of
activities at nuclear facilities, the status and prospects of the
Company's license stewardship initiative, and other matters. The
complaints seek to include all purchasers of the Company's stock
from November 14, 2007 through October 14, 2008 as a plaintiff
class and seek damages, costs and interest, rescission of the IPO
and July 2008 Offering, and such other relief as the court may
find just and proper.

EnergySolutions, Inc., provides technology-based nuclear services
to government and commercial customers in the United States. The
Company is based in Salt Lake City, Utah.


FBR CAPITAL: Unit Still Awaits Ruling in Thornburg Mortgage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
FBR Capital Markets Corporation's subsidiary FBR & Co. is still
awaiting a federal court's decision regarding its motion for
final judgment in a consolidated class action in New Mexico,
according to FBR Capital's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

In May 2008, the lead plaintiff in a previously filed and
consolidated action filed an amended consolidated class action
complaint that, for the first time, named Friedman, Billings,
Ramsey & Co., Inc., now FBR & Co. and eight other underwriters as
defendants.  The lawsuit, styled In Re Thornburg Mortgage, Inc.
Securities Litigation and pending in the United States District
Court for the District of New Mexico, was originally filed in
August 2007 against Thornburg Mortgage, Inc., and certain of its
officers and directors, alleging material misrepresentations and
omissions about, inter alia, the financial position of TMI.  The
amended complaint now includes claims under Sections 11 and 12 of
the Securities Act against nine underwriters relating to five
separate offerings (May 2007, June 2007, September 2007 and two
offerings in January 2008). The allegations against FBR & Co.
relate only to its role as underwriter or member of the syndicate
that underwrote TMI's total of three offerings in September 2007
and January 2008 -- each of which occurred after the filing of
the original complaint -- with an aggregate offering price of
approximately $818,000.

The plaintiffs seek restitution, unspecified compensatory damages
and reimbursement of certain costs and expenses.

On September 22, 2008, FBR & Co. filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action complaint as to FBR & Co.  The District
Court granted that motion on January 27, 2010.  

FBR & Co. subsequently moved for entry of a final judgment in its
favor. The plaintiffs have opposed that motion and have filed a
motion seeking clarification of the Court's dismissal order.  The
plaintiffs contend that the District Court's dismissal order is,
or should be, without prejudice, and that they should be
permitted to file an amended complaint that attempts to re-plead
dismissed claims.

The Court has yet to rule on FBR & Co.'s motion for entry of
final judgment, the plaintiffs' motion for clarification, or the
plaintiffs' expressed interest in filing an amended complaint.

FBR Capital Markets Corporation --
http://www.fbrcapitalmarkets.com/-- provides investment banking,  
merger and acquisition advisory, institutional brokerage and
research services through its subsidiary FBR Capital Markets &
Co.  FBR Capital Markets focuses capital and financial expertise
on seven industry sectors: consumer, diversified industrials,
energy and natural resources, financial institutions, insurance,
real estate, and technology, media and telecom.  The company's
subsidiaries are FBR Investment Management, Inc. and FBR Fund
Advisers, Inc.  FBR Investment Management, Inc. provides asset
management services. FBR Fund Advisers, Inc. provides mutual
funds.  On Aug. 31, 2009, the company acquired Watch Hill
Partners LLC, a boutique corporate finance advisory practice.  
The Watch Hill Partners team is now part of FBR Capital Markets'
Investment Banking department.


FIRST AMERICAN: Court Redefines Title Insurance Plaintiff Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable David G. Compbell decertified an unfair
discrimination claim and revised the class definition for an
unjust enrichment claim in Perez, et ux. v. First American Title
Insurance Company, Case No. 08-cv-01184 (D. Ariz.).  In that
lawsuit, the Plaintiffs contend they were overcharged for title
insurance in mortgage refinancing transactions.  A copy of Judge
Compbell's Order dated June 8, 2010, is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100608a20


FLAMEL TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery in "Billhofer" Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
The matter Billhofer v. Flamel Technologies, et al., where Flamel
Technologies S.A. is a defendant, is now in the discovery phase,
according to the company's May 10, 2010, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

On Nov. 9, 2007 a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
company and certain of its current and former officers.

The complaint purports to allege claims arising under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on certain public
statements by the company concerning, among other things, a
clinical trial involving Coreg CR and seeks the award of damages
in an unspecified amount.

By Order dated Feb. 11, 2008, the Court appointed a lead
plaintiff and lead counsel in the action.

On March 27, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
which continued to name as defendants the company and two
previously named officers and asserted the same claims based on
the same events as alleged in the initial complaint.

On May 12, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
action, which the Court denied by Order dated Oct. 1, 2009.

The action is now in the discovery phase pursuant to a schedule
approved by the Court in a Case Management Order, signed Dec. 9,
2009.

Flamel Technologies S.A. -- http://www.flamel.com/-- is a  
biopharmaceutical company principally engaged in the development
of two polymer-based drug delivery technologies.  The company's
nanoparticle Medusa technology is designed to provide controlled
release following injection of therapeutic proteins, peptides and
other large and small molecules. It also has developed a
microparticule adaptation of the Medusa platform.  Its Micropump
technology is a multiparticle technology for oral administration
of small molecule drugs with applications in controlled-release,
taste-masking and bioavailability enhancement.  Flamel's Trigger-
Lock technology is an adaptation of Micropump designed to
minimize the misuse and abuse of medications subject to abuse.  
The company develops specific applications of its controlled
release technologies in partnership with biotechnology and
pharmaceutical companies.


GORDON TRUCKING: Sued Over "Systematic Scheme of Wage Abuse"
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Gordon Trucking faces a
class action complaint of a "systematic scheme of wage abuse," in
Pierce County Court, Tacoma, Wash.

A copy of the Complaint in Mynatt, et al. v. Gordon Trucking,
Inc., Case No. 10-2-09860-2 (Wash. Super. Ct., Pierce Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/09/Employ.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Deborah M. Nelson, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Boyd, Esq.
          NELSON BOYD, PLLC
          1700 7th Ave., Suite 2220
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: 206-971-7601


HANSEN MEDICAL: Court Consolidates 3 Securities Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hansen Medical, Inc., is facing a consolidated securities class
action before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, according to the company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Following the company's October 19, 2009, announcement that the
company would restate certain of its financial statements, a
securities class action lawsuit was filed on October 23, 2009, in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, naming the company and certain of its officers: Curry
v. Hansen Medical, Inc. et al., Case No. 09-05094.  

The complaint asserts claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a
putative class of purchasers of Hansen's stock between May 1,
2008 and October 18, 2009, inclusive, and alleges, inter alia,
that defendants made false or misleading statements and failed to
make disclosures regarding the company's financial results and
compliance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles while
improperly recognizing revenue; that these misstatements and
nondisclosures resulted in overstatement of the company's revenue
and financial results or artificially inflated the company's
stock price; and that following the October 19, 2009
announcement, the price of the company's stock declined.

On November 4, 2009 and November 13, 2009, substantively
identical complaints were filed in the Northern District of
California by other purported Hansen stockholders asserting the
same claims on behalf of the same putative class of Hansen
stockholders: Livingstone v. Hansen Medical, Inc. et al., Case
No. 09-05212 and Prenter v. Hansen Medical, Inc., et al., Case
No. 09-05367.

All three complaints seek certification as a class action and
unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys
fees.  

On December 22, 2009, two purported Hansen stockholders, Mina and
Nader Farr, filed a joint application for appointment as lead
plaintiffs and for consolidation of the three actions.  On
February 25, 2010, the Court issued an order granting Mina and
Nader Farr's application for appointment as lead plaintiffs and
consolidating the three securities class actions.  Lead
plaintiffs had a deadline of May 10, 2010 to file a consolidated
amended complaint.  The company intends to defend itself
vigorously against these actions.

