CAR_Public/110223.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, February 23, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 38

                             Headlines

ALCOA INC: Continues to Defend "Curtis" ERISA Suit in Tennessee
ALCOA INC: Claim Dismissal Appeal Still Pending in "Bauxite" Suit
ALCOA INC: Continues to Defend "Lavoie" Class Suit in Quebec
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Mass.
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Delaware

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: 1st Cir. Hears Oral Argument on Suit Dismissal
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Continues to Defend Guidant Suits in Canada
BROADWIND ENERGY: Shuman Law Firm Files Class Action in Illinois
CENTRAL BOTTLING: Faces Class Action Over Alcohol in Coca Cola
CHINA MEDIAEXPRESS: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Still Defends "Disability" Lawsuit in California
CLARUS MARKETING: Sued Over Unauthorized Membership Program Fees
DIFFUSION METROMEDIA: High Court Junks Defamation Suit v. Jock
GENOPTIX INC: Has MOU to Settle Calif. Suits Over Merger
GEORGIA ENERGY: Miscalibrated Gas Pump Suit Opt-Outs Due June 1

GMAC MORTGAGE: Judge Junks Two Counts in Maine Foreclosure Suit
GUIDANT CORP: Judge Dismisses Pacemaker Class Action
HALLIBURTON CO: Supreme Court to Hear Oral Arguments in April
HALLIBURTON CO: Remains a Defendant in "Deepwater Horizon" Suits
HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Court Approves Class Action Settlement

HUNTSMAN CORP: Court Sets May 2012 Trial for Antitrust Class Suits
HUNTSMAN CORP: Continues to Defend Class Suits in Canada
HUNTSMAN CORP: Seeks Dismissal of "Price-Fixing" Suit in Maryland
INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES: Court Approves Class Action Settlement
INTERNATIONAL COAL: Still Defends Securities Suit in West Virginia

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Recalls 395 Injection Devices
KELLY SERVICES: Continues to Face "Fuller" Class Suit in Calif.
KELLY SERVICES: Continues Defense in "Sullivan" Class Suit
LIZ CLAIBORNE: Motion to Dismiss "Tyler" Suit Still Pending
MRU HOLDINGS: S.D.N.Y. Ct. Dismisses Class Suit v. Merrill

NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Lawyer Rejects New Compensation Offer
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Remains a Defendant in "Fuel Surcharges" Suit
OKLAHOMA GAS: Still Defending "Price I" Lawsuit
OKLAHOMA GAS: Still Defending "Price II" Lawsuit
OKLAHOMA GAS: Still Defends Royalty Lawsuit in Oklahoma

OKLAHOMA GAS: Court Dismisses "Franchise Fee" Lawsuit in Oklahoma
PACIFIC GAS: Hearing on "San Bruno Explosion" Suit Set for Feb. 24
PACIFIC GAS: Defends "Radio Frequency" Class Action in California
PERI & SONS: Sued in Nevada Over Minimum Wage Violations
PHILIP MORRIS: Fla. Ct. Tosses $145BB Class Action Damage Award

REVLON INC: Continues to Defend Class Suits in Delaware & New York
SILICON IMAGE: Awaits Ruling on Appeals of IPO Lawsuit Settlement
SPRINT NEXTEL: Sued for Misrepresenting That It Had a "4G" Network
SYNGENTA AG: Still Defends "Atrazine" Suit in Illinois
TJX COS: Sued Over Failure to Properly Compensate Employees

TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT: Still Defends Bondholder Lawsuit in Calif.
TRAVELERS COMPANIES: Continues to Defend Antitrust Insurance Suit
VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA: Says Bushfire Class Suit "Abuse of Process"
VONAGE HOLDINGS: Final Settlement Hearing Set for May 10
WALT DISNEY: Blind Persons File Suit Over Inaccessible Web Sites

WASTE MANAGEMENT: Remains a Defendant in Environmental Class Suit
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Awaits Court Approval of Calif. Suits Settlement
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Continues to Defend ERISA Suit in D.C.
WELLPOINT INC: Still Defends Breach of Contract Suit in California
WELLPOINT INC: Still Defending "Demutualization" Lawsuits

WELLPOINT INC: Still Defends "Out-of-Network" Lawsuit in Florida
WELLPOINT INC: Continues to Defend 11 "Out-of-Network" Lawsuits



                             *********

ALCOA INC: Continues to Defend "Curtis" ERISA Suit in Tennessee
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa Inc., continues to defend itself from a class-action suit
styled Curtis v. Alcoa Inc., Civil Action No. 3:06-cv-448, pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

The Curtis class action was filed in November 2006 by plaintiffs
representing approximately 13,000 retired former employees of
Alcoa or Reynolds and spouses and dependents of such retirees
alleging violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) and the Labor-Management Relations Act by requiring
plaintiffs, beginning January 1, 2007, to pay health insurance
premiums and increased co-payments and co-insurance for certain
medical procedures and prescription drugs.  Plaintiffs allege
these changes to their retiree health care plans violate their
rights to vested health care benefits.  Plaintiffs additionally
allege that Alcoa has breached its fiduciary duty to plaintiffs
under ERISA by misrepresenting to them that their health benefits
would never change. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory
relief, back payment of benefits, and attorneys' fees.  Alcoa has
consented to treatment of plaintiffs' claims as a class action.
During the fourth quarter of 2007, following briefing and
argument, the court ordered consolidation of the plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary injunction with trial, certified a
plaintiff class, bifurcated and stayed the plaintiffs' breach of
fiduciary duty claims, struck the plaintiffs' jury demand, but
indicated it would use an advisory jury, and set a trial date of
September 17, 2008.  In August 2008, the court set a new trial
date of March 24, 2009 and, subsequently, the trial date was moved
to September 22, 2009.  In June 2009, the court indicated that it
would not use an advisory jury at trial.  Trial in the matter was
held over eight days commencing September 22, 2009 and ending on
October 1, 2009 in federal court in Knoxville, Tennessee, before
the Honorable Thomas Phillips, U.S. District Court Judge.  At the
conclusion of evidence, the court set a post-hearing briefing
schedule for submission of proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law by the parties and for replies to the same.
Post trial briefing was submitted on December 4, 2009; however, no
schedule was set for handing down a decision.

No updates were reported in the Company's February 17, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Alcoa believes that it presented substantial evidence in support
of its defenses at trial, the Company related in its 2010 Annual
Report.  However, at this stage of the proceeding, the Company is
unable to reasonably predict the outcome.  Alcoa estimates that,
in the event of an unfavorable outcome, the maximum exposure would
be an additional post-retirement benefit liability of
approximately $300 million.


ALCOA INC: Claim Dismissal Appeal Still Pending in "Bauxite" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa Inc. continues to defend itself from an appeal of an order
dismissing a claim in a class action commenced by certain St.
Croix residents in relation to "bauxite or red dust" property
damages from an Alcoa facility.

In September 1998, Hurricane Georges struck the U.S. Virgin
Islands, including the St. Croix Alumina, L.L.C. (SCA) facility on
the island of St. Croix.  The wind and rain associated with the
hurricane caused material at the location to be blown into
neighboring residential areas.  Various clean-up and remediation
efforts were undertaken by or on behalf of SCA.  A Notice of
Violation was issued by the Division of Environmental Protection
(DEP), of the Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR)
of the Virgin Islands Government, and has been contested by Alcoa.
A civil suit was commenced in the Territorial Court of the Virgin
Islands by certain residents of St. Croix in February 1999,
seeking compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief
for alleged personal injuries and property damages associated with
"bauxite or red dust" from the SCA facility.  The suit, which has
been removed to the District Court of the Virgin Islands, names
SCA, Alcoa and Glencore Ltd. as defendants, and, in August 2000,
was accorded class action treatment.  The class is defined to
include persons in various defined neighborhoods who "suffered
damages and/or injuries as a result of exposure during and after
Hurricane Georges to red dust and red mud blown during Hurricane
Georges."  All of the defendants have denied liability, and
discovery and other pretrial proceedings have been underway since
1999.  Plaintiffs' expert reports claim that the material blown
during Hurricane Georges consisted of bauxite and red mud, and
contained crystalline silica, chromium, and other substances.  The
reports further claim, among other things, that the population of
the six subject neighborhoods as of the 2000 census (a total of
3,730 people) has been exposed to toxic substances through the
fault of the defendants, and hence will be able to show
entitlement to lifetime medical monitoring as well as other
compensatory and punitive relief.  These opinions have been
contested by the defendants' expert reports, that state, among
other things, that plaintiffs were not exposed to the substances
alleged and that in any event the level of alleged exposure does
not justify lifetime medical monitoring.  Alcoa and SCA moved to
decertify the plaintiff class, and the assigned district judge
adopted a recommendation that class certification be maintained
for liability issues only, and that the class be decertified after
liability issues have been resolved.  Alcoa and SCA have turned
over this matter to their insurance carriers who are providing a
defense.  Glencore Ltd. is jointly defending the case with Alcoa
and SCA and has a pending motion to dismiss.  In June 2008, the
Court granted defendants' joint motion to decertify the class of
plaintiffs, and simultaneously granted in part and denied in part
plaintiffs' motion for certification of a new class.  Under the
new certification order, there is no class as to the personal
injury, property damage, or punitive damages claims.  (The named
plaintiffs had previously dropped their claims for medical
monitoring during the course of the briefing of the certification
motions.)  The Court did certify a new class as to the claim of
ongoing nuisance, insofar as plaintiffs seek cleanup, abatement,
or removal of the red mud currently present at the facility.  The
Court expressly denied certification of a class as to any claims
for remediation or clean up of any area outside the facility
(including plaintiffs' property).  The new class could seek only
injunctive relief rather than monetary damages.  Named plaintiffs,
however, could continue to prosecute their claims for personal
injury, property damage, and punitive damages.  In August 2009, in
response to defendants' motions, the Court dismissed the named
plaintiffs' claims for personal injury and punitive damages, and
denied the motion with respect to their property damage claims.
In September 2009, the Court granted defendants' motion for
summary judgment on the class plaintiffs' claim for injunctive
relief.  As of October 29, 2009, plaintiffs appealed the Court's
summary judgment order dismissing the claim for injunctive relief
and Alcoa and SCA filed a motion to dismiss that appeal at the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  A decision by the
Third Circuit is pending.

No updates were reported in the Company's February 17, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company noted its Form 10-K filing that it is unable to
reasonably predict an outcome or to estimate a range of reasonably
possible loss.


ALCOA INC: Continues to Defend "Lavoie" Class Suit in Quebec
------------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa Inc. continues to defend itself from a purported class
action filed by Dany Lavoie on behalf of Quebec residents related
to the Company's emission of certain contaminants.

In August 2005, Dany Lavoie, a resident of Baie Comeau in the
Canadian Province of Quebec, filed a Motion for Authorization to
Institute a Class Action and for Designation of a Class
Representative against Alcoa Canada Inc., Alcoa Limitee, Societe
Canadienne de Metaux Reynolds Limitee and Canadian British
Aluminum in the Superior Court of Quebec in the District of Baie
Comeau.  Plaintiff seeks to institute the class action on behalf
of a putative class consisting of all past, present and future
owners, tenants and residents of Baie Comeau's St. Georges
neighborhood.  He alleges that defendants, as the present and past
owners and operators of an aluminum smelter in Baie Comeau, have
negligently allowed the emission of certain contaminants from the
smelter, specifically Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons or "PAHs",
that have been deposited on the lands and houses of the St.
Georges neighborhood and its environs causing damage to the
property of the putative class and causing health concerns for
those who inhabit that neighborhood.  Plaintiff originally moved
to certify a class action, sought to compel additional remediation
to be conducted by the defendants beyond that already undertaken
by them voluntarily, sought an injunction against further
emissions in excess of a limit to be determined by the court in
consultation with an independent expert, and sought money damages
on behalf of all class members.  In May 2007, the court authorized
a class action suit to include only people who suffered property
damage or personal injury damages caused by the emission of PAHs
from the smelter.  In September 2007, the plaintiff filed his
claim against the original defendants, which the court had
authorized in May.  Alcoa has filed its Statement of Defense and
plaintiff has filed an Answer to that Statement.  Alcoa also filed
a Motion for Particulars with respect to certain paragraphs of
plaintiff's Answer and a Motion to Strike with respect to certain
paragraphs of plaintiff's Answer.  In late 2010, the Court denied
these motions.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 17,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company related that at this stage of the proceeding, it is
unable to reasonably predict an outcome or to estimate a range of
reasonably possible loss.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corp. continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit filed by the City of Roseville Employees'
Retirement System in Massachusetts, according to the Company's
February 17, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On April 9, 2010, the City of Roseville Employees' Retirement
System individually and on behalf of purchasers of the company's
securities during the period from April 20, 2009 to March 12,
2010, filed a purported class action suit in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.  The suit alleges that
the company and certain of its current and former officers
violated certain sections of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The suit claims that the company's stock price was artificially
inflated because it failed to disclose certain matters with
respect to its CRM business.  An order was issued on July 12,
2010, appointing KBC Asset Management NV and Steelworkers Pension
Trust as co-lead plaintiffs and the selection of lead class
counsel.  The plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint
on September 14, 2010.  In the amended complaint, the plaintiffs
narrowed the alleged class period from Oct. 20, 2009 to Feb. 10,
2010.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corp. continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit filed by the Iron Workers District Council Southern
Ohio and Vicinity Pension Trust in Delaware, according to the
Company's February 17, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

On Aug. 19, 2010, the Iron Workers District Council Southern Ohio
and Vicinity Pension Trust filed a putative shareholder derivative
class action lawsuit against the company and its Board of
Directors in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware.  The allegations in the complaint are largely the same
as those in the original complaint filed by the City of Roseville
Employees' Retirement System on April 9, 2010.  The City of
Roseville Employees' Retirement System's suit alleges that the
company and certain of its current and former officers violated
certain sections of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The suit claims that the company's stock price was artificially
inflated because it failed to disclose certain matters with
respect to its CRM business.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: 1st Cir. Hears Oral Argument on Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The First Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on Feb. 10,
2011, in connection with an appeal of the judgment dismissing a
consolidated amended complaint against Boston Scientific Corp.
alleging violations of securities laws, according to the Company's
February 17, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On Sept. 23, 2005, Srinivasan Shankar, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, filed a purported securities class
action suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise
acquired the company's securities during the period March 31,
2003, through Aug. 23, 2005, alleging that the company and certain
of its officers violated certain sections of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  Four other plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, each filed
additional purported securities class action suits in the same
Court on behalf of the same purported class.  On Feb. 15, 2006,
the Court ordered that the five class actions be consolidated and
appointed the Mississippi Public Employee Retirement System Group
as lead plaintiff.  A consolidated amended complaint was filed on
April 17, 2006.  The consolidated amended complaint alleges that
the company made material misstatements and omissions by failing
to disclose the supposed merit of the Medinol litigation and DOJ
investigation relating to the 1998 NIR ON(R) Ranger with Sox stent
recall, problems with the TAXUS(R) drug-eluting coronary stent
systems that led to product recalls, and the company's ability to
satisfy FDA regulations concerning medical device quality.  The
consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on June 8, 2006, which was granted by the Court on
March 30, 2007.  On April 16, 2008, the First Circuit reversed the
dismissal of only plaintiff's TAXUS(R) stent recall related claims
and remanded the matter for further proceedings.  On Feb. 25,
2009, the Court certified a class of investors who acquired the
company's securities during the period Nov. 30, 2003 through
July 15, 2004.  The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment
and a hearing on the motion was held on April 21, 2010.  On
April 27, 2010, the Court issued an opinion granting defendants'
motion and on April 28, 2010, the Court entered judgment in
defendants' favor and dismissed the case.

Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on May 27, 2010.  The oral
argument in the First Circuit Court of Appeals was held Feb. 10,
2011.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Continues to Defend Guidant Suits in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corporation is aware of more than 33 Guidant
product liability lawsuits pending internationally associated with
defibrillators or pacemakers, including devices involved in the
2005 and 2006 product communications.  Six of those suits pending
in Canada are putative class actions, four of which are stayed
pending the outcome of two lead class actions.

On April 10, 2008, the Justice of Ontario Court certified a class
of persons in whom defibrillators were implanted in Canada and a
class of family members with derivative claims.  On May 8, 2009,
the Court certified a class of persons in whom pacemakers were
implanted in Canada and a class of family members with derivative
claims.

No updates were reported in Boston Scientific Corp.'s February 17,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.


BROADWIND ENERGY: Shuman Law Firm Files Class Action in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Shuman Law Firm disclosed that it filed a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Broadwind
Energy, Inc. between March 17, 2009 and Aug. 9, 2010.

According to the firm, Broadwind failed to disclose that its RBA
subsidiary was experiencing significant issues with key contracts.
The complaint also alleges that Broadwind was improperly delaying
the recognition of the impairment of its goodwill and intangible
assets related to its RBA subsidiary.

On Aug. 9, 2010, Broadwind announced its financial results for the
second quarter of 2010.  It reported a net loss of $14.2 million
or $0.13 per share.  Following the news, the price of Broadwind
stock fell 12 percent, to close at $2.50 per share.

The firm said purchasers of Broadwind common stock during the
Class Period, could request the Court for appointment as lead
plaintiff of the class no later than April 12, 2011.


CENTRAL BOTTLING: Faces Class Action Over Alcohol in Coca Cola
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yossi Nissan, writing for Globes, reports that an Israeli Muslim
filed a NIS1.2 billion class action suit against The Central
Bottling Company Group Ltd. (the Israel franchisee for Coca Cola)
in the Jerusalem District Court on Feb. 20 for compensation for
mental anguish and infringing the independent choices of the
individual.

The plaintiff, an Israeli Muslim, filed the suit following
publication on the web of what is apparently the secret recipe of
Coca Cola, and which allegedly contains alcohol.  The class action
suit was filed by Advs. Hani Tannus, Ofir Cohen, and Mahmud
Machjana.

Alcohol is forbidden by Islam, and the plaintiff cites he has been
unwittingly drinking alcohol for years.  He therefore claims Coca
Cola is guilty of misleading consumers, infringing the independent
choices of the individual, and causing huge mental anguish.

The plaintiff says that his class action suit comprises NIS 1,000
compensation for each of the 1.2 million Muslims living in Israel.

The suit said, "This is one of the greatest deceptions in the
history of consumer affairs, when a company ignores the existence
of alcohol as an ingredient despite being aware that the Muslim
world abstains from products like these.  This is a very serious
matter and it certainly won't be the last in the world in light of
the fraud.


CHINA MEDIAEXPRESS: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. reminds investors of the April 5, 2011
lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action.  If you
purchased the common stock of China MediaExpress Holdings, Inc.
during the period from Nov. 8, 2010 through Feb. 3, 2011, you
should contact the Rosen Law Firm for more information about the
importance of serving as a lead plaintiff. The lawsuit is seeking
to recover damages for investors from violations of federal
securities laws.

No class has yet been certified in the above action.  Until a
class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you
retain one.  You may choose to do nothing at this point and remain
an absent class member.

To join the China MediaExpress class action, visit the Rosen Law
Firm's Web site at http://www.rosenlegal.com/or call Laurence
Rosen, Esq. or Jonathan Horne, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653;
you may also email lrosen@rosenlegal.com or jhorne@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.  The case is pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The Complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act
against China MediaExpress and its Chief Executive Officer, Zheng
Cheng.  The Complaint alleges that the Company made a number of
misrepresentations in its public filings with the Securities
Exchange Commission and in its press releases.  Namely, the
Complaint alleges that: (1) the Company misrepresented the number
of buses in its advertising network; (2) that the Company
misrepresented the nature and extent of its business
relationships; (3) that, as a result, the Company's financial
statements were overstated during the Class Period; and (4) that
the Company's statements concerning China MediaExpress' business,
operations, and prospects were thereby materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Still Defends "Disability" Lawsuit in California
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., is still defending itself against a
class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, according to the Company's Feb. 17, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

In 2006, Maurizio Antoninetti filed suit against the Company in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California,
primarily claiming that the height of the serving line wall in the
Company's restaurants violated the Americans with Disabilities
Act, or ADA, as well as California disability laws. On December 6,
2006, Mr. Antoninetti filed an additional lawsuit in the same
court making the same allegations on a class action basis, on
behalf of himself and a purported class of disabled individuals,
and a similar class action was filed by James Perkins in U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on May 7,
2008.

In the individual Antoninetti action, the district court entered a
ruling in which it found that although the Company's counter
height violated the ADA, the Company provided the plaintiff with
an equivalent facilitation, and awarded attorney's fees and
minimal damages to the plaintiff. The Company and the plaintiff
appealed the district court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, and on July 26, 2010, the appeals court
entered a ruling finding that the Company violated the ADA and did
not provide the plaintiff with an equivalent facilitation, and
remanded the case to the district court.

The Company is pursuing an appeal of the recent ruling from the
appeals court in the individual Antoninetti action. In the event
it is not successful in the appeal, the Company will vigorously
defend the class action ADA cases. The Company lowered the height
of its serving line walls throughout California some time ago,
which makes injunctive relief in these actions moot, and have the
lower serving lines in a significant majority of its restaurants
outside of California as well. The Company also expects to contest
certification of a plaintiff class in these actions. It is not
possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of, or
any potential liability from, these cases.


CLARUS MARKETING: Sued Over Unauthorized Membership Program Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
class action accuses Clarus Marketing Group and Provide-Commerce
of defrauding online shoppers by enrolling them in a "membership
program" that costs $9 to $15 a month if they click on ads
offering free shipping with a purchase.

The class claims that Web site provider Provide-Commerce conspired
with Clarus to "split the spoils" of the scam.

They claim that during checkout on Provide-Commerce Web sites such
as ProFlowers.com and RedEnvelope.com, they were directed to enter
"innocuous information such as an e-mail address and ZIP code to
create a pretext to charge the debt and credit cards based on the
silly claim that plaintiffs and the class could lawfully
'authorize' Provide-Commerce to pass their billing information to
CMG and 'authorize' CMG to begin billing their cards based solely
on the provision of an e-mail address or ZIP code."

The class adds: "Defendants' scam is akin to a person walking into
a retail store and being offered a coupon to use in exchange for
providing his or her e-mail address on a form.  And then having
his or her credit or debit card information subsequently forwarded
by the store to the person standing outside with the form, who
incidentally was wearing the store uniform, and charged repeatedly
by that person, based on the fact that somewhere on the form (and
perhaps even on the back or the second page) there was a
disclosure that the customer was 'authorizing' this to happen.
Nobody would contend that this is an acceptable business practice.
Rather, the person making the unauthorized charges and the store
employee sharing the billing information would be in jail!"

Lead plaintiff Daniel Cox claims that when he bought flowers from
ProFlowers.com, he clicked on an ad that offered free shipping for
up to 12 future transactions, but "never believed he had joined
any type of membership program . . . and never intended to do so."

Mr. Cox says he recently discovered unauthorized monthly charges
of $8.67 to his credit card, made by Clarus.

Plaintiff Bradley Berentson says the same thing happened to him
when he clicked for free shipping on RedEnvelope.com, but the
monthly charges were as much as $14.95.

"Plaintiffs were never told that they were no longer on the
ProFlowers.com and RedEnvelope.com Web site anymore -- or had
unknowingly been directed to a CMG interface!" the complaint
states.

"They were also never directed to the truth about what was going
to happen to their debit and credit card information -- and that
by accepting the free shipping offer, they were unknowingly
'authorizing' CMG to begin billing a monthly fee to the debit and
credit cards they had provided to Provide-Commerce."

The class claims that Provide-Commerce and Clarus blame that
shoppers for not reading all the disclosures before providing
their e-mail addresses.

"But just as the shopper walking into the store has no reason (and
likely no time) to read a solicitor's forms before providing his
or her email address, plaintiffs and thousands of putative class
members had no reason, and most importantly, no obligation to read
defendants' form 'enrollment' page before providing their email
addresses," the complaint states.

It adds: "But perhaps most importantly, the disclosure assumes
that plaintiffs could lawfully authorize CMG to begin billing
their debit or credit cards merely by entering their email and zip
code somewhere else, and without ever even providing their debit
or credit card number, or billing information to CMG.  This is
preposterous."

Provide-Commerce, based in San Diego, operates "at least five
online stores: RedEnvelope, ProFlowers, Cherry Moon Farms, Secret
Spoon, and Shari's Berries," according to the complaint.

The class demands punitive, treble, special and statutory damages
for civil theft, unjust enrichment, fraud and invasion of privacy.
They are represented by James Patterson with Harrison Patterson &
O'Connor of San Diego.

A copy of the Complaint in Cox, et al. v. Clarus Marketing Group,
LLC, et al., Case No. 11-cv-00729 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/18/Clarus.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James R. Patterson, Esq.
          Alisa A. Martin, Esq.
          HARRISON PATTERSON & O'CONNOR LLP
          402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-6990
          E-mail: jpatterson@hpolaw.com
                  amartin@hpolaw.com

               - and -

          Bruce W. Steckler, Esq.
          Mazin A. Sbaiti, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          3102 Oak Law Avenue, Suite 1100
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 521-3605
          E-mail: bsteeker@baronbudd.com
                  msbaiti@baronbudd.com


DIFFUSION METROMEDIA: High Court Junks Defamation Suit v. Jock
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Montreal Gazette reports that a Montreal taxi driver is
scratching his head about the costs and effectiveness of Canada's
justice system after the nation's top court slammed an independent
MP on Feb. 17 for broadcasting "scornful and racist" comments
against Arabs and Haitians without ordering damages be paid for
the on-air rant.

In a 6-1 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed a class-
action lawsuit launched against former radio shock jock
Andre Arthur, who is now a member of Parliament for the Quebec
City riding of Portneuf-Jacques-Cartier.  It confirms a Court of
Appeal ruling that had overturned a decision by the Superior
Court, which initially ordered Mr. Arthur and his employer,
Diffusion Metromedia CMR Inc., to pay $220,000 in damages to the
Association professionnelle des chauffeurs de taxi, a non-profit
organization representing taxi drivers.

"He (Arthur) had a microphone in his hand and was saying anything
(he wanted to say)," said Fares Bou Malhab, a former president of
the Montreal Taxi League who launched the defamation suit after
Arthur's comments were broadcast on a Quebec radio network in
1998.  "The fact that it took 12 years (to settle) kind of shows
that sometimes justice is costly."

The comments attacked taxi drivers of Arab and Haitian origin,
accusing them of uncleanliness, arrogance, incompetence,
corruption and ignorance of official languages in Canada.


GENOPTIX INC: Has MOU to Settle Calif. Suits Over Merger
--------------------------------------------------------
Genoptix, Inc. on Feb. 19 disclosed that it has entered into a
memorandum of understanding providing for the settlement of the
putative class action lawsuits currently pending in the Superior
Court of the State of California, San Diego County captioned (1)
Page v. Genoptix, Inc., Case No. 37-2011-00050762-CU-BT-NC, (2)
Schwitters v. Genoptix, Inc., Case No. 37-2011-00050783-CU-BT-NC
and (3) The George Leon Family Trust v. Genoptix, Inc., Case No.
37-2011-00050935-CU-BT-NC.  The MOU resolves the allegations by
plaintiffs against defendants in connection with the Agreement and
Plan of Merger, dated as of Jan. 24, 2011, and any disclosures
related to the transactions contemplated thereby, and, pending
confirmatory discovery and approval of the Court, provides for a
general release by the class of Genoptix shareholders of all
claims against defendants and their affiliates in connection with
the Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby.

Pursuant to the MOU, the parties to the MOU will negotiate in good
faith to execute an appropriate Settlement Agreement, which will
provide that upon approval of the settlement, the Actions will be
dismissed with prejudice.  Pursuant to the terms of the MOU,
Genoptix will provide additional supplemental disclosures to its
solicitation/recommendation statement on Schedule 14D-9 originally
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 28,
2011.  Genoptix believes that the supplemental disclosures are not
required to be disclosed under federal securities laws or under
state law and are not material as a matter of law or in the
context of a stockholder's decision to tender shares of Genoptix's
common stock  into and accept the cash tender offer by GO Merger
Sub, Inc.  In the event that the settlement is not approved, the
defendants will continue to vigorously defend against the
allegations set forth in the Actions.

Genoptix intends to file an amendment to the Schedule 14D-9 on or
about Feb. 22, 2011 to include additional supplemental disclosures
provided for under the MOU.  A copy of the disclosures to be
provided in the Amendment is included as an attachment to this
press release.

Headquartered in Carlsbad, California, Genoptix is a specialized
laboratory service provider focused on delivering personalized and
comprehensive diagnostic services to community-based hematologists
and oncologists.


GEORGIA ENERGY: Miscalibrated Gas Pump Suit Opt-Outs Due June 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Georgia has certified a class in Smith, et al. v. Georgia Energy
USA, LLC, et al., Case No. 08-00020 (S.D. Ga.) (Alaimo, J.).

On February 14, 2008, the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia against
current and former owners and operators of certain Cisco stations.
In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants
regularly miscalibrated unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel pumps
located at the Cisco Travel Plaza, located at Exit 6 off of
Interstate 95 in Camden County, Georgia; the Cisco Travel Plaza
II, located at Exit 1 off of Interstate 95 in Camden County,
Georgia; and the Cisco Express, located at Exit 6 off of
Interstate 95 in Camden County, Georgia.  The Plaintiffs assert
that the miscalibrations caused the pumps to dispense less fuel
than was shown on the pump dials -- five percent less gasoline,
and four percent less diesel fuel.  Based upon those allegations,
the Plaintiffs have asserted claims for fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, negligence, money had and received, unjust
enrichment, and violations of Georgia's Uniform Deceptive Trade
Practices Act.  The Plaintiffs are seeking to recover any amounts
overpaid for the fuel purchases, as well as punitive damages and
attorneys' fees and expenses.  The Defendants deny any wrongdoing
or liability and have contested the Plaintiffs claims.  On August
10, 2009, the District Court entered an order certifying this case
as a class action.

A copy of this order may be found on the Internet at
http://www.savagelawfirm.net/in addition to other information
about this litigation.

The Court's August 10, 2009, Order establishes three subclasses of
claimants in this case:

    -- Sub-Class 1: All persons or entities who purchased
automotive gasoline from Cisco Travel Plaza I, Cisco Travel Plaza
II, or Cisco Express during the period from December 1, 2006,
until February 12, 2008, and who received less automotive gasoline
than indicated on the fuel pumps.

    -- Sub-Class 2: All persons or entities who purchased
automotive gasoline from any of the three stations during the
period after January 1, 2005, until December 1, 2006, and who
received less automotive gasoline than indicated on the fuel
pumps.

    -- Sub-Class 3: All persons or entities who purchased diesel
fuel from any of the three stations from January 1, 2005, until
February 12, 2008.

Membership in the sub-classes will be determined by matching up
electronic pump records with customers' receipts, credit card
statements, or other evidence of purchase.

C. THE RIGHT TO APPEAR INDEPENDENTLY THROUGH COUNSEL You have the
right to appear in this case separately through your own attorney.
However, it is not necessary to appear or intervene in order to
remain in the class or to claim and receive any share of any
recovery that may arise in this case. If you do want to intervene
or appear through your own attorney, you must do so on or before
June 1, 2011. If you hire your own attorney, you will be
responsible for his or her fees and expenses.  If you do not wish
to be a member of the Class, you must exclude yourself from the
Class.  To do so, you must notify counsel for the Class in writing
at the address listed below. The deadline for requesting exclusion
from the class is June 1, 2011.  If you remain a member of the
Class, you will be bound by whatever judgment, verdict, or
settlement is ultimately achieved in this case.  You will not be
able to later bring a separate action for any claim arising from
the events in this case. However, as a Class Member, you will have
the opportunity to object to any proposed settlement of this
action.

If you currently have a bankruptcy case pending, you must contact
your bankruptcy attorney or trustee immediately regarding your
claim and potential for recovery in this case.

If you would like more information about this notice or the case,
you may contact Class Counsel at the address shown below.  Please
do not call the Judge or the Clerk of the Court.  They will not be
able to give you advice about the case.

The attorneys who have filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Class
are:

         Becca Adams, Esq.
         SAVAGE, TURNER, KRAEUTER, PINCKNEY, BRITT & MADISON
         P.O. Box 10600
         Savannah, GA 31401
         Telephone: (800) 626-1975
         Fax: (912) 231-9157


GMAC MORTGAGE: Judge Junks Two Counts in Maine Foreclosure Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trevor Maxwell, writing for The Portland Press Herald, reports
that a federal judge has dismissed two of the three counts against
GMAC Mortgage Co. in a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of
several Maine homeowners.

The lawsuit in U.S. District Court alleges that GMAC used
fraudulent paperwork to illegally speed foreclosure cases through
the state's court system.

Judge D. Brock Hornby, in a decision filed on Feb. 16, sided with
GMAC as he dismissed one allegation of abuse of process and an
allegation of fraud on the court.

That means only one count remains, in which the plaintiffs claim
GMAC violated Maine's Unfair Trade Practices Act and should be
liable for damages and injunctive relief.

As similar lawsuits against GMAC and other large mortgage
companies play out in state and federal courts nationwide, it was
unclear on Feb. 17 what impact the ruling in Maine might have
elsewhere.

Andrea Bopp Stark, one of the lead attorneys for the Maine
homeowners, vowed to press on.  She said there's still a chance
that the plaintiffs can get the relief they seek through the
remaining count.  Ms. Stark intends to meet soon with her co-
counsel, Tom Cox of Portland, to discuss strategy.

"The case is not dead," said Ms. Stark, of the Molleur Law Office
in Biddeford.  "It's disappointing, but it is not determinative of
the case as a whole."

The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages for homeowners
in Maine who had foreclosures initiated against them by GMAC in
the past six years, and whose cases included paperwork that was
not processed in compliance with state law.

The plaintiffs also seek a permanent court order to require GMAC
to change its practices in foreclosure proceedings in Maine's
courts.

A spokesman for GMAC's parent company, Ally Financial, could not
be reached for comment on Feb. 17.

In dismissing the counts of abuse of process and fraud on the
court, Judge Hornby essentially ruled that the proper venue for
homeowners to challenge their individual foreclosures is state
court.  He did not make any findings of fact about GMAC's
paperwork practices.

Regardless of GMAC's process, Judge Hornby ruled, "The remedy is
to seek to vacate the (foreclosure) judgment that was obtained,
not to start a new lawsuit.

"A contrary ruling would mean that the outcome of every
(foreclosure) lawsuit could produce a later lawsuit by the unhappy
loser, seeking damages on account of the former lawsuit and
claiming that it resulted from false testimony or false
affidavits," Judge Hornby wrote.

GMAC's back-office practices came to light through depositions
taken last year by attorneys for homeowners in Maine and Florida.

Jeffrey Stephan, a GMAC processor based in Pennsylvania, admitted
under oath that he signed more than 10,000 foreclosure documents a
month and did not verify the information that those documents
asserted, as required by law in Maine and several other states.

That practice by GMAC and other lenders, dubbed "robo-signing,"
prompted attorneys general in all 50 states to announce in October
that they would investigate the practices of GMAC, JPMorgan Chase,
Bank of America and other leading mortgage companies.


GUIDANT CORP: Judge Dismisses Pacemaker Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
MassDevice reports that a federal judge in California dismissed
for the second time a purported class-action lawsuit against
Boston Scientific's star-crossed Guidant Corp. pacemaker
subsidiary.

Its Guidant Corp. subsidiary delivered a rare bit of good news for
Boston Scientific Corp., after a federal judge in California once
again tossed a would-be class-action lawsuit over recalled Guidant
pacemakers.

Judge Manual Real of the U.S. District Court for Central
California granted a Guidant motion to dismiss the case, ruling
that "all plaintiff's state law claims are preempted by federal
law," according to court documents.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Riegel vs. Medtronic (2008) that
once a medical device has been approved by the Food & Drug
Administration, product liability lawsuits based on state tort
laws have no standing -- in other words, the federal approval
preempts state law, provided that the device was cleared via the
more-rigorous pre-market approval process rather than via the
510(k) predicate device protocol.

Lead plaintiff Theodore Cohen was implanted with Guidant's
Insignia Plus DR Model 1298, a Class III medical device that was
approved "under the equivalent of" the PMA process, according to
the documents.

It's the second time Real has tossed the suit.  In November 2010
the judge granted Guidant's first motion to dismiss, but gave
Cohen et al a chance to amend their complaint.  Guidant moved for
another dismissal the next month.

Real also found that the amended complaint was just as flawed as
the first, because it failed to link any defect in the Insignia
device with specific FDA regulations.  Mr. Cohen, whose pacemaker
is still functioning, also failed to prove that the device is
defective, the judge wrote.

"Plaintiff has not provided any factual support in his complaint
that there is a defect in his pacemaker, much less that a defect
occurred as a result of defendant's violation of FDA regulations
related to his device," he wrote.  "Plaintiff's pacemaker was
implanted in 2004 and has not failed.  Even if plaintiff were able
to plead adequately a defect in his device that resulted from
defendants' violation of FDA requirements, plaintiff has suffered
no harm."

The decision follows the resolution of another Guidant case that
didn't end so well for Boston Scientific.  Another federal judge
in Minnesota last month added three years of probation to a $296
million plea deal between Guidant and the U.S. Justice Dept.


HALLIBURTON CO: Supreme Court to Hear Oral Arguments in April
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the appeal
filed by the Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund over the
Fifth Circuit's affirmation of a district court order denying
class certification in a case involving Halliburton Company,
according to the Company's Feb. 17, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2010.

In June 2002, a class action lawsuit was filed against Halliburton
Co. in federal court alleging violations of the federal securities
laws after the SEC initiated an investigation in connection with
the Company's change in accounting for revenue on long-term
construction projects and related disclosures.   In the weeks that
followed, approximately 20 similar class actions were filed
against Halliburton.  Several of those lawsuits also named as
defendants several of the Company's present or former officers and
directors.  The class action cases were later consolidated, and
the amended consolidated class action complaint, styled Richard
Moore, et al. v. Halliburton Company, et al., was filed and served
upon the Company in April 2003.  As a result of a substitution of
lead plaintiffs, the case is now styled Archdiocese of Milwaukee
Supporting Fund (AMSF) v. Halliburton Company, et al.   The
Company settled with the SEC in the second quarter of 2004.

In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file
a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted by the
court.  In addition to restating the original accounting and
disclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaint
included claims arising out of the 1998 acquisition of Dresser
Industries, Inc. by Halliburton, including that the Company failed
to timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability exposure.
In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and named
AMSF the new lead plaintiff, directing that it file a third
consolidated amended complaint and that Halliburton file its
motion to dismiss.  The court held oral arguments on that motion
in August 2005, at which time the court took the motion under
advisement.  In March 2006, the court entered an order in which it
granted the motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising prior
to June 1999, and granted the motion with respect to certain other
claims while permitting AMSF to re-plead some of those claims to
correct deficiencies in its earlier complaint.  In April 2006,
AMSF filed its fourth amended consolidated complaint.  Halliburton
filed a motion to dismiss those portions of the complaint that had
been re-pled.  A hearing was held on that motion in July 2006, and
in March 2007, the court ordered dismissal of the claims against
all individual defendants other than the Company's Chief Executive
Officer (CEO).  The court ordered that the case proceed against
the Company's CEO and Halliburton.

In September 2007, AMSF filed a motion for class certification,
and Halliburton's response was filed in November 2007.  The court
held a hearing in March 2008, and issued an order November 3, 2008
denying AMSF's motion for class certification.  AMSF then filed a
motion with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals requesting
permission to appeal the district court's order denying class
certification.  The Fifth Circuit granted AMSF's motion.  Both
parties filed briefs, and the Fifth Circuit heard oral argument in
December of 2009.  The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's
order denying class certification.  On May 13, 2010, AMSF filed a
writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court.  In early
January 2011, the Supreme Court granted AMSF's writ of certiorari
and accepted the appeal.  The parties will now submit legal briefs
to the Court and the Court will hear oral arguments in April 2011.
The appeal is limited to review of the legal ruling of the Fifth
Circuit affirming the lower court's order denying class
certification and will not include review of the facts of the
underlying lawsuit.

Halliburton Company -- http://www.halliburton.com/-- provides a
variety of services and products to customers in the energy
industry related to the exploration, development, and production
of oil and natural gas.  The company serves oil and natural gas
companies throughout the world and operates under two segments:
the Completion and Production segment, and the Drilling and
Evaluation segment.  It conducts business worldwide in
approximately 70 countries. The business operations of its
divisions are organized in four primary geographic regions: North
America, Latin America, Europe/Africa/CIS, and Middle East/Asia.


HALLIBURTON CO: Remains a Defendant in "Deepwater Horizon" Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of February 17, 2011, Halliburton Company has been named in
more than 330 complaints arising out of the incident involving
Deepwater Horizon, according to the Company's Feb. 17, 2011 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

The semisubmersible drilling rig, Deepwater Horizon, sank on
April 22, 2010, after an explosion and fire onboard the rig that
began on April 20, 2010.  The Deepwater Horizon was owned by
Transocean Ltd. and had been drilling the Macondo exploration well
in Mississippi Canyon Block 252 in the Gulf of Mexico for the
lease operator, BP Exploration, an indirect wholly owned
subsidiary of BP p.l.c.  Halliburton Company performed a variety
of services for BP Exploration, including cementing, mud logging,
directional drilling, measurement-while-drilling, and rig data
acquisition services.  Crude oil flowing from the well site spread
across thousands of square miles of the Gulf of Mexico and reached
the United States Gulf Coast.

Beginning on April 21, 2010, plaintiffs started filing lawsuits
relating to the Macondo well incident.  Generally, those lawsuits
allege either (1) damages arising from the oil spill pollution and
contamination (e.g., diminution of property value, lost tax
revenue, lost business revenue, lost tourist dollars, inability to
engage in recreational or commercial activities) or (2) wrongful
death or personal injuries.  To date, Halliburton has been named
along with other unaffiliated defendants in more than 330
complaints, most of which are alleged class actions, involving
pollution damage claims and at least 28 personal injury lawsuits
involving six decedents and 54 allegedly injured persons who were
on the drilling rig at the time of the incident.  Another six
lawsuits naming Halliburton and others relate to alleged personal
injuries sustained by those responding to the explosion and oil
spill.  Plaintiffs originally filed the lawsuits in federal and
state courts throughout the United States, including Alabama,
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.  Except for
approximately 25 lawsuits not yet consolidated, one lawsuit that
is proceeding in Louisiana state court, and one lawsuit that is
proceeding in Texas state court, the Judicial Panel on Multi-
District Litigation ordered all of the lawsuits consolidated in a
multi-district litigation (MDL) proceeding before Judge Carl
Barbier in the U.S. Eastern District of Louisiana.  The pollution
complaints generally allege, among other things, negligence and
gross negligence, property damages, taking of protected species,
and potential economic losses as a result of environmental
pollution and generally seek awards of unspecified economic,
compensatory, and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief.
Plaintiffs in these pollution cases have brought suit under
various legal provisions, including The Oil Pollution Act of 1990
(OPA), The Clean Water Act (CWA), The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of
1918 (MBTA), and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the Longshoremen and Harbor
Workers Compensation Act, general maritime law, STATE COMMON LAW,
and various state environmental and products liability statutes.
Furthermore, the pollution complaints include suits brought by
governmental entities, including the State of Alabama, Plaquemines
Parish, and three Mexican states.  The wrongful death and other
personal injury complaints generally allege negligence and gross
negligence and seek awards of compensatory damages, including
unspecified economic damages and punitive damages.  Halliburton
has retained counsel and is investigating and evaluating the
claims, the theories of recovery, damages asserted, and the
Company's respective defenses to all of these claims.