Based in Mountain View, Calif., Hansen Medical, Inc., develops
and manufactures a new generation of medical robotics designed
for accurate positioning, manipulation and stable control of
catheters and catheter-based technologies.


INVENTIV HEALTH: Being Sold for Too Little, Del. Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders claim directors
of inVentiv Health are selling the company too cheaply to Thomas
H. Lee Partners, for $26 a share or $1.1 billion, in Delaware
Chancery Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Ramage v. Broshy, et al., Case No.
5547 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/09/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sidney S. Liebesman, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          One Commerce Center
          1201 N. Orange St., Suite 801
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: 302-573-2530
          E-mail: sliebesman@labaton.com

               - and -

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          30 Broad St., 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: 212-363-7500


KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Property Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Koppers Holdings, Inc., is facing a class action lawsuit in
Florida seeking compensation and property remediation, according
to the company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

In April 2010, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, by a
number of local residents in Gainesville, Florida which named
Koppers Inc., Beazer East, Inc. and Cabot Corporation as
defendants. The plaintiffs assert that real property located
within a two mile radius of the defendants' former utility pole
treatment plant and an adjacent site owned by Cabot Corporation
has been contaminated by various toxic substances. Koppers Inc.
operated a utility pole treatment plant in Gainesville from 1988
until its closure late in 2009. The property upon which the
utility pole treatment plant was located was sold by Koppers Inc.
to Beazer East, Inc. in the first quarter of 2010. Prior to 1988,
Beazer East, Inc. conducted various wood treating operations at
the utility pole treatment plant site. Plaintiffs seek, among
other things, the creation and funding of comprehensive community
property remediation and medical monitoring programs,
compensatory and punitive damages in excess of the minimum
jurisdictional limit of the Court and other equitable relief.

Koppers Inc. has not yet been served with a copy of the Complaint
and no trial date has been set.

Koppers Holdings Inc. (NYSE: KOP) -- http://www.koppers.com/--
with corporate headquarters and a research center in Pittsburgh,
Pa., is a global integrated producer of carbon compounds and
treated wood products.  Including its joint ventures, Koppers
operates facilities in the United States, United Kingdom,
Denmark, Australia, and China.


LIVE NATION: TicketMaster Still Facing UPS Consumer Suit in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary,
Ticketmaster Entertainment LLC, continues to defend itself in a
UPS Consumer Class Action Litigation in California, according to
Live Nation's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

In October 2003, a purported representative action was filed in
the Superior Court of California challenging Ticketmaster
Entertainment LLC's charges to online customers for UPS ticket
delivery and alleging that its failure to disclose on its website
that the charges contain a profit component is unlawful.  The
complaint asserted a claim for violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law, or UCL, and sought restitution or disgorgement
of the difference between

   (i) the total UPS delivery fees charged by Ticketmaster in
       connection with online ticket sales during the applicable
       period; and

  (ii) the amount that Ticketmaster actually paid to UPS for
       delivery of those tickets.

In August 2005, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint,
then pleading the case as a putative class action and adding the
claim that Ticketmaster's website disclosures in respect of its
ticket order-processing fees constitute false advertising in
violation of California's False Advertising Law.  On this new
claim, the amended complaint seeks restitution or disgorgement of
the entire amount of order-processing fees charged by
Ticketmaster during the applicable period.

In April 2009, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion for leave
to file a second amended complaint adding new claims that (a)
Ticketmaster's order processing fees are unconscionable
under the UCL, and (b) Ticketmaster's alleged business practices
further violate the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
Plaintiff later filed a third amended complaint, to which
Ticketmaster filed a demurrer in July 2009.  The Court overruled
Ticketmaster's demurrer in October 2009.

The plaintiff filed a class certification motion in August 2009,
which Ticketmaster opposed.  

In February 2010, the Court granted certification of a class on
the first two causes of action, which allege that Ticketmaster
misrepresents/omits the fact of a profit component in its UPS and
order processing fees. The class consists of California consumers
who purchased tickets through Ticketmaster's website from 1999 to
present. The Court denied certification of a class on the third
and fourth causes of action, which allege that Ticketmaster's UPS
and order processing fees are unconscionably high.

In March 2010, Ticketmaster filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate
with the California Court of Appeal, and plaintiffs also filed a
motion for reconsideration of the Superior Court's class
certification order.

In April 2010, the Superior Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for
Reconsideration of the Court's class certification order, and the
Court of Appeal denied Ticketmaster's Petition for Writ of
Mandate.

The Company intends to vigorously defend the action.

Live Nation, Inc., -- http://www.livenation.com/-- changed its  
name to Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., in January 2010
following its merger with Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc.  The
company's segments were reorganized to Concerts, Artist Nation,
Ticketing, Sponsorship and E-Commerce. The Concerts segment
involves the promotion of live music events globally in the
Company's owned or operated venues and in rented third-party
venues, the production of music festivals and the operation and
management of music venues. The Artist Nation segment provides
management services to artists and other services including
merchandise, artist fan sites and VIP tickets. The Ticketing
segment principally involves the management of the Company's
ticketing operations. The Sponsorship segment manages the
development of strategic sponsorship programs in addition to the
sale of national and local sponsorships and placement of
advertising including signage and promotional programs. The E-
Commerce segment provides online access for customers relating to
ticket sales and event information and is responsible for the
Company's primary websites.


LIVE NATION: Reconsideration Motion Still Pending in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.'s motion for reconsideration of a
class certification order is still pending in California,
according to Live Nation's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

The Company was a defendant in a lawsuit filed by Malinda
Heerwagen in June 2002 in U.S. District Court. The plaintiff, on
behalf of a putative class consisting of certain concert ticket
purchasers, alleged that anti-competitive practices for concert
promotion services by the Company nationwide caused artificially
high ticket prices. In August 2003, the District Court ruled in
the Company's favor, denying the plaintiff's class certification
motion. The plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals. In
January 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed, and the plaintiff
then dismissed her action that same month.

Subsequently, 22 putative class actions were filed by different
named plaintiffs in various U.S. District Courts throughout the
country, making claims substantially similar to those made in the
Heerwagen action, except that the geographic markets alleged are
regional, statewide or more local in nature, and the members of
the putative classes are limited to individuals who purchased
tickets to concerts in the relevant geographic markets alleged.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory, punitive and treble
damages, declaratory and injunctive relief and costs of suit,
including attorneys' fees. The Company has filed its answers in
some of these actions, and has denied liability.

In April 2006, granting the Company's motion, the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation transferred these actions to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California for
coordinated pre-trial proceedings.

In June 2007, the District Court conducted a hearing on the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and also that month
the Court entered an order to stay all proceedings pending the
Court's ruling on class certification. In October 2007, the Court
granted the plaintiffs' motion and certified classes in the
Chicago, New England, New York/New Jersey, Colorado and Southern
California regional markets. In November 2007, the Court extended
its stay of all proceedings pending further developments in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In February 2008, the Company filed with the District Court a
Motion for Reconsideration of its October 2007 class
certification order. A ruling by the District Court on the
Company's Motion is pending. The Company intends to vigorously
defend all claims in all of the actions.