According to case management and pre-trial orders, with respect to
the MDL, the court may try one or more OPA "test cases" as early
as third quarter 2011.  These test cases, the number and
specificity of which have not been determined, will consist of
claims brought against BP as a responsible party under the OPA.
The same judge is also presiding over a separate proceeding filed
by Transocean under the Limitation of Liability Act (Limitation
Action).  In the Limitation Action, Transocean seeks to limit its
liability for claims arising out of the Macondo well incident to
the value of the rig and its freight.  Although the Limitation
Action is not consolidated in the MDL, to this point the judge is
effectively treating the two proceedings as associated cases.
Although Halliburton is not yet formally a party to the Limitation
Action, the Company expects that Transocean will tender all
defendants into the Limitation Action in February 2011.  As a
result of that anticipated tender, all defendants will be treated
as direct defendants to the plaintiffs' claims as if the
plaintiffs had sued each defendant directly.

In the Limitation Action, the judge intends to determine the
allocation of liability among all defendants in the hundreds of
lawsuits associated with the Macondo well incident that are
pending in his court.  More specifically, the court intends to try
one or more "personal injury/wrongful death test cases" and one or
more economic damage claim "test cases" in the first quarter 2012,
in an attempt to determine liability, limitation, exoneration and
fault allocation with regard to all of the defendants.
Halliburton does not believe, however, that a single apportionment
of liability in the Limitation Action is properly applied to the
hundreds of lawsuits pending in the MDL Proceeding.  Damages for
the personal injury/wrongful death and economic damage claim "test
cases" tried in the first quarter 2012, including punitive
damages, are expected to be tried in a second phase of the
Limitation Action.  Under ordinary MDL procedures, such trials
would, unless waived by the respective parties, be tried in the
courts from which they were transferred into the MDL.  It remains
unclear, however, what impact the overlay of the Limitation Action
will have on where these matters are tried.

Halliburton says additional civil lawsuits may be filed against
the Company.  Document discovery and depositions among the parties
to the MDL have begun.  The deadline for defendants to file cross
claims and third-party claims arising out of the Macondo well
incident against other defendants is March 18, 2011.

Halliburton says it intends to vigorously defend any litigation,
fines, and/or penalties relating to the Macondo well incident.

Halliburton Company -- http://www.halliburton.com/-- provides a
variety of services and products to customers in the energy
industry related to the exploration, development, and production
of oil and natural gas.  The company serves oil and natural gas
companies throughout the world and operates under two segments:
the Completion and Production segment, and the Drilling and
Evaluation segment.  It conducts business worldwide in
approximately 70 countries. The business operations of its
divisions are organized in four primary geographic regions: North
America, Latin America, Europe/Africa/CIS, and Middle East/Asia.


HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Court Approves Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
American Banking News reports that Hemispherx Biopharma (HEB) says
a U.S. District Court has issued an order granting final approval
of a settlement of the currently pending securities class actions
consolidated in the action In re Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc.
Securities Litigation.  The settlement will be paid from the
company's insurance coverage and will not result in the payment of
any funds by the company.  Furthermore, the settlement is not an
admission of any culpability by HEB or its officers.


HUNTSMAN CORP: Court Sets May 2012 Trial for Antitrust Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas has scheduled a
May 2012 trial for class action lawsuits against Huntsman
Corporation and Huntsman International LLC alleging price-fixing.

The Company has been named as a defendant in civil class action
antitrust suits alleging that between 1999 and 2004 it conspired
with Bayer, BASF, Dow and Lyondell to fix the prices of MDI, TDI,
polyether polyols, and related systems sold in the U.S. in
violation of the federal Sherman Act. These cases are consolidated
as the "Polyether Polyols" cases in multidistrict litigation known
as In re Urethane Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1616, Civil No.
2:04-md-01616-JWL-DJW, pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas.

Merits discovery in MDL No. 1616 is ongoing. The trial is
currently scheduled for May 2012.

No further updates were reported in the Company's Feb. 17, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company has been named a defendant in other related antitrust
class action lawsuits including:

   -- A purported class action case filed February 15, 2002, by
      purchasers of products containing rubber and urethanes
      products and pending in Superior Court of California, County
      of San Francisco is stayed pending resolution of MDL No.
      1616.

   -- The Company has been named in a proposed third amended
      complaint by indirect purchasers of MDI, TDI, polyether
      polyols and polyester polyols pending against Bayer and
      Chemtura in the U.S. District Court for the District of
      Massachusetts. The matter is currently stayed pending a
      settlement of previously asserted claims against Bayer and
      Chemtura.  The Company opposed the motion for leave to file
      the proposed amended complaint adding it as a defendant in
      that action. The plaintiffs in each of these matters make
      similar claims against the defendants as the class
      plaintiffs in MDL No. 1616.


HUNTSMAN CORP: Continues to Defend Class Suits in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corporation disclosed in its Feb. 17, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2010, that two purported class action cases
filed May 5 and 17, 2006 pending in the Superior Court of Justice,
Ontario Canada and Superior Court, Province of Quebec, District of
Quebec, by direct purchasers of MDI, TDI and polyether polyols and
by indirect purchasers of these products remain largely dormant
although the plaintiff in one case recently filed papers seeking
class certification.


HUNTSMAN CORP: Seeks Dismissal of "Price-Fixing" Suit in Maryland
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corporation's motion to dismiss a consolidated class
action lawsuit accusing the Company of price-fixing remains
pending, according to the Company's Feb. 17, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company has been named as a defendant in two purported class
action civil antitrust suits alleging that the Company and its
co-defendants and other co-conspirators conspired to fix prices of
titanium dioxide sold in the U.S. between at least March 1, 2002
and the present. The cases were filed on February 9 and 12, 2010
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and a
consolidated complaint was filed on April 12, 2010. The other
defendants named in this matter are E.I. du Pont de Nemours and
Company, Kronos Worldwide Inc., Millennium Inorganic Chemicals,
Inc. and the National Titanium Dioxide Company Limited (d/b/a
Cristal). Together with its co-defendants the Company has filed a
motion to dismiss this litigation.


INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES: Court Approves Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
LLP disclosed that the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York has approved the following proposed
class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of the
common stock of Industrial Enterprises of America, Inc.

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

TO ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED the common
stock of Industrial Enterprises of America, Inc. during the period
from December 4, 2006 through and including November 7, 2007 and
were damaged thereby.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE ABOVE STOCK DURING THE
CLASS PERIOD YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE "CLASS" IN THIS FEDERAL CLASS
ACTION UNLESS EXPLICITLY EXCLUDED AS SET FORTH IN THE SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the above Court, that a hearing
will be held on May 18, 2011 at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 21D,
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007-1312, to determine: (1)
whether this Litigation should be certified as a class action for
the purposes of settlement; (2) whether the proposed settlement
of the Litigation for $3,400,000 (comprised of $100,000 for
previously incurred notice costs that were paid by Defendants'
Insurer, a $2,300,000 Payment Fund and a $1,000,000 Holdback Fund)
should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate;
(3) whether the motion of Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel for an award of
attorneys' fees, not to exceed one-third the Payment Fund, and
reimbursement of reasonable expenses, not to exceed $75,000 should
be approved; and (4) whether the Litigation should be dismissed
with prejudice.

If You Acquired Any Stock of IEAM, During the Class Period
Described Above, Your Rights May Be Affected by the Settlement of
this Litigation.  To Share in the Distribution of the Settlement
Fund, You Must Establish Your Rights by Mailing a Proof of Claim
and Release Form, Postmarked No Later Than April 27, 2011.

If you have not yet received the Notice of Pendency and Settlement
of Class Action, which more completely describes the Settlement
and your rights thereunder, and a Proof of Claim and Release form,
you may obtain copies of these documents by identifying yourself
as a member of the Class and by writing to, telephoning, or
visiting on the Internet:

          Industrial Enterprises of America, Inc.
          Securities Litigation
          Claims Administrator
          c/o Strategic Claims Services
          P.O. Box 230 600
          N. Jackson Street, Suite 3
           Media, PA 19063
           Tel: (866) 274-4004
           http://www.strategicclaims.net/

Inquiries should NOT be directed to IEAM or the Clerk of the
Court.

If you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a
written request for exclusion, postmarked no later than May 4,
2011, in the manner and form explained in the Notice.  All members
of the Class who have not requested exclusion from the Class will
be bound by the Settlement and any Judgment entered in the
Litigation even if they do not timely file a Proof of Claim and
Release form.

DATED: FEBRUARY 3, 2011

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN

DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Contact:

          Strategic Claims Services
          Telephone: (610) 565-9202
          Fax: (610) 565-7985
          600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 3
          Media, PA 19063


INTERNATIONAL COAL: Still Defends Securities Suit in West Virginia
------------------------------------------------------------------
International Coal Group, Inc., is still defending itself against
a class action lawsuit in West Virginia.

On January 7, 2008, Saratoga Advantage Trust filed a class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
West Virginia against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors seeking unspecified damages. The complaint asserts
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on
alleged false and misleading statements in the registration
statements filed in connection with the Company's November 2005
reorganization and December 2005 public offering of common stock.
In addition, the complaint challenges other of the Company's
public statements regarding its operating condition and safety
record. On July 6, 2009, Saratoga filed an amended complaint
asserting essentially the same claims but seeking to add an
individual co-plaintiff. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint. The Company has not accrued any liability
for the claims pending because it believes that it has good
factual and legal defenses to the asserted claims and that an
estimate of damages, if the Company were to be found liable,
cannot be made at this time. The Company intends to vigorously
defend the action.

No updates were reported in the Company's Feb. 17, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Recalls 395 Injection Devices
------------------------------------------------
Peter Loftus at The Wall Street Journal reports that Johnson &
Johnson recalled at least 395 injection devices containing
rheumatoid-arthritis drug Simponi in the U.S. and Germany, due to
a potential defect that could result in an insufficient dose of
the drug.

European health authorities warned that the manufacturing snafu
could cause a temporary shortage of the Simponi injector devices,
according to The Wall Street Journal.  The report relates that as
an alternative, patients are being advised to use prefilled
syringes of Simponi.

The Wall Street Journal says that the Simponi recall is the latest
in a series of product recalls at J&J due to manufacturing-quality
lapses, which have hurt sales and damaged the company's
reputation.  The report recounts that Simponi, which went on sale
in 2009, is approved to treat rheumatoid arthritis and other
inflammatory conditions.  It's typically injected monthly, either
through prefilled syringes or pre-filled "pens," which are devices
that allow patients to press a button to deliver the dose, the
report relates.

The Wall Street Journal discloses that J&J recently identified a
manufacturing problem at a plant in Switzerland that could result
in an incomplete dose of the drug delivered by the pens, said
spokesman Brian Kenney.  The problem was discovered in routine
quality testing, the report notes.

The Wall Street Journal says that J&J was able to quarantine the
bulk of the affected lots, but some got past the wholesale level,
and J&J is now recalling them.  The recall affects about 230
Simponi pens in Germany and 165 pens in the U.S. that were
distributed beyond the wholesale level, the report relates.

The report discloses that J&J will start to make new pre-filled
pens of Simponi available by the end of February, the EMA said,
but not all European countries will have regular supplies until
May.   The EMA recommended no new patients should start treatment
with the pens until the supply problems are resolved, The Wall
Street Journal adds.


KELLY SERVICES: Continues to Face "Fuller" Class Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Fuller v. Kelly Services, Inc.,
and Kelly Home Care Services, Inc., remains pending in California,
according to the Company's Feb. 17, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
January 2, 2011.

The Fuller matter -- pending in the Superior Court of California,
Los Angeles -- involves claims relating to alleged
misclassification of personal attendants as exempt and not
entitled to overtime compensation under state law and to alleged
technical violations of a state law governing the content of
employee pay stubs.  On April 30, 2007, the Court in the Fuller
case certified both plaintiff classes involved in the suit.  In
the third quarter of 2008, Kelly was granted a hearing date for
its motions related to summary judgment on both certified claims.
On March 13, 2009, the Court granted Kelly's motion for
decertification of the classes.  Plaintiffs filed a petition for
review on April 3, 2009, requesting the decertification ruling be
overturned.  Plaintiffs' request was granted on May 17, 2010, and
the suit was recertified as a class action.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses in the Fuller
lawsuit and will continue to vigorously defend itself during the
litigation process.


KELLY SERVICES: Continues Defense in "Sullivan" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Services, Inc., continues to defend itself in a class action
complaint captioned Sullivan v. Kelly Services, Inc., pending in
the U.S. District Court Southern District of California, according
to the Company's Feb. 17, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
January 2, 2011.

The Sullivan matter relates to claims by temporary workers for
compensation while interviewing for assignments.  On April 27,
2010, the Court in the Sullivan matter certified the lawsuit as a
class action.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses in the Sullivan
lawsuit and will continue to vigorously defend itself during the
litigation process.


LIZ CLAIBORNE: Motion to Dismiss "Tyler" Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Liz Claiborne, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a 2009 securities class
action lawsuit remains pending in New York.

The purported class action complaint captioned Angela Tyler,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Liz
Claiborne, Inc, Trudy F. Sullivan and William L. McComb, was filed
in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York on
April 28, 2009, against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer,
William L. McComb and Trudy Sullivan, a former President of the
Company.  The complaint alleges certain violations of the federal
securities laws, claiming misstatements and omissions surrounding
the Company's wholesale business.  The Company believes that the
allegations contained in the complaint are without merit, and the
Company intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously.  The Company
moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint on
October 4, 2010.

No further updates on the matter were reported by the Company in
its February 17, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
January 1, 2011.


MRU HOLDINGS: S.D.N.Y. Ct. Dismisses Class Suit v. Merrill
----------------------------------------------------------
Chad Bray, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that U.S.
District Judge Richard Berman on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit by
shareholders of MRU Holdings Inc. against Merrill Lynch & Co. and
MRU's auditor over alleged misrepresentations and omissions
regarding nearly $200 million in auction-rate securities should be
dismissed.  The lawsuit alleged that MRU made misrepresentations
regarding the riskiness of its auction-rate securities and
overstated its expected income and that Merrill Lynch rigged
prices in the auction-rate market.  MRU, which isn't a defendant
in the lawsuit, used Merrill Lynch as its banker to securitize its
student-loan holdings through auction-rate securities, according
to the lawsuit.  The suit seeks to represent a class of
shareholders who purchased shares of MRU from July 2007 to
September 2008.

Bagell, Josephs, Levine & Company, LLC, served as MRU's
independent auditor.

According to Mr. Bray, a lawyer for the shareholders didn't return
a phone call seeking comment.

"We are pleased with the court's decision," a Merrill Lynch
spokesman said, according to the report.  The report further notes
the ruling comes as Merrill Lynch has won dismissal of several
lawsuits in recent weeks by institutional investors who purchased
auction-rate securities.  Merrill is now owned by Bank of America
Corp.

The case is In re: MRU Holdings Securities Litigation, Case No.
09-Civ.-3807 (S.D.N.Y.).  A copy of Judge Berman's February 17,
2011 Decision and Order is available at http://is.gd/D2wHbffrom
Leagle.com.