Live Nation, Inc., -- http://www.livenation.com/-- changed its  
name to Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., in January 2010
following its merger with Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc.  The
company's segments were reorganized to Concerts, Artist Nation,
Ticketing, Sponsorship and E-Commerce. The Concerts segment
involves the promotion of live music events globally in the
Company's owned or operated venues and in rented third-party
venues, the production of music festivals and the operation and
management of music venues. The Artist Nation segment provides
management services to artists and other services including
merchandise, artist fan sites and VIP tickets. The Ticketing
segment principally involves the management of the Company's
ticketing operations. The Sponsorship segment manages the
development of strategic sponsorship programs in addition to the
sale of national and local sponsorships and placement of
advertising including signage and promotional programs. The E-
Commerce segment provides online access for customers relating to
ticket sales and event information and is responsible for the
Company's primary websites.


LIVE NATION: Consumer Class Actions Still Pending in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., continues to defend its
affiliates in a consolidated class action lawsuit in California
asserting claims under various state consumer protection laws,
according to Live Nation's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

From February through June 2009, 11 purported class action
lawsuits asserting causes of action under various state consumer
protection laws were filed against Ticketmaster (Ticketmaster
Entertainment LLC) and TicketsNow (TNow Entertainment Group,
Inc.) in U.S. District Courts in California, New Jersey,
Minnesota, Pennsylvania and North Carolina.

The lawsuits allege that Ticketmaster and TicketsNow unlawfully
deceived consumers by, among other things, selling large
quantities of tickets to TicketsNow's ticket brokers, either
prior to or at the time that tickets for an event go on sale,
thereby forcing consumers to purchase tickets at significantly
marked-up prices on TicketsNow.com instead of Ticketmaster.com.

The plaintiffs further claim violation of the consumer protection
laws by Ticketmaster's alleged "redirecting" of consumers from
Ticketmaster.com to Ticketsnow.com, thereby engaging in false
advertising and an unfair business practice by deceiving
consumers into inadvertently purchasing tickets from TicketsNow
for amounts greater than face value.

The plaintiffs claim that Ticketmaster has been unjustly enriched
by this conduct and seek compensatory damages, a refund to every
class member of the difference between tickets' face value and
the amount paid to TicketsNow, an injunction preventing
Ticketmaster from engaging in further unfair business practices
with TicketsNow and attorney fees and costs.

In July 2009, all of the cases were consolidated and transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.  The plaintiffs filed their consolidated class action
complaint in September 2009, to which Ticketmaster filed its
answer the following month.  The Company intends to vigorously
defend all claims in the consolidated action.

Live Nation, Inc., -- http://www.livenation.com/-- changed its  
name to Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., in January 2010
following its merger with Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc.  The
company's segments were reorganized to Concerts, Artist Nation,
Ticketing, Sponsorship and E-Commerce. The Concerts segment
involves the promotion of live music events globally in the
Company's owned or operated venues and in rented third-party
venues, the production of music festivals and the operation and
management of music venues. The Artist Nation segment provides
management services to artists and other services including
merchandise, artist fan sites and VIP tickets. The Ticketing
segment principally involves the management of the Company's
ticketing operations. The Sponsorship segment manages the
development of strategic sponsorship programs in addition to the
sale of national and local sponsorships and placement of
advertising including signage and promotional programs. The E-
Commerce segment provides online access for customers relating to
ticket sales and event information and is responsible for the
Company's primary websites.


LIVE NATION: Canadian Consumer Class Action Litigation Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to face
consumer class action complaints in Canada alleging violations of
consumer protection laws, according to Live Nation's May 10,
2010, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

In February 2009, five putative consumer class action complaints
were filed in various provinces of Canada against TicketsNow
(TNow Entertainment Group, Inc.), Ticketmaster (Ticketmaster
Entertainment LLC), Ticketmaster Canada Ltd., and Premium
Inventory, Inc.  All of the cases allege essentially the same set
of facts and causes of action. Each plaintiff purports to
represent a class consisting of all persons who purchased a
ticket from Ticketmaster, Ticketmaster Canada Ltd. or TicketsNow
from February 2007 to present and alleges that Ticketmaster
conspired to divert a large number of tickets for resale through
the TicketsNow website at prices higher than face value. The
plaintiffs characterize these actions as being in violation of
Ontario's Ticket Speculation Act, the Amusement Act of Manitoba,
the Amusement Act of Alberta or the Quebec Consumer Protection
Act. The Ontario case contains the additional allegation that
Ticketmaster and TicketsNow's service fees run afoul of anti-
scalping laws. Each lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive
damages on behalf of the class.

The Company intends to vigorously defend all claims in all of the
actions.

Live Nation, Inc., -- http://www.livenation.com/-- changed its  
name to Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., in January 2010
following its merger with Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc.  The
company's segments were reorganized to Concerts, Artist Nation,
Ticketing, Sponsorship and E-Commerce. The Concerts segment
involves the promotion of live music events globally in the
Company's owned or operated venues and in rented third-party
venues, the production of music festivals and the operation and
management of music venues. The Artist Nation segment provides
management services to artists and other services including
merchandise, artist fan sites and VIP tickets. The Ticketing
segment principally involves the management of the Company's
ticketing operations. The Sponsorship segment manages the
development of strategic sponsorship programs in addition to the
sale of national and local sponsorships and placement of
advertising including signage and promotional programs. The E-
Commerce segment provides online access for customers relating to
ticket sales and event information and is responsible for the
Company's primary websites.


MARSHALL & ILSLEY: Faces ERISA Class Action Suits in Wisconsin
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marshall & Ilsley Corp. is a defendant in two putative class
action lawsuits filed in Wisconsin alleging violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, according to the
company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

In April 2010, two substantially identical putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin against the Corporation, the M&I
Retirement Plan Investment Committee, and certain of the
company's officers and directors.  The lawsuits were purportedly
filed on behalf of M&I Retirement Program, three other retirement
savings plans and a class of former and current participants in
those plans, relating to the holdings of the company's common
stock during the period from November 10, 2006, to December 17,
2009.  

The complaints allege breaches of fiduciary duties in violation
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act relating to the
company's common stock being offered as an investment alternative
for participants in the retirement plans and seek monetary
damages.  

The company intends to defend those lawsuits.

Marshall & Ilsley Corporation (NYSE: MI) --
http://www.micorp.com/-- is a diversified financial services  
corporation headquartered in Milwaukee, Wis., with $56.6 billion
in assets. Founded in 1847, M&I Marshall & Ilsley Bank is the
largest Wisconsin-based bank, with 192 offices throughout the
state. In addition, M&I has 53 locations throughout Arizona; 33
offices in Indianapolis and nearby communities; 36 offices along
Florida's west coast and in central Florida; 15 offices in Kansas
City and nearby communities; 26 offices in metropolitan
Minneapolis/St. Paul, and one in Duluth, Minn.; and one office in
Las Vegas, Nev. M&I's Southwest Bank subsidiary has 17 offices in
the greater St. Louis area. M&I also provides trust and
investment management, equipment leasing, mortgage banking,
asset-based lending, financial planning, investments, and
insurance services from offices throughout the country.


MAZDA CANADA: Quebec Super. Ct. Certifies Faulty Lock Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that the Quebec Superior Court has authorized a
class action lawsuit against Mazda Canada in connection with an
alleged faulty lock on certain models of the Mazda 3.

The lawsuit stems from a rash of thefts when vandals realized
that a good kick to the door would pop open the lock.

Mazda initially refused to acknowledge the problem with the 2004-
2007 models.

In the spring of 2008, however, the Automobile Protection Agency
(APA) negotiated a recall of the 2004-2007 models to fix the
locks.

Though company argues the problem is not a defect, Mazda has
since offered to retrofit vehicles for free with a reinforcement
device.

The problem has been fixed in newer generations of the Mazda 3
car.

The class action lawsuit "is really for damage that Mazda refused
to pay for and also items that might have been stolen from inside
the vehicle," said APA president George Iny.

Montrealer Fiona Myers, who owns a 2005 Mazda 3, said she would
be interested in joining the lawsuit.

She recalled that one morning, when she was getting ready for
work, she heard a story on the radio about the problems with the
locks on the Mazda 3.

Myers said she went outside to find a nasty surprise.

"It looked like someone had spent a very long time inside our
car," she said. "There was thick frost inside - it was the middle
of winter. And someone just trashed the inside of our car. There
were cigarette butts."

When she took the car to the police station, Myers said the
officer knew exactly what to look for.

"[He] came outside, and with a wet paper towel wiped the side of
the door on the driver's side and showed us the dent where the
robber was able to get in. It was just a quick sort of bang on
the door, and the police officer had already seen this before."

Myers said Mazda Canada was reluctant to fix the problem.

Now that she has had the lock repaired, Myers said that her car
still seems to be a target for potential thieves.

"My car door is pretty banged up, which of course is going to
make it pretty difficult for resale," she said.

As many as 55,000 Quebecers could be eligible to join the class
action lawsuit, which is seeking $1,200 in damages per owner due
to a reduction in the resale value of their car, the
inconvenience caused by the situation, as well as punitive and
exemplary damages.

A similar case was approved in British-Columbia last week and
another is still pending in Ontario.


MEDIVATION INC: Defends Two Dimebon-Related Suits in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Medivation, Inc., continues to defend two purported securities
class action lawsuits in connection with its dimebon product,
according to the company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

In March 2010, two purported securities class action lawsuits
were commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, naming as defendants the company and
certain of its officers.  The lawsuits are largely identical and
allege violations of the Securities Exchanges Act of 1934 in
connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by
the company related to dimebon.

The plaintiffs allege among other things that the defendants
disseminated false and misleading statements about the
effectiveness of dimebon for the treatment of Alzheimer's
disease, making it impossible for stockholders to gain a
realistic understanding of the drug's progress toward FDA
approval.

The plaintiffs purport to seek damages, an award of its costs and
injunctive relief on behalf of a class of stockholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock
between July 17, 2008 and March 2, 1010.

Medivation, Inc. -- http://www.medivation.com/-- is a  
biopharmaceutical company focused on the rapid development of
novel small molecule drugs to treat serious diseases for which
there are limited treatment options.  Medivation aims to
transform the treatment of these diseases and offer hope to
critically ill patients and their caregivers.  In September 2008,
Medivation announced a global agreement with Pfizer, Inc to
develop and commercialize dimebon (latrepirdine) for the
treatment of Alzheimer's and Huntington diseases.  With Pfizer,
Medivation is conducting a clinical development program that
includes CONCERT, a Phase 3 trial assessing dimebon in patients
with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease, and HORIZON, a Phase 3
trial of dimebon in Huntington disease.  In October 2009,
Medivation entered into a global agreement with Astellas Pharma
Inc. to develop and commercialize MDV3100 for both early- and
late-stage prostate cancer.  The first Phase 3 clinical trial in
the MDV3100 development program, known as the AFFIRM trial, is
under way in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer
who have previously been treated with docetaxel-based
chemotherapy.  Additional trials in earlier-stage prostate cancer
will begin in 2010.


METROPCS COMMUNICATIONS: Continues Defense in Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
MetroPCS Communications, Inc., continues to defend itself and its
current officers and a director in a securities class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-2392, according to the company's
May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

In the securities class action lawsuit filed on December 15,
2009, plaintiff, Ervant Zeronian, alleges that the defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The complaint
alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements
about MetroPCS' business, prospects and operations.  
The claims are based upon various alleged public statements made
during the period from February 26, 2009 through November 4,
2009.  The lawsuit seeks, among other relief, a determination
that the alleged claims may be asserted on a class-wide basis,
unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's fees, other
expenses, and costs.  

On February 16, 2010, Kevin Hopson, an alleged MetroPCS
shareholder, filed a motion in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas seeking to be designated as
the lead plaintiff.

MetroPCS Communications, Inc., is a wireless communications
provider that offers wireless broadband mobile services under the
MetroPCS brand in selected metropolitan areas in the United
States over its own licensed networks or networks of entities, in
which the Company holds a substantial non-controlling ownership
interest.  The Company provides an array of wireless
communications services to its subscribers on a no long-term
contract, paid-in-advance, flat rate, unlimited usage basis.  As
of Dec. 31, 2008, it had approximately 5.4 million subscribers in
eight states.


MUELLER WATER: U.S. Pipe Continues Defense in Alabama Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Mueller Water Products, Inc.'s affiliate, U.S. Pipe Valve &
Hydrant, LLC, and a number of co-defendant foundry-related
companies continue to face a putative civil class action case
originally filed in April 2005 in the Circuit Court of Calhoun
County, Alabama, and removed by defendants to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama under the Class Action
Fairness Act.

The putative plaintiffs in the case filed an amended complaint
with the U.S. District Court in December 2006.  The amended
complaint alleged state law tort claims arising from creation and
disposal of "foundry sand' alleged to contain harmful levels of
PCBs and other toxins, including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead
and zinc.  The plaintiffs originally sought damages for real and
personal property and for other unspecified personal injury.  In
June 2007, a motion to dismiss was granted to U.S. Pipe and
certain co-defendants as to the claims for negligence, failure to
warn, nuisance, trespass and outrage.  The remainder of the
complaint was dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint.  

On July 6, 2007, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which dismissed prior claims relating to U.S. Pipe's former
facility located at 2101 West 10th Street in Anniston, Alabama
and no longer alleges personal injury claims. Plaintiffs filed a
third amended complaint on July 27, 2007. U.S. Pipe and the other
defendants have moved to dismiss the third amended complaint.  

In September 2008, the court issued an order on the motion,
dismissing the claims for wantonness and permitting the
plaintiffs to move forward with their claims of nuisance,
trespass and negligence.

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

Mueller Water Products, Inc. --
http://www.muellerwaterproducts.com/-- manufactures and markets   
of a range of water infrastructure, flow control and piping
component system products for use in water distribution networks
and treatment facilities.  The company also acts as a
distributor, especially in Canada, for products that are
manufactured by other companies.  The company's product portfolio
includes engineered valves, fire hydrants, pipe fittings, water
meters and ductile iron pipe.  The company operates through three
business segments: Mueller Co., U.S. Pipe and Anvil.


NAVISTAR INT'L: Suit Complains About 1993 Health Care Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Koeninger at Courthouse News Service reports that Navistar,
a truck engine-maker, sued 18 union locals in Federal Court,
claiming a 1993 class-action settlement limits its health-care
benefits for retirees to $1 billion, far less than the $2.6
billion to which the cost of benefits had "ballooned" 10 years
later.

Navistar claims that the 1993 settlement, Shy et al. v. Navistar
et al., was meant to "provide Navistar with a 'reduction' in the
cost of retiree benefits that was 'definite, swift and
permanent.'"

Navistar claims that limiting its benefit obligations to $1
billion helped keep the company from bankruptcy, for the benefit
of workers, retirees and the company.  But Navistar says that the
cost of its retiree benefits "increased dramatically since 1993,
[and] grew from $1 billion to $2 billion by 2000 and ballooned to
over $2.6 billion in 2003."

Navistar claims the burden places it at a competitive
disadvantage, as many of its competitors have "'gotten out of the
retiree health care business altogether' by transferring all of
their retiree health obligations to a voluntary employee
beneficiary association trust."

Navistar claims that "the defendants (and the UAW in particular)
have actively worked to further violate the deal by seeking to
block adjustments that promote 'definiteness and permanence,'"
Navistar says.