                        About MRU Holdings

Based in New York, MRU Holdings, Inc., is a specialty consumer
finance company that facilitates and provides students with funds
for higher education.  At September 30, 2008, the company had
$310 million in total assets and $331 million in total
liabilities, resulting in $20.1 million in shareholders' deficit.

MRU Holdings filed on February 6, 2009, a voluntary petition
seeking relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. Case No. 09-10530).  As a result of the bankruptcy
filing, the Company suspended business operations.


NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Lawyer Rejects New Compensation Offer
------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Leahy, writing for USA TODAY, reports that the attorney who
has launched a $5 million suit against the NFL for its treatment
of ticketholders at Super Bowl XLV rejected the league's latest
proposal for compensation.

Attorney Michael Avenatti said the NFL's offer of $5,000 or all
documented expenses for Super Bowl XLV -- whichever is higher --
for the 400 fans who were refused seats at the game still falls
short of what he is seeking in a class-action suit.

"The NFL still refuses to fully reimburse the 400 fans 100% for
what they paid for their tickets, all of their related expenses,
plus some other reasonable gesture for these fans missing out on a
once-in-a-lifetime experience," Mr. Avenatti said in a statement
Tuesday.

Fellow lawyer Trey Branham, who is also suing the league for its
handling of tickets at Super Bowl XLV, said the league is trying
to nickel-and-dime the affected fans.

The NFL's compensation offer is paired with two previous offers of
$2,400 (triple refund on the game ticket) and a ticket to next
year's Super Bowl or a ticket to a future Super Bowl with airfare
and four nights at a hotel included.

Mr. Avenatti said the NFL still needs to address concerns of other
fans who were displaced or significantly delayed in their entrance
into Super Bowl XLV and other fans angry about their treatment by
the league at Cowboys Stadium.

He renewed his call for NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to sit with
him to try and resolve the issue.

"The NFL and its lawyers need to come clean with the fans as to
their right to full compensation and sit down with us to fairly
resolve this matter," Mr. Avenatti said.

Mr. Goodell has apologized for the NFL's seating problems at the
Super Bowl -- which arose because a local safety inspector refused
to certify some sections of temporary seating.


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Remains a Defendant in "Fuel Surcharges" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corporation remains a defendant in a consolidated
antitrust class action lawsuit over fuel surcharges, according to
the Company's February 17, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

On November 6, 2007, various antitrust class actions filed against
Norfolk Southern and other Class 1 railroads in various Federal
district courts regarding fuel surcharges were consolidated in the
District of Columbia by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation.  The Company believes the allegations in the
complaints are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the
cases.  Norfolk Southern does not believe that the outcome of
these proceedings will have a material effect on its financial
position, results of operations, or liquidity.  A lawsuit
containing similar allegations against the Company and four other
major railroads that was filed on March 25, 2008, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff subject to a tolling agreement entered
into in August 2008.

On March 3, 2010, Norfolk Southern received a Shareholder
Litigation Demand Letter alleging that Company officers and
directors breached fiduciary duties by causing Norfolk Southern to
engage in anti-competitive practices relating to the use of fuel
surcharges, which have harmed or will ultimately harm the Company.
The allegations in the letter relate to those contained in the
ongoing fuel surcharge class action litigation.  In response to
the letter, pursuant to Virginia law, the Board of Directors
created a Special Litigation Committee to review and evaluate the
facts and circumstances surrounding the claims made in the Demand
Letter.  On September 28, 2010, the shareholder filed a
shareholder derivative complaint in United States District Court
in the District of Columbia against Norfolk Southern, each of the
current members of the Board of Directors, and former chairman,
president, and chief executive officer.  Following an
investigation utilizing independent counsel, the Special
Litigation Committee issued a report on November 22, 2010,
concluding unanimously that the Company should take no action in
response to the Demand and should move to dismiss the Derivative
Action because it is not in the best interest of the Company.


OKLAHOMA GAS: Still Defending "Price I" Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------
OGE Energy Corp. is still defending itself against a complaint
filed by Will Price, et al., alleging mismeasurement of natural
gas.

On September 24, 1999, various subsidiaries of the Company were
served with a class action petition filed in the District Court of
Stevens County, Kansas by Quinque Operating Company and other
named plaintiffs alleging the mismeasurement of natural gas on
non-Federal lands.  On April 10, 2003, the court entered an order
denying class certification.  On May 12, 2003, the plaintiffs (now
Will Price, Stixon Petroleum, Inc., Thomas F. Boles and the Cooper
Clark Foundation, on behalf of themselves and other royalty
interest owners) filed a motion seeking to file an amended class
action petition, and the court granted the motion on July 28,
2003.  In its amended petition, OG&E and Enogex Inc. were omitted
from the case but two of the Company's other subsidiary entities
remained as defendants.  The plaintiffs' amended petition seeks
class certification and alleges that 60 defendants, including two
of the Company's subsidiary entities, have improperly measured the
volume of natural gas.  The amended petition asserts theories of
civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting, accounting and unjust
enrichment.  In their briefing on class certification, the
plaintiffs seek to also allege a claim for conversion.  The
plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, attorneys' fees, costs
and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.  The plaintiffs also
reserved the right to seek punitive damages.  On September 18,
2009, the court entered its order denying class certification.  On
October 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed for a rehearing of the
court's denial of class certification. On March 31, 2010, the
court denied the plaintiffs' request for rehearing.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this action.  At this
time, the Company is unable to provide an evaluation of the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome and an estimate of the amount
or range of potential loss to the Company.

No updates were reported in the Company's Feb. 17, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

OGE Energy Corp. -- http://www.oge.com/-- is an energy and energy
services provider offering physical delivery and related services
for both electricity and natural gas primarily in the south
central United States.  The company conducts its activities
through four business segments: electric utility; natural gas
transportation and storage; natural gas gathering and processing,
and natural gas marketing.  The electric utility segment
generates, transmits, distributes and sells electric energy in
Oklahoma and western Arkansas.  Its operations are conducted
through Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company.


OKLAHOMA GAS: Still Defending "Price II" Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------
OGE Energy Corp. is still defending itself against a second
complaint filed by Will Price, et al., alleging mismeasurement of
natural gas.

On May 12, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a new class action petition
in the District Court of Stevens County, Kansas naming the same
defendants and asserting substantially identical legal and/or
equitable theories as in the amended petition of the Price I case.
OG&E and Enogex Inc. were not named in this case, but two
subsidiary entities of the Company were named in this case.  The
plaintiffs allege that the defendants mismeasured the Btu content
of natural gas obtained from or measured for the plaintiffs.  In
their briefing on class certification, the plaintiffs seek to also
allege a claim for conversion.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified
actual damages, attorneys' fees, costs and pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest.  The plaintiffs also reserved the right to seek
punitive damages.  On September 18, 2009, the court entered its
order denying class certification.  On October 2, 2009, the
plaintiffs filed for a rehearing of the court's denial of class
certification. On March 31, 2010, the court denied the plaintiffs'
request for rehearing.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this action.  At this
time, the Company is unable to provide an evaluation of the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome and an estimate of the amount
or range of potential loss to the Company.

No updates were reported in the Company's Feb. 17, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

OGE Energy Corp. -- http://www.oge.com/-- is an energy and energy
services provider offering physical delivery and related services
for both electricity and natural gas primarily in the south
central United States.  The company conducts its activities
through four business segments: electric utility; natural gas
transportation and storage; natural gas gathering and processing,
and natural gas marketing.  The electric utility segment
generates, transmits, distributes and sells electric energy in
Oklahoma and western Arkansas.  Its operations are conducted
through Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company.


OKLAHOMA GAS: Still Defends Royalty Lawsuit in Oklahoma
-------------------------------------------------------
OGE Energy Corp.'s subsidiary, OGE Enogex Holdings, is still
defending itself against a putative class action filed by certain
parties in Oklahoma, according to the Company's Feb. 17, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

On July 22, 2005, Enogex along with certain other unaffiliated
co-defendants was served with a purported class action which had
been filed on February 7, 2005 by Farris Buser and other named
plaintiffs in the District Court of Canadian County, Oklahoma.
The plaintiffs own royalty interests in certain oil and gas
producing properties and allege they have been under-compensated
by the named defendants, including Enogex and its subsidiaries,
relating to the sale of liquid hydrocarbons recovered during the
transportation of natural gas from the plaintiffs' wells.  The
plaintiffs assert breach of contract, implied covenants,
obligation, fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, conspiracy and
fraud causes of action and claim actual damages, plus attorneys'
fees and costs, and punitive damages.  Enogex and its subsidiaries
filed a motion to dismiss which was granted on November 18, 2005,
subject to the plaintiffs' right to conduct discovery and the
possible re-filing of their allegations in the petition against
the Enogex companies.  On September 19, 2005, the co-defendants,
BP America, Inc. and BP America Production Company, filed a cross
claim against Products seeking indemnification and/or contribution
from Products based upon the 1997 sale of a third-party interest
in one of Products natural gas processing plants.  On May 17,
2006, the plaintiffs filed an amended petition against Enogex and
its subsidiaries.  Enogex and its subsidiaries filed a motion to
dismiss the amended petition on August 2, 2006.  The hearing on
the dismissal motion was held on November 20, 2006 and the court
denied Enogex's motion.  Enogex companies filed an answer to the
amended petition and BP America, Inc. and BP America Production
Company's cross claim on January 16, 2007.  Based on Enogex's
investigation to date, the Company believes these claims and cross
claims in this lawsuit are without merit and intends to continue
vigorously defending this case.

OGE Energy Corp. -- http://www.oge.com/-- is an energy and energy
services provider offering physical delivery and related services
for both electricity and natural gas primarily in the south
central United States.  The company conducts its activities
through four business segments: electric utility; natural gas
transportation and storage; natural gas gathering and processing,
and natural gas marketing.  The electric utility segment
generates, transmits, distributes and sells electric energy in
Oklahoma and western Arkansas.  Its operations are conducted
through Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company.


OKLAHOMA GAS: Court Dismisses "Franchise Fee" Lawsuit in Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On June 19, 2006, two OGE Energy Corp. customers brought a
putative class action, on behalf of all similarly situated
customers, in the District Court of Creek County, Oklahoma,
challenging certain charges on OG&E's electric bills.  The
plaintiffs claim that OG&E improperly charged sales tax based on
franchise fee charges paid by its customers.  The plaintiffs also
challenge certain franchise fee charges, contending that such fees
are more than is allowed under Oklahoma law.  OG&E's motion for
summary judgment was denied by the trial judge.  In January 2007,
the Oklahoma Supreme Court "arrested" the District Court action
until, and if, the propriety of the complaint of billing practices
is determined by the OCC.  In September 2008, the plaintiffs filed
an application with the OCC asking the OCC to modify its order
which authorizes OG&E to collect the challenged franchise fee
charges.  On December 9, 2009 the OCC issued an order dismissing
the plaintiffs' request for a modification of the 1994 OCC order
which authorized OG&E to collect and remit sales tax on franchise
fee charges. In its December 9, 2009 order, the OCC advised the
plaintiffs that the ruling does not address the question of
whether OG&E's collection and remittance of such sales tax should
be discontinued prospectively. On April 19, 2010, the OCC issued a
final order dismissing with prejudice the applicants' claims for
recovery of previously paid taxes on franchise fees and approving
the closing of this matter.  On June 10, 2010, the plaintiffs
filed a motion in the District Court of Creek County, Oklahoma,
asking the court to proceed with the original class action. On
July 8, 2010, a hearing in this matter was held and the court
granted the plaintiffs motion to lift the stay of discovery
previously imposed by the Oklahoma Supreme Court but denied any
other specific relief pending further action by the court.  On
August 4, 2010, OG&E filed an application to assume original
jurisdiction and a petition for a writ of prohibition with the
Oklahoma Supreme Court. On September 13, 2010, the Oklahoma
Supreme Court issued a writ prohibiting the District Court judge
from proceeding further in this case except to dismiss the case.
On September 20, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider
this matter with the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

On December 6, 2010 the Oklahoma Supreme Court denied the
plaintiffs motion to reconsider.  In compliance with the Oklahoma
Supreme Court order, on December 14, 2010, the District Court of
Creek County dismissed the lawsuit.

OG&E considers this matter closed, according to the Company's
Feb. 17, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

OGE Energy Corp. -- http://www.oge.com/-- is an energy and energy
services provider offering physical delivery and related services
for both electricity and natural gas primarily in the south
central United States.  The company conducts its activities
through four business segments: electric utility; natural gas
transportation and storage; natural gas gathering and processing,
and natural gas marketing.  The electric utility segment
generates, transmits, distributes and sells electric energy in
Oklahoma and western Arkansas.  Its operations are conducted
through Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company.


PACIFIC GAS: Hearing on "San Bruno Explosion" Suit Set for Feb. 24
------------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing will be held February 24, 2011, on a class action
lawsuit against Pacific Gas and Electric Company over an explosion
and fire in San Bruno, California, according to the Company's
Feb. 17, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

As of February 8, 2011, 59 lawsuits on behalf of approximately 177
plaintiffs, including two class action lawsuits, have been filed
by residents of San Bruno in San Mateo County Superior Courts
against the Company, and in some cases, against PG&E Corporation.
In addition, five lawsuits on behalf of 11 plaintiffs have been
filed by residents of San Bruno in the San Francisco County
Superior Court against the Company, and in some cases, against
PG&E Corporation. These lawsuits seek to recover compensation for
personal injury and property damage and seek other relief. Each of
the class action lawsuits include a demand that the $100 million
the Company announced would be available for assistance be placed
under court supervision, and also allege causes of action for
strict liability, negligence, public nuisance, private nuisance,
and declaratory relief. One of the class action lawsuits was filed
by Steve Dare and the other was filed by Danielle Ditrapani. The
Company has filed a petition on behalf of PG&E Corporation and the
Company to coordinate these lawsuits in the San Mateo County
Superior Court. In its statement in support of coordination, the
Company has stated that it is prepared to enter into early
mediation in an effort to resolve claims with those plaintiffs
willing to do so. A hearing is scheduled for February 24, 2011.


PACIFIC GAS: Defends "Radio Frequency" Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Gas and Electric Company is defending itself against a
class action lawsuit over its use of radio frequency in gas meters
to collect usage data, according to the Company's Feb. 17, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

The California Public Utilities Commission has authorized the
Company to install approximately 10 million advanced electric and
gas meters using SmartMeter(TM) technology throughout the
Utility's service territory by the end of 2012. As of December 31,
2010, the Utility has installed approximately 7.5 million advanced
electric and gas meters through its service territory. Advanced
electric meters, which record energy usage in hourly or quarter-
hourly increments, allow customers to track energy usage
throughout the billing month and thus enable greater customer
control over electricity costs. Usage data is collected through a
wireless communication network and transmitted to the Utility's
information system where the data is stored and used for billing
and other Utility business purposes.