"Navistar can no longer continue to perform its side of a deal
that has failed to deliver the explicitly articulated benefits
recited in the Settlement Agreement," the complaint states.  "As
a result, Navistar seeks a declaration that it is not required to
fund or provide benefits that would cause its APBO to exceed the
maximum of approximately $1 billion (and decreasing) stated in
the Settlement Agreement and this Court's Order/Opinion approving
the same."

Its request for declaratory relief mentions "mutual mistake,"
"impossibility," and "commercial frustration."

Defendants include locals of the United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America (11 locals), the United
Plant Guard Workers of America (3 locals), the International
Machinists District Lodge 28 and three locals, the Society of
Engineering Employees, and the United Steelworkers of America.

A copy of the Complaint in Navistar International Corporation, et
al. v. Shy, et al., Case No. 10-cv-00211 (S.D. Ohio), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/09/Navistar.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David P. Pierce, Esq.
          COOLIDGE WALL CO., L.P.A.
          33 W. First St., Suite 600
          Dayton, OH 45402
          Telephone: 937-223-8177
          E-mail: pierce@coollaw.com

               - and -

          Laurence H. Levine, Esq.
          LAURENCE H. LEVINE LAW OFFICES
          190 S. LaSalle St., Suite 3120
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: 312-291-7000

               - and -

          Cary R. Perlman, Esq.
          B. John Casey, Esq.
          Norah K. Cooney, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          233 South Wacker Dr., Suite 5800
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312-876-7700


NOVO NORSICK: Class Action Suit Filed by Prandin Direct Purchaser
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Sales Company, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Novo Norsick A/S and Norvo Nordisk, Inc.,
Case No. 10-cv-12141 (E.D. Mich.), accuses the manufacturer of
Prandin (a diabetes drug) of improperly blocking the generic
manufacture of the formulation.  A copy of the Complaint is
available at:

     http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/NovoAntitrustComplaint.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick E. Cafferty, Esq.
          CAFFERTY FAUCHER LLP
          101 North Main Street, Suite 565
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: 734-769-2144
          E-mail: pcafferty@caffertyfaucher.com

               - and -  

          Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
          David S. Nalven, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          55 Cambridge Parkway
          Cambridge, MA 02142
          Telephone: (617) 482-3700
          E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com
                  davidn@hbsslaw.com
               
               - and -  

          J. Douglas Richards, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: 212-838-7797
          E-mail: drichards@cohenmilstein.com


In a related action, Novo Nordisk A/S et al. v. Caraco
Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 05-cv-40188 (E.D.
Mich.), Novo Nordisk is represented by lawyers at Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher.


ORANGE COUNTY: Agrees to Process Food Stamp Applications Faster
---------------------------------------------------------------
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, working as pro bono co-counsel with the
Western Center on Law & Poverty, Public Law Center, and Rothner
Segall & Greenstone on behalf of a class of aggrieved Orange
County residents, has reached a settlement with the County that
includes a three-year Consent Decree designed to ensure more
timely processing and approval of food stamp applications.

In the case, Blackstar v. Orange County, the plaintiffs
represented a class of food stamp applicants and recipients whose
benefits had been unlawfully denied or delayed due to cutbacks at
the County's Social Services Agency (SSA). The June 7 order by US
District Court Judge Dale S. Fischer gives preliminary approval
to a settlement between the plaintiffs and Orange County that
includes a three-year Consent Decree establishing guidelines and
deadlines with which the SSA must comply, as well as an award of
attorneys' fees and costs to the plaintiffs.

The Consent Decree will require SSA to process regular food stamp
applications according to certain agreed-upon percentages and
times, as follows: (a) approve at least 93% of eligible
applications within 30 days of the date of application; (b)
approve or deny at least 90% of all applications within 30 days
of the date of application; and (c) approve or deny 97% of all
applications within 60 days of the date of application. During
the same three-year period, SSA will process expedited food stamp
applications as follows: (a) approve at least 90% of eligible
expedited food stamp applications within 3 days of the date of
application; and (b) approve at least 95% of eligible expedited
food stamp applications within 14 days of the date of
application.

Additionally, the settlement allows the plaintiffs to recover up
to US$750,000 of attorneys' fees and costs. O'Melveny will donate
its portion of the award to non-profit community service
providers.

The Blackstar case presented some very challenging issues,
according to Phillip Kaplan, partner and pro bono chair of
O'Melveny's Newport Beach office. "We recognized that the County
was faced with its own budget pressures, but we believed strongly
that in this severe recession, the County needed to do a better
job in getting benefits to those in need in a more timely way,"
said Kaplan. "This outcome is a win-win for all the parties
involved because it ensures that people who are entitled to
benefits get them on time."

Said Robert Newman, senior attorney with the Western Center on
Law & Poverty and co-counsel for the plaintiffs: "In these hard
economic times it is critical that government be able to get
families the help they need when they need it. Orange County has
taken important steps in making this a reality. In April the
County timely approved 99% of applications for regular food
stamps, proving that these percentages are doable."

                     About O'Melveny & Myers LLP

With approximately 1,000 lawyers in 14 offices worldwide,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP -- http://www.omm.com/-- helps industry  
leaders across a broad array of sectors manage the complex
challenges of succeeding in the global economy. We are a values-
driven law firm, guided by the principles of excellence,
leadership, and citizenship. Our commitment to these values is
reflected in our dedication to improving access to justice
through pro bono work and championing initiatives that increase
the diversity of the legal profession.

                About the Western Center on Law & Poverty

The Western Center on Law & Poverty, founded in 1967, works
statewide for system-wide change to secure housing, health care
and a strong safety net for low-income Californians.


OWENS COMMUNITY: 3rd Complaint Filed in Accreditation Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
ToledoOnTheMove.com reports that Charles E. Boyk Law Offices, LLC
is headed back to court in the Owens Community College nursing
student's issue, as they file new complaints.

The suit named an additional 53 Owens nursing students, in
addition to the original lawsuit, which named 48 students, for a
total of 101.

In the third amended complaint filed in Wood County, the
plaintiffs named specific defendants allegedly linked to the
nursing program, who were previously not mentioned. Cynthia Hall,
Owens Chair of Nursing; Paul Unger, Executive Vice President; and
Owens President Christa Adams were all named defendants in the
lawsuit.

"The road to justice for the Owens nursing students has turned
into a marathon race instead of a 100-yard dash," Attorney Chuck
Boyk said. "We are ready to run with these students until the
end, to get them the outcome they deserve."

It is alleged that even though the Owens nursing program lost its
accreditation in July of 2009, the administration did not at any
time inform enrolling or current students in its registered
nursing program that it was in danger or that they indeed lost
its accreditation, until after the 2009 Fall Semester started.
Leaving those students enrolled unable to transfer to another
nursing program.

The lawsuit also alleges that even though Owens, Hall, Unger, and
Adams had known since March 2007 that it was in jeopardy of
losing its accreditation from the National League for Nursing
Accrediting Commission, they failed to take action necessary to
avert the occurrence.

Under those circumstances, Owens had an obligation to their
students to inform them of the accreditation status instead of
allowing them to continually enroll in each semester unaware of
the accreditation situation.

Accepting tuition money through the nursing students' enrollment
can be viewed as fraudulent misrepresentation.

"With the time and money our clients have invested with the Owens
Nursing program, a certain amount of transparency would have been
expected," Attorney Michael Bruno said. "Instead, despite
warnings a full two years prior, Owens chose to silently lose its
accreditation."



PREMIER MEDICAL: Accused of Not Providing Meal and Rest Periods
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Freeman, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Premier Medical Transport, Case No. 30-2010-00378225 (Calif.
Super. Ct., Orange Cty. June 3, 2010), accuses the operator of
ambulances and emergency transportation services of failing to
provide its Emergency Medical Technicians with meal and rest
periods, failing to pay them for all hours worked, failing to
provide double-time compensation for hours worked over 12 hours
in one day, failing to pay all wages due upon termination of
employment, and failing to furnish itemized accurate wage
statements, in violation of the California Labor Code, Industrial
Welfare Commission wage orders, and the California Business &
Professions Code.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Erik Buzzard, Esq.
          Joshua R. Mino, Esq.
          PALUMBO BERGSTROM LLP
          17901 Von Karman Ave., Suite 500
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 442-0300


PROGRESS ENERGY: Trial Court Dismisses Cost-Recovery Fee Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carolina Power & Light Company, doing business as Progress Energy
Carolinas, Inc., is uncertain whether the plaintiffs in a lawsuit
filed against its Florida affiliate will appeal the dismissal of
their complaint or refile their complaint, according to the
company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On February 8, 2010, a lawsuit was filed against Florida Power
Corporation doing business as Progress Energy Florida, Inc., an
affiliate of PEC, in state circuit court in Sumter County, Fla.,
alleging that the Florida nuclear cost-recovery statute violates
the Florida Constitution, and seeking a refund of all monies
collected by PEF pursuant to that statute with interest.  The
complaint also requests that the court grant class action status
to the plaintiffs.

On April 6, 2010, PEF filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
The trial judge issued an order on May 3, 2010, dismissing the
complaint.  

Progress Energy Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
integrated energy company primarily in the southeast region of
the United States.  The Company is based in Raleigh, N.C.


PUBLIC STORAGE: "Brinkley" Wage and Hour Suit Still Deferred
-------------------------------------------------------------
Public Storage, Inc., is still awaiting the California Supreme
Court's decision regarding the company's motion for summary
judgment in a purported class action.

The plaintiff sued the company on behalf of a purported class of
California non-exempt employees based on various California wage
and hour laws.  Plaintiff sought certification for alleged meal
period violations, rest period violations, failure to pay for
travel time, failure to pay for mileage reimbursement, and for
wage statement violations.  The Court certified subclasses based
only on alleged meal period and wage statement violations.  

In June 2007, the Court granted the company's summary judgment
motion as to the causes of action relating to the subclasses
certified and dismissed those claims.  Plaintiff appealed.  The
Court of Appeals sustained the dismissal.  

The California Supreme Court granted review but deferred the
matter pending disposition of a related issue in another case.

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

Public Storage -- http://www.publicstorage.com/-- is a real   
estate investment trust.  The business activities of the Trust
include the acquisition, development, ownership and operation of
self-storage facilities, which offer storage spaces for lease,
generally on a month-to-month basis, for personal and business
use. The  Trust operates in three business segments: self-
storage, Shurgard Europe and ancillary.  During the year ended
Dec. 31, 2008, the Trust had a direct and indirect ownership
interests in the 2,012 and 181 storage facilities located in the
38 states within the United States and seven Western European
nations.


SENORX INC: Directors Accused of Selling Company for Too Little
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julie L. Hilton, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. John Buhler, et al., Case No. 2010-00378645 (Calif.
Super. Ct., Orange Cty. June 7, 2010), accuses the Chief
Executive Officer, director, and President of SenoRx, Inc. and
certain of the Company's other officers or directors, of
attempting to sell the Company too cheaply to C.R. Bard, Inc. and
Raptor Acquisition Corp., in breach of their fiduciary duties to
the Company's public shareholders.  

C.R. Bard, Inc. and Raptor Acquisition Corp. offered to pay $11
per share cash for each share of SenoRx common stock, for a
transaction value of roughly $213 million.  SenoRx and C.R. Bard
are impleaded for aiding and abetting the individual defendants'
breaches of fiduciary duty.  Ms. Hilton explains that the
proposed transaction favors only the individual defendants at the
expense of the Company's public shareholders, and that it
contains preclusive provisions effectively barring competing
offers from other potential suitors.

SenoRx is a medical device company that engages in the
development, manufacture, and sale of devices for the diagnosis
and treatment of breast cancer principally in the U.S. and
Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David E. Bower, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170
          Culver City, CA 90230-7600
          Telephone: (310) 839-0442

               - and -

          Joseph Levi, Esq.
          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          30 Broad Street, 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500


SMURFIT-STONE: CEO Faces ERISA Violations Suit in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Moore, Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation's Chief
Executive Officer, as well as four individual committee members
of the Administrative Committee of the company's savings plans,
defends a complaint alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, according to the company's
May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The suit was filed in May 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

The suit alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act between January 2008 and the date it was filed.

The plaintiffs in the 2009 ERISA Case brought the complaint on
behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated
participants and beneficiaries of four of the company's savings
plans.  The plaintiffs assert that the Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the Savings Plans' participants and
beneficiaries by allegedly making imprudent investments with the
Savings Plans' assets, making misrepresentations and failing to
disclose material adverse facts concerning the company's business
conditions, debt management and viability, and not taking
appropriate action to protect the Savings Plans' assets.

Even though the Company is not a named defendant in the 2009
ERISA Case, management believes that any indemnification
obligations to the Defendants would be covered by applicable
insurance.

Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation -- http://www.smurfit-
stone.com/ -- is one of the industry's leading integrated
containerboard and corrugated packaging producers, and one of the
world's largest paper recyclers.  The company is a member of the
Sustainable Forestry Initiative(R) and the Chicago Climate
Exchange.  Smurfit-Stone generated revenue of $5.57 billion in
2009; has led the industry in safety every year since 2001; and
conducts its business in compliance with the environmental,
health, and safety principles of the American Forest & Paper
Association.


SMURFIT-STONE: Executives Faces Two ERISA Violations Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Several of Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation's executives face
two class actions alleging violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act, according to the company's May 5, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

During the first quarter of 2010, two ERISA class action lawsuits
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri and the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware, respectively.

The defendants in these cases are the individual committee
members of the Administrative Committee, several other of the
company's executives and the individual members of its Board of
Directors.

The suits have similar allegations as the ERISA Case pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
with the addition of breach of fiduciary duty claims related to
the company's pension plans.

The company expects that these two suits will be consolidated
with the Illinois Action in some manner as they purport to
represent a similar class of employees and former employees and
seek recovery under similar allegations and any of the company's
indemnification obligations would be covered by applicable
insurance.

Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation -- http://www.smurfit-
stone.com/ -- is one of the industry's leading integrated
containerboard and corrugated packaging producers, and one of the
world's largest paper recyclers.  The company is a member of the
Sustainable Forestry Initiative(R) and the Chicago Climate
Exchange.  Smurfit-Stone generated revenue of $5.57 billion in
2009; has led the industry in safety every year since 2001; and
conducts its business in compliance with the environmental,
health, and safety principles of the American Forest & Paper
Association.


SPANSION INC: Settles Employee WARN Act Lawsuit for $8.57 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg News columnist Bill Rochelle reports that Spansion
Technology Inc., a manufacturer of flash-memory semiconductors,
won approval for an $8.57 million settlement of a so-called
class-action WARN lawsuit filed on behalf of employees who were
fired just before the Chapter 11 filing without the 60 days'
notice required in labor law.

The workers collectively will have $6.8 million in approved
priority claims that will be paid in full under Spansion's
Chapter 11 plan, which was confirmed and implemented on May 10.
The priority portion of the settlement works out to an average of
$6,800 for each worker, before deductions for attorneys' fees and
other costs.