Following customer complaints that the new metering system led to
overcharges, the CPUC began an investigation, several
municipalities took various steps to delay or suspend the
installation of the new meters, and a class action lawsuit was
filed against the Company. In addition, customers and other
private groups have raised safety and health concerns about the
radio frequency technology used in the new system.  The Utility
expects to complete the installation of the new meters by the end
of 2012.


PERI & SONS: Sued in Nevada Over Minimum Wage Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Peri & Sons Farms, an onion
grower in Yerington, Nevada, has paid migrant workers less than
minimum wage since 2005, 16 workers say in a federal class action.

A copy of the Complaint in Rivera, et al. v. Peri & Sons Farms,
Inc., Case No. 11-cv-00118 (D. Nev.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/18/LaborCA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
          THIERMAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
          7287 Lakeside Drive
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: (775) 284-1500
          E-mail: laborlawyer@pacbell.net

               - and -

          Matthew J. Piers, Esq.
          Jose Jorge Behar, Esq.
          Christopher J. Wilmes, Esq.
          Caryn C. Lederer, Esq.
          HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK & DYM, LTD.
          70 W. Madison Street, Suite 4000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 580-0100
          E-mail: mpiers@hsplegal.com
                  jbehar@hsplegal.com
                  cwilmes@hsplegal.com
                  clederer@hsplegal.com


PHILIP MORRIS: Fla. Ct. Tosses $145BB Class Action Damage Award
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a Florida Supreme Court ruling
that threw out a $145 billion award against cigarette makers is
biting Big Tobacco back, making it dramatically easier for
thousands of smokers to sue and turning the state into the
nation's hot spot for damage awards.

The 2006 ruling has helped generate more than $360 million in
damage awards in only about two dozen cases.  Thousands more cases
are in the pipeline in Florida, which has far more smoking-related
lawsuits pending than any other state.

Though the justices tossed the $145 billion class-action damage
award, they allowed about 8,000 individual members of that class
to pursue their own lawsuits.  And in a critical decision, they
allowed those plaintiffs to use the original jury's findings from
the class-action case.

That means the plaintiffs don't have to prove that cigarette
makers sold a defective and dangerous product, were negligent, hid
the risks of smoking and that cigarettes cause illnesses such as
lung cancer and heart disease.  The plaintiffs must mainly show
they were addicted to smoking and could not quit, and that their
illness -- or a smoker's death -- was caused by cigarettes.

Jurors have sided with smokers or their families in about two-
thirds of the 34 cases tried since February 2009, when the first
Florida lawsuit following the rules set by the Supreme Court
decision went before a jury.  Awards have ranged from $2 million
or less to $80 million, though tobacco companies are appealing
them all.

The successes by smokers or their survivors in Florida compares
with just six wins between 1996 to 2006 in Florida.  Before 1996,
individual smokers won only a handful of cases nationwide.

Tobacco company lawyers insist the process is rigged.

"We believe the trial courts have used trial plans that are so
fundamentally unfair they violate due process and Florida law,"
said Murray Garnick of Altria Client Services, which represents
Altria Group Inc. subsidiary Philip Morris USA.  "Each case must
be judged on its own facts."

The tobacco companies, however, have lost their first appeal over
how Florida courts are handling the cases.  The state's 1st
District Court of Appeal ruled against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
in December, upholding a $28.3 million verdict for a dead smoker's
wife and endorsing the way trial judges have interpreted the state
Supreme Court's decision.

Steven J. Hammer, an attorney whose Fort Lauderdale firm is
handling hundreds of smoker lawsuits, said the Florida cases have
changed the balance of power in the courtroom because tobacco
companies are prevented from arguing that their products aren't
necessarily dangerous and addictive.

"As a result, the whole story is being told: how they lied to the
public, all for the almighty dollar," he said.

One of Mr. Hammer's clients, 93-year-old Leon Barbanell, won a
nearly $2 million verdict against Philip Morris USA for the 1996
death of his wife of 56 years from lung cancer.  Shirley Barbanell
smoked up to two packs of Chesterfields, Marlboros and other
cigarettes a day for 50 years and could not quit despite many
efforts, her husband said.  He's worried that, because of appeals,
he may die before he ever sees a cent.

"I miss her company every day," Mr. Barbanell said. "She was
always there for me.  We went everywhere together."

A jury in northern Florida's Levy County granted the largest award
issued under the Supreme Court ruling, $80 million, to the
daughter of a man who died of lung cancer in 1996 after smoking
for decades.  Others awarded $46.3 million for a widow in the
Gainesville area who lost her husband to lung cancer; and almost
$39 million for a Fort Lauderdale woman suffering from advanced
emphysema after smoking Philip Morris' Benson & Hedges brand for
years.

The tobacco companies point out that during one stretch in 2010
they prevailed in eight of nine cases, although the trend later
was reversed.  Attorneys said cigarette makers often win when it
is difficult to prove that cigarettes caused a particular illness,
or when jurors decide that people who smoke must take
responsibility and assume the consequences.

"There are some jurors who are really opposed to the idea of
someone who smoked bringing a case against the cigarette
manufacturer," said Keith Mitnick, an Orlando attorney who won a
multimillion-dollar verdict against R.J. Reynolds in April.  "In
jury selection, we target that very question.  It doesn't take but
one strong-willed juror to make the difference in the outcome."

Tobacco companies' recent setbacks are not limited to Florida:

   -- In Boston, a jury in December awarded $152 million to the
estate and son of a woman who died of lung cancer in 2002.  The
lawsuit claimed that Lorillard Tobacco Co. hooked the woman on
smoking after giving away free samples of cigarettes in the Boston
housing project where she lived as a child.

   -- In Connecticut, U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Co., maker of Skoal
and Copenhagen, agreed in December to pay $5 million to the family
of a man who died of mouth cancer in what was believed to be the
first wrongful-death settlement won from a chewing tobacco
company.

   -- Also in December, Minnesota's appeals court allowed a class-
action case to continue for people who claim Marlboro Light
cigarettes, made by Philip Morris, were marketed as supposedly
safer to smoke using false advertising and consumer fraud.  Philip
Morris is appealing that decision.

If the losing trend and multimillion-dollar verdicts continue,
some legal experts said the tobacco companies may rethink their
long-standing policy against settling the smoker lawsuits.

"When we get to the point that plaintiff verdicts are upheld, with
the industry looking at thousands of additional trials and
expenses, they would weigh all of that together and possibly
settle later down the road," said Edward Sweda, senior attorney
for the Tobacco Products Liability Project at Northeastern
University law school in Boston.

Lawsuits will likely end up before the U.S. Supreme Court before
that has a chance of happening.

"We have a strong legal and factual basis to fight each of these
cases.  We will fight every adverse decision against us," said
Mr. Garnick, the Philip Morris attorney.

The tobacco companies have a long history of doing just that, but
they have settled in the past.  The biggest came in 1998, when
four cigarette makers and 46 states settled for $206 billion a
series of lawsuits claiming that smoking drove up public health
costs.

In 2006, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., found the six
largest tobacco companies guilty of racketeering and fraud for
deceiving the public about the dangers of smoking.

The ruling, upheld by an appeals court in May 2009, requires that
cigarette manufacturers change the way they market cigarettes.
The requirements, since adopted by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, ban labels such as "low tar," "light," "ultra
light" or "mild," since such cigarettes have been found no safer
than others.

The ruling was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the
justices declined to hear it.


REVLON INC: Continues to Defend Class Suits in Delaware & New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
Revlon Inc. continues to defend itself from a series of class
action lawsuits filed in Delaware and New York, according to the
Company's February 17, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

On October 8, 2009 the Company consummated its voluntary exchange
offer in which, among other things, Revlon, Inc. issued to
stockholders who elected to exchange shares (other than MacAndrews
& Forbes) 9,336,905 shares of its Preferred Stock in exchange for
the same number of shares of Revlon, Inc. Class A Common Stock
tendered in the Exchange Offer.

On April 24, 2009, May 1, 2009, May 5, 2009 and May 12, 2009,
respectively, four purported class actions were filed by each of
Vern Mercier, Arthur Jurkowitz, Suri Lefkowitz and T. Walter
Heiser in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.  On
May 4, 2009, a purported class action was filed by Stanley E.
Sullivan in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County.  Each
such lawsuit was brought against Revlon, Inc., Revlon, Inc.'s then
directors and MacAndrews & Forbes, and challenged a merger
proposal made by MacAndrews & Forbes on April 13, 2009, which
would have resulted in MacAndrews & Forbes and certain of its
affiliates owning 100% of Revlon, Inc.'s outstanding Common Stock
(in lieu of consummating such merger proposal, the Company
consummated the aforementioned Exchange Offer).  Each action
sought, among other things, to enjoin the proposed merger
transaction.  On June 24, 2009, the Chancery Court consolidated
the four Delaware actions, and appointed lead counsel for
plaintiffs.  As announced on August 10, 2009, an agreement in
principle was reached to settle the Initial Consolidated Action,
as set forth in a Memorandum of Understanding.

On December 24, 2009, an amended complaint was filed in the
Sullivan action alleging, among other things, that defendants
should have disclosed in the Company's Offer to Exchange for the
Exchange Offer information regarding the Company's financial
results for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009.  On
January 6, 2010, an amended complaint was filed by plaintiffs in
the Initial Consolidated Action making allegations similar to
those in the amended Sullivan complaint.  Revlon initially
believed that by filing the amended complaint, plaintiffs in the
Initial Consolidated Action had formally repudiated the Settlement
Agreement, and on January 8, 2010, defendants filed a motion to
enforce the Settlement Agreement.

In addition to the amended complaints in the Initial Consolidated
Action and the Sullivan action, on December 21, 2009, Revlon,
Inc.'s current directors, a former director and MacAndrews &
Forbes were named as defendants in a purported class action filed
in the Chancery Court by Edward Gutman.  Also on December 21,
2009, a second purported class action was filed in the Chancery
Court against Revlon, Inc.'s current directors and a former
director by Lawrence Corneck.  The Gutman and Corneck actions make
allegations similar to those in the amended complaints in the
Sullivan action and the Initial Consolidated Action.  On
January 15, 2010, the Chancery Court consolidated the Gutman and
Corneck actions with the Initial Consolidated Action.  A briefing
schedule was then set to determine the leadership structure for
plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action.

On March 16, 2010, after hearing oral argument on the leadership
issue, the Chancery Court changed the leadership structure for
plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action.  Thereafter, newly
appointed counsel for the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action
and the defendants agreed that the defendants would withdraw their
motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement and that merits
discovery would proceed.  Defendants agreed not to withdraw any of
the concessions that had been provided to the plaintiffs as part
of the Settlement Agreement.

On May 25, 2010, plaintiffs' counsel in the Consolidated Action
filed an amended complaint alleging breaches of fiduciary duties
arising out of the Exchange Offer and that defendants should have
disclosed in the Company's Offer to Exchange information regarding
the Company's financial results for the fiscal quarter ended
September 30, 2009. Merits discovery is now proceeding in the
Consolidated Action.

On December 31, 2009, a purported class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware by John Garofalo
against Revlon, Inc., Revlon, Inc.'s current directors, a former
director and MacAndrews & Forbes alleging federal and state law
claims stemming from the alleged failure to disclose in the Offer
to Exchange certain information relating to the Company's
financial results for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009.
Defendants and plaintiff have agreed to stay proceedings in this
action until April 15, 2011 to permit plaintiff to participate in
the merits discovery in the Consolidated Action.  A similar
agreement has been reached with the plaintiff in the Sullivan
action with the same stay period.

Plaintiffs in each of these actions are seeking, among other
things, an award of damages and the costs and disbursements of
such actions, including a reasonable allowance for the fees and
expenses of each such plaintiff's attorneys and experts. The
Company believes the allegations contained in the complaints are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.


SILICON IMAGE: Awaits Ruling on Appeals of IPO Lawsuit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Silicon Image, Inc., is still awaiting a ruling on appeals made by
certain parties over the final approval of a settlement resolving
a class action lawsuit related to the Company's initial public
offering, according to the Company's Feb. 17, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2010.

On December 7, 2001, the Company and certain of its officers and
directors were named as defendants, along with the underwriters of
the Company's initial public offering, in a securities class
action lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants
participated in a scheme to inflate the price of the Company's
stock in its initial public offering and in the aftermarket
through a series of misstatements and omissions associated with
the offering. The lawsuit is one of several hundred similar cases
pending in the Southern District of New York that have been
consolidated by the court. In February 2003, the District Court
issued an order denying a motion to dismiss by all defendants on
common issues of law. In July 2003, the Company, along with over
300 other issuers named as defendants, agreed to a settlement of
this litigation with plaintiffs. While the parties' request for
court approval of the settlement was pending, in December 2006 the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the
District Court's determination that six focus cases could be
certified as class actions. In April 2007, the Second Circuit
denied plaintiffs' petition for rehearing, but acknowledged that
the District Court might certify a more limited class. At a
June 26, 2007 status conference, the Court terminated the proposed
settlement as stipulated among the parties. Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on August 14, 2007. On September 27, 2007,
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in the six focus
cases, which was withdrawn on October 10, 2008. On November 13,
2007 defendants in the six focus cases filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint for failure to state a claim, which the district
court denied in March 2008. Plaintiffs, the issuer defendants, the
underwriter defendants, and the insurance carriers for the
defendants, have engaged in mediation and settlement negotiations.
The parties have reached a settlement agreement, which was
submitted to the District Court for preliminary approval on
April 2, 2009. As part of this settlement, the Company's insurance
carrier has agreed to assume the Company's entire payment
obligation under the terms of the settlement. On June 10, 2009,
the District Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement agreement. After a September 10, 2009 hearing, the
District Court gave final approval to the settlement on October 5,
2009.

Several objectors to the settlement have filed notices of appeal
to the United States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit from
the District Court's order granting final approval of the
settlement. Although the District Court has granted final approval
of the settlement agreement, there can be no guarantee that it
will not be reversed on appeal. The Company believes that it has
meritorious defenses to these claims. If the settlement is not
implemented and the litigation continues against the Company, the
Company would continue to defend against this action vigorously.
In light of the uncertainty of the appellate process, and any
subsequent proceedings in the trial court in the event the
settlement is reversed on appeal, the Company is unable to
determine the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome against them
and is unable to reasonably estimate a range of loss, if any.


SPRINT NEXTEL: Sued for Misrepresenting That It Had a "4G" Network
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bonofacio Coronado, et al., individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Sprint Nextel Corporation, et al., Case No.
11-cv-00706 (N.D. Calif. February 15, 2011), charges the wireless
and wireline communications services provider with making false
and fraudulent misrepresentations on its website, in materials at
its branches, and through other advertisements and marketing, that
"4G" wireless cellular service was being provided through its
wireless cellular service network, "which it is not."