The workers will also have $1.76 million in unsecured claims that
will pay $2,000 in cash to each worker. Lawyers for class-action
plaintiffs received approval for $1.7 million in fees.
Workers have priority claims because they were fired within weeks
before bankruptcy, giving rise to claims that must be paid in
full under a priority carved out for employees under the
Bankruptcy Code.

Spansion's plan reduced debt to less than $480 million from $1.5
billion. To read about the plan, click here for the Dec. 31
Bloomberg bankruptcy report.

Before filing under Chapter 11 in March 2009, Sunnyvale,
California-based Spansion hadn't reported a profit since being
spun off by Advanced Micro Devices Inc. in 2005. It had a $352
million net loss during the first three quarters of 2008 on
revenue of $1.8 billion.

The case is In re Spansion Inc., Case No. 09-10690 (Bankr. D.
Del.).


SUPERIOR OFFSHORE: S.D. Tex. Doesn't Certify Shareholder Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Nancy F. Atlas declined to certify a shareholder
plaintiff class in In re Superior Offshore International, Inc.,
Securities Litigation, Case No. H-08-0687 (S.D. Tex.).  

"Each investor's knowledge is an individual issue over which no
common issues of law and fact predominate," Judge Atlas says.  
"As a result, Plaintiffs have failed to establish the
predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3)."  A copy of Judge
Atlas' Memorandum and Order dated June 8, 2010, is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100608a40


THOMAS WEISEL: Continues Defense in Bare Escentuals Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc., continues to defend itself in
a purported class action litigation brought in connection with
the 2006 initial public offering and 2007 secondary offering of
Bare Escentuals where the company acted as
a co-manager.

The complaint was filed in the United States District Court,
Northern District of California, and alleges violations of
federal securities laws against Bare Escentuals, officers and
underwriters, including the company, based on alleged
misstatements and omissions in the registration statement.

The company is unable to estimate whether it will incur a
liability or the range of any of that liability in this matter,
according to the company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

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


THOMAS WEISEL: Appeal Pending in Noah Education Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal has been filed as to the dismissal of a purported class
action litigation brought in connection with an initial public
offering of Noah Educational Holdings, Ltd., in October 2007
where Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc., acted as a co-manager.

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

On March 3, 2010, the Court dismissed the matter with prejudice
and the plaintiffs have now filed their notice of appeal,
according to the company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

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


THOMAS WEISEL: Reaches Settlement in Netlist Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc., has reached a settlement of a
purported class action lawsuit in connection with the initial
public offering of Netlist Inc., according to Thomas Weisel's May
10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The Company has been named as a defendant in an amended complaint
for a purported class action lawsuit filed in November 2007 in
connection with the initial public offering of Netlist in
November 2006 where the Company acted as a lead manager.
The amended complaint, filed in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, alleges violations of
Federal securities laws against Netlist, various officers and
directors as well as Netlist's underwriters, including the
Company, based on alleged misstatements and omissions in the
disclosure documents for the offering. The complaint essentially
alleges that the registration statement relating to Netlist's
initial public offering was materially false and misleading.

The Company denies liability in connection with this matter and
has filed a motion to dismiss that was granted without prejudice
by the court. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and the
Company filed another motion to dismiss.

The parties have now reached a settlement which will release all
defendants including the company.

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


THOMAS WEISEL: Discovery in Merix Suit in Oregon Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still ongoing in a purported class action suit
against Merix Corp. where Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc., is
also a defendant, according to Thomas Weisel's May 10, 2010, Form
10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Thomas Weisel has been named as a defendant in a purported class
action suit brought in connection with an offering in January
2004 involving Merix Corporation in which the company served as a
co-lead manager.  On September 15, 2005, the United States
District Court for the District of Oregon entered an order
dismissing all claims against the underwriter defendants,
including Thomas Weisel, and the Merix defendants.  A portion of
the claim under Section 12(a)(2) of the Exchange Act was
dismissed with prejudice, and the remainder of that claim and the
Section 11 claim were dismissed with leave to re-file.

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

The parties have now re-started the litigation process and have
begun formal discovery.  The company believes it has meritorious
defenses to these actions and intends to vigorously defend these
actions as they apply to the company.  

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


THOMAS WEISEL: Remains a Defendant in Suit vs. Orion Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc., remains a defendant in a
purported class action lawsuit filed in February 2008 arising out
of a December 2007 initial public offering of Orion Energy
Systems, Inc., where the company acted as the sole book manager,
according to Thomas Weisel's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

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

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


THOMAS WEISEL: Continues Defense in Suit v. Mobile USA
------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc., continues its defense in one
of two purported class action lawsuits filed in November 2007
arising out of the October 2007 initial public offering of Virgin
Mobile USA, Inc., where the company acted as a co-manager,
according to Thomas Weisel's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

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

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

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


THOMAS WEISEL: Continues Defense in Suit v. GT Solar
----------------------------------------------------
Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc., remains a defendant in a
purported class action litigation brought in connection with an
initial public offering of GT Solar International, Inc., in July
2008 where the company acted as a co-manager, according to Thomas
Weisel's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

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

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


THOMAS WEISEL: Reaches Settlement in Suit Against Vonage
--------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc., has reached a settlement of
lawsuits related to the initial public offering of Vonage
Holdings Corp., where the company acted as a co-manager,
according to Thomas Weisel's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

Thomas Weisel is a defendant in the purported class action
lawsuits filed in June 2006 arising out of the May 2006 initial
public offering of Vonage Holdings Corp. where the company acted
as a co-manager.  The complaints, filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey and in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of Kings, allege misuse of
Vonage's directed share program and violations of Federal
securities laws against Vonage and certain of its directors and
senior officers as well as Vonage's underwriters, including the
company, based on alleged false and misleading statements in the
registration statement and prospectus.

In January 2007, the plaintiffs' complaints were transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, and the
defendants filed motions to dismiss.

In 2009, the court issued an order dismissing all claims against
the underwriters, with leave to re-file certain of those claims.

The parties have now reached a settlement which will release all
defendants including the Company.

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


THOMAS WEISEL: Faces Suit re CardioNet Public Offering in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc., has been named as a defendant
in a purported class action litigation brought in connection with
a March 2008 initial public offering and an August 2008 secondary
offering of CardioNet where the company acted as a co-manager,
according to Thomas Weisel's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Diego, and alleges violations of
securities laws against CardioNet, officers and underwriters,
including the company, based on alleged misstatements and
omissions in the registration statement.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to these actions
and intends to vigorously defend these actions as they apply to
the Company.

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


TOYOTA MOTOR: Delay Appointing Lead Counsel in Shareholder Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad at The National Law Journal reports that a
federal judge has delayed appointing the lead plaintiffs'
attorneys in the shareholder litigation against Toyota Motor
Corp. until U.S. Supreme Court decides whether foreign purchasers
of a company's stock have standing to sue in the United States.

U.S. District Judge Dale Fischer agreed last week to consolidate
seven class actions pending in Los Angeles on behalf of Toyota
shareholders whose holdings declined by tens of millions of
dollars after the company announced a series of recalls
associated with sudden unintended acceleration.

After two hours of sometimes-contentious arguments in a courtroom
full of plaintiffs' attorneys, some of whom brought
representatives of their institutional clients to the hearing,
she declined to appoint a lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

Rather, she told counsel to make fresh arguments 10 days after
the Supreme Court rules in a case on point, Morrison v. National
Australia Bank. The justices have heard oral arguments in the
case, which addresses whether U.S. courts have jurisdiction over
claims brought by foreign investors who purchased U.S. stock and
allege fraudulent conduct that occurred in the United States.

Fischer noted that the plaintiffs in the Toyota case include
foreign purchasers of Toyota stock on U.S. and Tokyo exchanges.

Thomas A. Dubbs, a senior partner at New York's Labaton Sucharow
who represents a foreign purchaser of Toyota stock, Skandia Life
Insurance Company Ltd., argued for delay. Morrison, he said,
could "help the court to shape the issues." Dubbs represents the
foreign investors in the Morrison case.

Gerald Silk, a partner at New York's Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossman whose clients include foreign investors, noted that 85%
of the class could end up being foreign purchasers of Toyota
stock. "There is a large foreign component to this case," he
said.

Jeffrey Block, a partner at Boston's Berman DeValerio Pease
Tabacco Burt & Pucillo who represents the Massachusetts Pension
Reserves Management Board, argued against appointing foreign
investors, given the risk that they might get thrown out of the
litigation.

Another battle involved whether a large group of investors,
rather than individual pension funds, should be named lead
plaintiffs. Silk, for example, is one of 13 lawyers representing
five institutional investors comprising what they call the
Institutional Investor Group.

Darren Robbins, a partner at San Diego's Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd who represents two pension and retirement funds, attacked
such groupings as inherently inefficient. He noted that the
Institutional Investor Group needed to draft a complex
prosecution agreement just to pursue their claims. "What we have
here is layer upon layer of lawyers overseeing this litigation,"
he said, while his clients could "pick up the phone and talk to
one another."

Silk denied that the lawyers on his team had purposely gathered
such a large group of investors in order to present the greatest
loss to the court -- a key factor in determining who should be
lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

"We've made it clear this group was formed on its own
initiative," he said. "This group was formed organically, without
the lawyers."

Silk's clients include the Maryland State Retirement and Pension
System and the City of Philadelphia Board of Pensions and
Retirement.

Not all the arguments came from lawyers for institutional
shareholders. One lawyer, Jeremy Lieberman, a partner at New
York's Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross, argued for co-lead
plaintiff status for his client, a mutual fund that would
represent note holders of Toyota Motor Credit Corp. He said it
was "important there is representation for each and every
security holder."

Another lawyer, Joe Kendall of the Kendall Law Group in Dallas,
argued that individual shareholders -- whom he described as the
"grandma in tennis shoes in Kansas City" -- should be
represented. His client is an Alabama businessman who lost
$23,000 on Toyota stock.

"Sometimes, the little guy investor doesn't get represented," he
told Fischer.


TRAVELCENTERS AMERICA: Added as Defendant in Suit v. Comdata
------------------------------------------------------------
TravelCenters of America, LLC, has been added as a defendant in a
purported class action lawsuit against Comdata Network Inc. in
Pennsylvania.

On April 6, 2009, five independent truck stop owners, who are
plaintiffs in a purported class action suit against Comdata
Network, Inc., in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, filed a motion to amend their
complaint to add us as a defendant, which was allowed on
March 25, 2010.  The amended complaint also adds as defendants
Ceridian Corporation, Pilot Travel Centers LLC, and Love's Travel
Stops & Country Stores, Inc.  

Comdata markets fuel cards which are used for payments by
trucking companies to truck stops.  The amended complaint alleges
antitrust violations arising out of Comdata's contractual
relationships with truck stops in connection with its fuel cards.  
The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages and injunctive
relief.  This case is in the discovery stage.  

The company believes that there are substantial factual and legal
defenses to the plaintiffs' claims against it, but that the costs
to defend this case could be expensive, according to the
company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

TravelCenters of America, LLC -- http://www.tatravelcenters.com  
-- operates and franchises travel centers primarily along the
U.S. interstate highway system.  The Company was formed as a
wholly owned subsidiary of Hospitality Properties Trust.  Its
customers include long haul trucking fleets and their drivers,
independent truck drivers and motorists.


UNITED STATES: New Deal Pays 9/11 Ground Zero Workers $712.5 Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A.G. Sulzberger and Mireya Navarro at The New York Times reports
that lawyers for the city and about 10,000 rescue and cleanup
workers at ground zero have renegotiated a new settlement under
which the city's insurer kicks in more money and the plaintiffs'
lawyers reduce their legal fees to give the workers more money
than the original agreement called for.

After nearly three months of renegotiations, the city's insurer,
the WTC Captive Insurance Company, has agreed to increase its
payout to plaintiffs to $712.5 million. The previous terms called
for payouts totaling $575 million to $657.5 million.

In addition, the plaintiffs' lawyers have agreed to reduce their
fees to a maximum of 25 percent of the settlement amount, down
from the 33.33 percent called for in the contingency fee
agreements with their clients. As a result, the plaintiffs will
get to keep an additional $50 million.

"This settlement ensures guaranteed, immediate and just
compensation to the heroic men and women who performed their
duties without consideration of the health implications," said
Marc J. Bern, one of the plaintiffs' lawyers. "Our commitment to
our clients has never wavered in the seven years since we took on
this litigation and we have done everything within our power,
including reducing the fees we agreed to with each of our
clients, to achieve the best possible outcome."

The parties went back to the negotiating table in March after
their original settlement was rejected by Judge Alvin K.
Hellerstein of United States District Court in Manhattan, who has
been overseeing the cases since 2003. The judge said the old
agreement did not offer enough compensation to the plaintiffs.

The workers sued the city and its contractors over respiratory
illnesses and other injuries they alleged were sustained at the
World Trade Center site because they were not given protective
equipment or adequate supervision.

The city filed papers with the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit to challenge Judge Hellerstein's authority to
block the settlement, its lawyers also tried to accommodate him
to salvage an agreement that has to be accepted by 95 percent of
the plaintiffs.

Judge Hellerstein was kept informed of the newly negotiated terms
and has indicated that he believes that the modified settlement
is "fair and reasonable," according to a statement released on
Thursday by the lawyers.


UNIVERSAL SERVICES: Sued for Failing to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew A. Easterbrook, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Universal Services of America, Inc., Case No. 30-
2010-00378085 (Calif. Super. Ct., Orange Cty. June 3, 2010),
accuses the security services provider of failing to pay overtime
wages or minimum wages, failing to pay all wages due upon
termination of employment, failing to provide meal and rest
periods, failing to furnish itemized employee wage statements,
and unfair competition in violation of the California Business &
Professions Code.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric M. Epstein, Esq.
          ERIC M. EPSTEIN, APC
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6002
          Telephone: (310) 552-5366

               - and -

          Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
          THIERMAN LAW FIRM
          7287 Lakeside Drive
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: (775) 284-1500

               - and -

          Walter Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC
          65 Pine Avenue, Suite 312
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (877) 696-8378


WEBMD HEALTH: Discovery in TCPA-Violations Lawsuit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
WebMD Health Corp. continues to defend its subsidiaries in an
alleged class action filed by Dr. Roger H. Kaye in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut, according to the
company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

In December 2009, Mr. Kaye filed a lawsuit individually, and as
an alleged class action, under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act and under a similar Connecticut statute, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut against subsidiaries of the
Company.  The lawsuit claims that faxes allegedly sent during the
period August 1, 2006, to the present by subsidiaries of the
company and by The Little Blue Book business that the company
sold in September 2009 were sent in violation of the TCPA and the
Connecticut statute.  The lawsuit seeks statutory damages in
excess of $5,000 and a trebling of damages.  

In April 2010, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint making
substantially the same claims.  The company's subsidiaries have
filed their answer to the amended complaint.  Discovery has begun
in the action.

WebMD Health Corp. -- http://www.webmd.com/-- is a provider of   
health information services to consumers, physicians and other
healthcare professionals, employers and health plans through its
public and private online portals and health-focused
publications.  

                            *********

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  * * *