In so doing, the plaintiffs allege that Sprint engaged in an
unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice, in
violation of California Business & Professions Code Sections 17200
et. seq.

Specifically, plaintiffs learned that the "Sprint Evo 4G"
Smartphone each of them were lured into purchasing to use on
Sprint's claimed 4G network, was actually not a "4G" Smartphone
because it did not meet the specifications or possess the
capabilities to operate or provide "4G" service which is
established only by the International Telecommunication (ITU)
published "Fourth Generation of Cellular Wireless Standards."

Mr. Coronado is a resident of the city of Long Beach, California
and is a customer of the defendants.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

         George Avery Otstott, Esq.
         BRYDON, HUGO & PARKER
         135 Main Street, 20th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Telephone: (415) 808-0300
         E-mail: gotstott@bhplaw.com

              - and -

         Thomas M. Corea, Esq.
         Grant B. Stock, Esq.
         THE COREA FIRM, P.L.L.C.
         1201 Elm Street, 41st Floor
         Dallas, TX 75270
         Telephone: (214) 953-3900
         E-mail: TCorea@corealaw.com
                 Gstock@corealaw.com

              - and -

         George A. Otstott, Esq.
         Ann Jamison, Esq.
         OTSTOTT & JAMISON, P.C.
         Two Energy Square
         4849 Greenville Avenue, Suite 1620
         Dallas, TX 75206
         Telephone: (214) 522-9999]
         E-mail: hogmang@aol.com


SYNGENTA AG: Still Defends "Atrazine" Suit in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
Syngenta AG is still defending itself against a water
contamination lawsuit in Illinois, according to the Company's
Feb. 17, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Holiday Shores Sanitary District in Madison County, Illinois
filed a class action complaint against Syngenta Crop Protection,
Inc. and its distributor Growmark, Inc. in July 2004 purportedly
on behalf of a class consisting of all Illinois community water
systems who have, allegedly, suffered contamination of their water
sources on account of the presence at any measurable level of the
product atrazine, a herbicide manufactured since the late 1950s by
SCPI and its predecessors in interest, Novartis Crop Protection,
Inc., Ciba-Geigy and Geigy Chemical Corporation. The name of SCPI
is now Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, but the former name of the
company continues to be used in this litigation and in other
proceedings referred to herein. The Holiday Shores Complaint
alleges that the product atrazine and/or its degradant chemicals
are harmful to humans as consumed through dietary water, and that
run-off from the soil where atrazine has been applied has damaged
the CWS' property and contaminated its surface waters, used as a
source of drinking water for Illinois. It alleges claims of
trespass, nuisance, negligence, strict liability and violation of
the Illinois Environmental Protection Act and seeks monetary
damages, including the cost of purchase, installation, maintenance
and operation of charcoal filtration systems, alleged diminution
in property value and remediation, punitive damages and attorneys'
fees. The Complaint was served on SCPI on August 27, 2004. SCPI
succeeded in having the lawsuit removed from state to federal
court but, on Plaintiff's Motion, the federal court on March 28,
2005, remanded the lawsuit back to state court. SCPI filed a
Motion to Dismiss which was argued on October 25, 2005, and on
July 7, 2008 was denied by the court (except as regards those
parts of the Motion which sought dismissal of the punitive damage
and remediation claims ? those claims have been dismissed although
plaintiff may attempt to re-assert the punitive damage claim at a
later date). Since the denial of that Motion, Holiday Shores
amended its Complaint to add seven additional CWS as named
plaintiffs and has stipulated that its purported class will
consist of no more than 99 CWS.

Shortly before the hearing on February 23, 2010 of SCPI's Motion
to Transfer the claims of those plaintiffs not located in Madison
County to their home counties, plaintiffs' counsel filed a
voluntary dismissal of all of plaintiffs' property damage-related
claims, and based primarily on this action the judge on April 14,
2010 entered an Order denying the Motion to Transfer. The hearing
was held on June 10, 2010, of a further Motion to Dismiss filed by
SCPI, as well as a Motion to have the lawsuit stayed or dismissed
without prejudice in the light of the filing of the parallel
federal City of Greenville lawsuit described below. On August 31,
2010, the judge issued an Order denying both of those Motions. The
Plaintiffs filed a series of subpoenas against third parties,
including growers' associations, academic institutions and
external advisers to SCPI, and SCPI and a number of the recipients
filed Motions to Quash those subpoenas. On September 22, 2010 the
judge issued an Order denying in part the Motions to Quash and
ruling that information concerning SCPI and its relationship to
those third parties, and communications between SCPI and those
third parties are relevant and discoverable. An application for
leave to appeal against this Order was filed with the judge and on
October 29, 2010, the judge entered a further Order certifying
certain questions for interlocutory appeal to the Illinois Fifth
District Appellate Court and staying discovery on the issues which
were the subject of the September 22, 2010 Order pending
resolution of any appeal. The application for leave to appeal was
denied by the Appellate Court on January 13, 2011.

The case is now in the discovery phase and SCPI has filed answers
to interrogatories as well as produced the first of many pages of
documents; depositions are sought to be scheduled by plaintiff's
counsel with 11 current or former SCPI employees and three
corporate designees.


TJX COS: Sued Over Failure to Properly Compensate Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jenn Abelson, writing for The Boston Globe, reports that a
New York man has filed a lawsuit seeking class action status
against TJX Cos. that accuses the Framingham merchant of failing
to pay overtime and retaliating against the former assistant
manager.

Mohammed M. Ahmed claims in the complaint that he and other
assistant managers as their primary duty were forced to perform
tasks of hourly employees without proper compensation at a T.J
Maxx in New York.

The suit seeks damages of an unspecified amount.

TJX, which runs T.J. Maxx, Marshalls, and HomeGoods, declined to
comment.

Mr. Ahmed said in court records that he worked up to 70 hours a
week and was expected to perform tasks such as cleaning stores,
stocking shelves, and running the register.

Mr. Ahmed claims he was unjustifiably written up after he lodged
complaints about the company's failure to properly compensate
employees and subsequently fired last summer.


TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT: Still Defends Bondholder Lawsuit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Credit Corporation is still defending itself against
a bondholder lawsuit in California, according to the Company's
Feb. 17, 2011, Form 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

TMCC and certain affiliates had been named as defendants in a
putative bondholder class action, Harel Pia Mutual Fund v. Toyota
Motor Corp., et al., filed in the Central District of California
on April 8, 2010, alleging violations of federal securities laws.
The plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit on
July 20, 2010.

On July 22, 2010, the same plaintiff in the federal bondholder
action refiled the case in California state court on behalf of
purchasers of TMCC bonds traded on foreign exchanges (Harel Pia
Mutual Fund v. Toyota Motor Corp., et al., Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles).  The complaint alleged
violations of California securities laws, fraud, breach of
fiduciary duty and other state law claims.  On September 15, 2010,
the defendants removed the state court action to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California pursuant to
the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act and the Class
Action Fairness Act.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on
October 15, 2010.  After a hearing on January 10, 2011, the court
granted the defendants motion to dismiss with prejudice on
January 11, 2011.  The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on
January 27, 2011.

TMCC believes it has meritorious defenses to these claims and
intends to defend them vigorously.  At this time, TMCC believes
that these cases will not be material to holders of any notes of
Toyota Auto Receivables 2010-A Owner Trust.


TRAVELERS COMPANIES: Continues to Defend Antitrust Insurance Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc., continues to defend itself in a
consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit pending in New Jersey,
according to the Company's February 17, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2010.

In 2005, four putative class action lawsuits were brought against
a number of insurance brokers and insurers, including the Company,
by plaintiffs who allegedly purchased insurance products through
one or more of the defendant brokers.  The plaintiffs alleged that
various insurance brokers conspired with each other and with
various insurers, including the Company, to artificially inflate
premiums, allocate brokerage customers and rig bids for insurance
products offered to those customers.  To the extent they were not
originally filed there, the federal class actions were transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and were
consolidated for pre-trial proceedings with other class actions
under the caption In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation.

On Aug. 1, 2005, various plaintiffs, including the four named
plaintiffs in the class actions, filed an amended consolidated
class action complaint naming various brokers and insurers,
including the Company, on behalf of a putative nationwide class of
policyholders.  The complaint included causes of action under the
Sherman Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (RICO), state common law and the laws of the various states
prohibiting antitrust violations.  The complaint sought monetary
damages, including punitive damages and trebled damages, permanent
injunctive relief, restitution, including disgorgement of profits,
interest and costs, including attorneys' fees.  All defendants
moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.
After giving plaintiffs multiple opportunities to replead, the
court dismissed the Sherman Act claims on August 31, 2007, and the
RICO claims on September 28, 2007, both with prejudice, and
declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law
claims.  The plaintiffs appealed the district court's decisions to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  On August 16,
2010, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of
all Sherman Act and RICO claims against certain defendants,
including the Company, except for Sherman Act and RICO claims
involving the sale of excess casualty insurance through one
defendant broker, as well as all state law claims, which they
remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

On Oct. 1, 2010, defendants, including the Company, filed renewed
motions to dismiss the remanded claims.  The Company continues to
believe that these claims are without merit and intends to defend
them vigorously.


VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA: Says Bushfire Class Suit "Abuse of Process"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Selma Milovanovic, writing for The Age, reports that a law firm
that started a class action over the 2003 alpine bushfires has
been accused of "flagrant abuse of process" after lodging the
lawsuit in the name of a Melbourne doctor without his permission.

The state government wants the case thrown out and its lawyers say
Oldham Naidoo Lawyers acted deliberately when they listed
Dr. Hershal Cohen as the lead claimant.

In an unrelated case, the law firm launched one of Victoria's
largest class actions two years ago over the Kilmore East-Kinglake
bushfire on Black Saturday.

At a hearing over the 2003 class action on Feb. 18, Supreme Court
judge Jack Forrest said Dr. Cohen had said that "he never gave
authority . . . it never extended to being a representative
plaintiff".

Ian Waller, SC, for Dr. Cohen, said his client did not own any
property listed in the lawsuit.

Justice Forrest said any findings he might make about the conduct
of the case could have consequences for Oldham Naidoo lawyers
Daniel Oldham and Jordana Dymond and they should be given a chance
to defend any allegations.

The 2003 bushfires destroyed more than 1 million hectares of land.
The class action accused the government of negligence over failing
to adequately backburn and reduce forest-floor litter in state
parks, which allowed the fire to escape on to private property.

Dr. Cohen's solicitor, Henrik Lassen, said in a sworn statement
that since his client first learnt of the class action in October
2010, he had asked to be removed as plaintiff, "not having ever
instructed any firm to issue the proceeding or any proceedings in
his name".

The government wants the case dismissed, with its counsel Peter
Riordan, SC, describing it as a "flagrant abuse of process".

Oldham Naidoo Lawyers wants to replace Dr. Cohen as plaintiff with
Melbourne property developer Robert Arnold.  Mr. Oldham claims the
government had leased the Mount Buffalo Chalet and several
surrounding areas and properties to companies owned by Mr. Arnold.
Government lawyers dispute that Mr. Arnold was the lessee.

Justice Forrest stayed the class action until further order and
set a hearing for next month.


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Final Settlement Hearing Set for May 10
--------------------------------------------------------
A final hearing on the settlement entered into by Vonage Holdings
Corp. with class action plaintiffs for the release and dismissal
of all consumer claims pending in various courts is set for
May 10, 2011, according the Company's Feb. 17, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company has been named in several purported class actions
venued in California, New Jersey, and Washington alleging a wide
variety of deficiencies with respect to its business practices and
marketing disclosures.  These class actions, on behalf of both
nationwide and state classes, generally alleged that the Company
delayed and/or refused to allow consumers to cancel their Vonage
service; failed to disclose procedural impediments to
cancellation; failed to adequately disclose that their 30 or 60-
day money back guarantee did not give consumers 30 to 60 days to
try out the Company's services; suppressed and concealed the true
nature of its services and disseminated false advertising about
the quality, nature and terms of its services; imposed an unlawful
early termination fee; and invoked unconscionable provisions of
its Terms of Service to the detriment of customers. On May 11,
2007, plaintiffs in one action petitioned the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (the "Panel") seeking transfer and
consolidation of the pending actions to a single court for
coordinated pretrial proceedings. In an Order dated August 15,
2007, the Panel transferred the pending actions to the United
States Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned In re
Vonage Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 1862,
Master Docket No. 07-CV-3906 (USDC, D.N.J.). On October 1, 2007,
counsel for one group of plaintiffs moved before the Court for
Consolidation and Appointment of Co-Lead Counsel of the actions,
and requested time to file an Amended Consolidated Complaint. On
November 6, 2008, the Court entered an Order Granting
Consolidation and Appointment of Co-Lead Counsel, and ordered that
a consolidated Complaint be filed within 45 days, which Complaint
was filed on December 19, 2008. On February 6, 2009, the Company
filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration. On September 1, 2009, the
Court denied without prejudice the Motion to Compel Arbitration.
On December 2, 2009, the Company filed a Renewed Motion to Compel
Arbitration. Briefing on the motion was completed in February
2010. The parties engaged in limited discovery. On July 8, 2010,
the Court requested that the parties submit supplemental letters
to the Court on or before July 30, 2010, addressing the relevance
of recent decisions by the United States Supreme Court and the
United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit regarding
arbitration provisions and the parties filed those submissions.

On September 23, 2010, the parties reached a proposed settlement
that includes a release and dismissal with prejudice of all
consumer claims against the Company and will provide a settlement
benefit of $4,750 into a common fund for the benefit of class
members. The common fund will include all awarded fees, costs, and
expenses (including attorneys' fees and costs), certain costs to
provide notice of settlement, administrative expenses, and
incentive awards, if any, with the remainder of the common fund to
be distributed to members of the class pursuant to a plan of
allocation among class members. On September 28, 2010, the Court
entered a Joint Stipulation staying the proceedings and
terminating the pending Renewed Motion to Compel Arbitration. On
December 23, 2010, the parties filed the proposed Settlement
Agreement with the Court. On January 3, 2011, the Court granted
Preliminary Approval of the Settlement and set a schedule whereby
notice of the proposed settlement, the final hearing date and
other interim deadlines is to be provided to potentially eligible
plaintiffs. A final hearing on the settlement has been scheduled
for May 10, 2011, at which time the Court will hear objections to
the proposed settlement, requests for exclusion/opt-out of the
settlement, application by Class Counsel for attorneys' fees,
costs and expenses, and application for Incentive Awards to the
named plaintiffs.

The Company previously recorded a reserve of $4,750,000 to reflect
the proposed settlement. This amount was paid into an escrow
account in January 2011. Of this amount, $2,750,000 was recorded
in the quarter ended September 30, 2010; with $1,500,000 and
$750,000 recorded as a reduction to customer equipment and
shipping and telephony services revenue, respectively, and
$500,000 recorded as selling, general and administrative expense
in the consolidated statement of operations. The remaining
$2,000,000 was recorded as selling, general and administrative
expense in the consolidated statement of operations in the quarter
ended March 31, 2010.


WALT DISNEY: Blind Persons File Suit Over Inaccessible Web Sites
----------------------------------------------------------------
Forizs & Dogali on Feb. 18 disclosed that in September 2010, three
visually impaired women, who have long been patrons of the
Walt Disney Company's theme parks and Web site, filed a class
action against two Walt Disney companies, alleging that Disney's
Web sites relating to its theme parks, hotels and restaurants are
inaccessible to the visually impaired, in violation of the
Americans With Disabilities Act and other laws.

According to the class action complaint filed in the U.S. District
Court, Central District of California, the ADA requires Disney's
Web sites to respect the needs of the visually impaired, such as
by accommodating the use of screen-reader technology.  The Disney
sites, which are created for Disney affiliate Walt Disney Parks
and Resorts by two other affiliates, Disney Online and Walt Disney
Parks and Resorts Online, are replete with video and audio
trailers which cannot be turned off by people who cannot use a
mouse and which drown out screen-readers.  The Web sites also
contain Flash content that is not accessible to blind persons.
The Plaintiffs assert that Disney simply does not address the
needs of people who are visually impaired in creating its
webpages.

These allegations are brought along with broader allegations that
Disney unlawfully discriminates against blind patrons, by refusing
to reasonably accommodate the needs of guests with guide dogs,
refusing to provide functional audio technology, refusing to
provide Braille menus, schedules and maps, and more.

According to the class action complaint, Disney denies that it
owes any special obligation to blind persons as a group, and
asserts that decisions regarding accommodations for its visually
impaired patrons must be made one guest at a time and not as a
matter of company policy.  The complaint also alleges that Disney
denies an ability to estimate the number of visually impaired or
blind guests who visit its resorts or its websites.

On Feb. 14, the Plaintiffs filed their brief supporting
certification of the class, a milestone event in any class action
case.  The Plaintiffs expect to establish that thousands of
visually impaired patrons visit Disney's parks, restaurants and
hotels each year, and that the three named Plaintiffs' claims are
common to those of the much larger class.  The Complaint does not
seek money damages from Disney, but only compliance with ADA and
other laws which require Disney to accommodate the needs of, and
not discriminate against, its visually impaired patrons.

Anyone desiring to obtain or share further information about
Disney's treatment of blind persons are invited to contact
attorney Andy Dogali of Tampa, Florida, at 813.289.0700 or
adogali(at)forizs-dogali(dot)com.  The Plaintiffs' brief is
available for review, along with the Class Action Complaint and
other documents, at the "News" link on the attorney's Web site,
at http://www.forizs-dogali.com/


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Remains a Defendant in Environmental Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management Inc. remains a defendant in a purported class
action over its fuel and environmental charge, according to the
Company's February 17, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2010.

In July 2008, the Company was named as a defendant in a purported
class action in the Circuit Court of Bullock County, Alabama,
which was subsequently removed to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama.  This suit pertains to the
Company's fuel and environmental charge and generally alleges that
such charges were not properly disclosed, were unfair, and were
contrary to contract.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss that was partially granted
during the third quarter of 2010, resulting in dismissal of the
plaintiffs' RICO and national class action claims.  The Company
denies the claims in all of these actions and intends to continue
to oppose class certification and will vigorously defend these
matters.  Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the
ultimate outcome of these cases cannot be predicted at this time,
nor can possible damages, if any, be reasonably estimated.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Awaits Court Approval of Calif. Suits Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management Inc. is awaiting final court approval of a
settlement agreement in connection with pending lawsuits against
certain of the its subsidiaries in California, according to the
Company's February 17, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

Two separate wage and hour lawsuits were commenced in Oct. 2006
and March 2007, respectively, that are pending against certain of
the Company's subsidiaries in California, each seeking class
certification.  The actions were coordinated to proceed in San
Diego County Superior Court.  Both lawsuits make the same general
allegations that the defendants failed to comply with certain
California wage and hour laws, including allegedly failing to
provide meal and rest periods and failing to properly pay hourly
and overtime wages.  The Company executed a settlement agreement
in connection with this matter; however, such settlement remains
subject to final court approval and other contingencies.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Continues to Defend ERISA Suit in D.C.
--------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management Inc. continues to defend itself in an ERISA class
suit pending in the District of Columbia, according to the
Company's February 17, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2010.

In April 2002, two former participants in the ERISA plans of WM
Holdings filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia in a case entitled William S. Harris, et al.,
v. James E. Koenig, et al. The lawsuit named as defendants WM
Holdings; the members of WM Holdings' Board of Directors prior to
July 1998; the administrative and investment committees of WM
Holdings' ERISA plans and their individual members; WMI's
retirement savings plan; the investment committees of WMI's plan
and its individual members; and State Street Bank & Trust, the
trustee and investment manager of the ERISA plans.  The lawsuit
attempts to increase the recovery of a class of ERISA plan
participants based on allegations related to both the events
alleged in, and the settlements relating to, the securities class
action against WM Holdings that was settled in 1998 and the
securities class action against WMI that was settled in 2001.

During the second quarter of 2010, the Court dismissed certain
claims against individual defendants, including all claims against
each of the current members of the Company's Board of Directors.
Robert G. Simpson, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, is a
named defendant in these actions by virtue of his membership on
the WM ERISA plan Investment Committee at that time.

Recently, plaintiffs dismissed all claims related to the
settlement of the securities class action against WM that was
settled in 2001, and the court certified a limited class of
participants who may bring claims on behalf of the plan, but not
individually.  All of the remaining defendants intend to continue
to defend themselves vigorously.


WELLPOINT INC: Still Defends Breach of Contract Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wellpoint, Inc. is still defending itself from a class action
lawsuit in Los Angeles, according to the Company's Feb. 17, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

In various California state courts, the Company is defending a
number of individual lawsuits, including one filed by the Los
Angeles City Attorney, and one purported class action alleging the
wrongful rescission of individual insurance policies. The suits
name WellPoint as well as Blue Cross of California, or BCC, and BC
Life & Health Insurance Company, or BCL&H (which name changed to
Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company in July 2007),
both WellPoint subsidiaries. The lawsuits generally allege breach
of contract, bad faith and unfair business practices in a
purported practice of rescinding new individual members following
the submission of large claims. The parties agreed to mediate most
of these lawsuits and the mediation resulted in the resolution of
some of these lawsuits. Final approval of the class action
settlement was granted on July 13, 2010, and no appeals were
filed. Payments pursuant to the terms of the settlement are
expected to occur in the first or second quarter of 2011 and will
not have a material impact on the Company's consolidated financial
position or results of operations. The Los Angeles City Attorney
filed an amended complaint in October 2010, adding claims of
misrepresentation arising from several public statements made by
the Company during the year. A demurrer to the amended complaint
has been filed.


WELLPOINT INC: Still Defending "Demutualization" Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------
WellPoint, Inc., continues to defend itself against lawsuits
alleging maldistribution of value to eligible statutory members.

The Company is currently defending several putative class actions
filed as a result of the 2001 Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc., or
AICI, demutualization.  The suits name AICI as well as Anthem,
Inc., or Anthem, n/k/a WellPoint, Inc.  The suits are captioned as
Ronald Gold, et al. v. Anthem, Inc. et al.; Mary E. Ormond, et al.
v. Anthem, Inc,. et al.; Ronald E. Mell, Sr., et al. v. Anthem,
Inc., et al; and Jeffrey D. Jorling, et al., v. Anthem, Inc.
(n/k/a WellPoint, Inc.) et al.

AICI's 2001 Plan of Conversion, or the Plan, provided for the
conversion of AICI from a mutual insurance company into a stock
insurance company pursuant to Indiana law.  Under the Plan, AICI
distributed the fair value of the company at the time of
conversion to its Eligible Statutory Members, or ESMs, in the form
of cash or Anthem common stock in exchange for their membership
interests in the mutual company.  The lawsuits generally allege
that AICI distributed value to the wrong ESMs or distributed
insufficient value to the ESMs. In Gold, cross motions for summary
judgment were granted in part and denied in part with regard to
the issue of sovereign immunity asserted by co-defendant, the
State of Connecticut.  The State appealed this denial to the
Connecticut Supreme Court.  The Company filed a cross-appeal.
Oral argument was held in November 2008.  On May 11, 2010, the
Court reversed the judgment of the trial court denying the State's
motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims under sovereign immunity.
The Company's cross-appeal was dismissed by the Court.  The case
was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.  In the
Ormond suit, the Company's Motion to Dismiss was granted in part
and denied in part on March 31, 2008.  The Court dismissed the
claims for violation of federal and state securities laws, for
violation of the Indiana Demutualization Law and for unjust
enrichment.  On September 29, 2009, a class was certified.  The
class consists of all ESMs residing in Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky or
Connecticut who received cash compensation in connection with the
demutualization.  The class does not include employers located in
Ohio and Connecticut that received compensation under the Plan.
On November 4, 2009 a class was certified in the Mell suit.  That
class consists of persons who were employees or retirees who were
continuously enrolled in the health benefit plan sponsored by the
City of Cincinnati between the dates of June 18, 2001 and Nov. 2,
2001.  On March 3, 2010, the Court issued an order granting the
Company's motion for summary judgment.  As a result, the Mell suit
has been dismissed.  The plaintiffs have filed an appeal with the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is pending.  The Company
intends to vigorously defend these suits; however, their ultimate
outcome cannot be presently determined, the Company said.

No updates were reported in the Company's Feb. 17, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2010.


WELLPOINT INC: Still Defends "Out-of-Network" Lawsuit in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
WellPoint, Inc., is still defending itself against a putative
class action relating to Out-of-Network reimbursement of dental
claims pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

The lawsuit was filed in March 2002 by the American Dental
Association, and three dentists who are suing on behalf of
themselves and are seeking to sue on behalf of a nationwide class
of all non-participating dental providers who were paid less than
their actual charges for dental services provided to WellPoint
dental members.  The complaint alleges that WellPoint Health
Networks Inc., Blue Cross of California and other WellPoint
affiliates and subsidiaries improperly set usual, customary and
reasonable payment for OON dental services based on HIAA/Ingenix
data.  The plaintiffs claim, among other things, that the
HIAA/Ingenix databases fail to account for differences in
geography, provider specialty, outlier (high) charges, and
complexity of procedure.  The complaint further alleges that
WellPoint was aware that this data was inappropriate to set usual,
customary and reasonable rates.  The dentists sue as assignees of
their patients' rights to benefits under WellPoint's dental plans
and assert that WellPoint breached its contractual obligations in
violation of ERISA by routinely paying OON dentists less than
their actual charges and representing that its OON payments were
properly determined usual, customary and reasonable rates.  The
suit is currently pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida.  The Company has refiled a
motion for summary judgment, which is pending.  The Company
intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit; however, the Company
said its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined.

No updates were reported in the Company's Feb. 17, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2010.


WELLPOINT INC: Continues to Defend 11 "Out-of-Network" Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
WellPoint, Inc., is still defending itself against eleven putative
class actions relating to out-of-network reimbursement.

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

The first lawsuit (Darryl and Valerie Samsell v. WellPoint, Inc.,
WellPoint Health Networks, Inc. and Anthem, Inc.) was filed in
February 2009 by two former members on behalf of a putative class
of members who received out-of-network services for which the
defendants paid less than billed charges.  The plaintiffs in that
case allege that the defendants violated RICO, the Sherman
Antitrust Act, ERISA, and federal regulations by relying on
databases provided by Ingenix in determining out-of-network
reimbursement.  The second lawsuit (AMA et al. v. WellPoint, Inc.)
was brought in March 2009 by the American Medical Association, or
AMA, four state medical associations and two individual physicians
on behalf of a putative class of out-of-network physicians.  The
third lawsuit (Roberts v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc. et al.) was
brought in March 2009 by a WellPoint member as a putative class
action on behalf of all persons or entities who have paid premiums
for out-of-network health insurance coverage.  The fourth lawsuit
(JBW v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc. et al.) was brought in April 2009
by a WellPoint member as a putative class action on behalf of all
persons who have paid premiums for out-of-network health insurance
coverage.  The fifth lawsuit (O'Brien, et al. v. WellPoint, Inc.,
et al.) was brought in May 2009 by three WellPoint members as a
putative class action on behalf of all persons who received out-
of-network services.  The sixth lawsuit (Higashi, D.C. d/b/a Mar
Vista Institute of Health v. Blue Cross of California d/b/a
WellPoint, Inc.) was brought in June 2009 by an out-of-network
chiropractor as a putative class action on behalf of all out-of-
network chiropractors.  The seventh suit (North Peninsula Surgical
Center v. WellPoint, Inc., et al.) was brought in June 2009 by an
out-of-network surgical center as a putative class action on
behalf of all out-of-network surgical centers.  The eighth lawsuit
(American Podiatric Medical Association, et al. v. WellPoint,
Inc.) was brought in June 2009 by the American Podiatric Medical
Association, California Chiropractic Association, California
Psychological Association and an out-of-network clinical
psychologist as a putative class action on behalf of out-of-
network podiatrists, chiropractors and psychologists.  The ninth
lawsuit (Michael Pariser, et al. v. WellPoint, Inc.) was brought
in July 2009 by an out-of-network psychologist as a putative class
action on behalf of all out-of-network providers who are not
medical doctors or doctors of osteopathy.  The tenth lawsuit
(Harold S. Bernard, Ph.D., et al. v. WellPoint, Inc.) was brought
in July 2009 by an out-of-network psychologist as a putative class
action on behalf of all non-medical doctor health care providers.
The eleventh lawsuit (Ken Unmacht, Psy.D., et al. v. WellPoint,
Inc.) was brought in August 2009 by an out-of-network licensed
psychotherapist as a putative class action on behalf of all non-
medical doctor health care providers.  A consolidated complaint
was filed for the eleven cases, and then was amended to broaden
the allegations in the lawsuit to out-of-network reimbursement
methodologies beyond the use of Ingenix.  The Company filed a
revised motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint,
which is pending.  At the end of 2009, the Company filed a motion
to enjoin the claims brought by the medical doctors and doctors of
osteopathy based on prior litigation releases.  The magistrate
judge recommended that the Company's motion to enjoin be granted.
Plaintiffs recently filed a petition for declaratory judgment
asking the Court to find that those claims are not barred by the
prior litigation releases.  The Company has filed a motion to
dismiss the petition for declaratory judgment, which is pending.
The Company intends to vigorously defend these suits; however,
their ultimate outcomes cannot be presently determined.

No updates were reported in the Company's Feb. 17, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2010.



                             *********

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.  Leah
Felisilda, Neil U. Lim, Rousel Elaine Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante,
Ronald Sy, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2011.  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  * * *