CAR_Public/110228.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, February 28, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 41

                             Headlines

AK STEEL: Subsidiary Still Faces "Schumacher" Class Suit in Ohio
AK STEEL: Subsidiary Still Faces Class Suits in Ohio & Kentucky
AK STEEL: Continues to Defend Price-Fixing Lawsuits
ALBANY MEDICAL: Settles Class Action for $4.5 Million
ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Accused of Violating New Mexico Forfeiture Act

AMEDISYS INC: Response to Amended Complaint Due by March 21
AMERICAN BUSINESS: Judge Set to Enter Damages in Class Action
B.O.B. TRAILERS: Recalls 357,000 Single and Double Strollers
BP PLC: Plaintiff Panel Wants Judge to Okay Class Action Notice
CAREER EDUCATION: Discovery Still Ongoing in "Schuster" Suit

CAREER EDUCATION: Still Defends Two Suits Over Text Message Ads
CAREER EDUCATION: Hearing on Class Discovery Expected 2nd Quarter
CAREER EDUCATION: To Appeal Class Certification in "Lilley" Suit
CAREER EDUCATION: Awaits Approval of Settlement in Two Lawsuits
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Asks for Addt'l Docs in PPO Class Action

CLEARWIRE CORP: Continues to Await Ruling on Minnick Suit Appeal
CLEARWIRE CORP: Response Deadline to Kwan Class Suit Is March 3
CLEARWIRE CORP: Dennings Plaintiffs to Amend Complaint on March 3
CNA FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend NJ Antitrust Class Suit
COVIDIEN PLC: Faces Class Action Over Non-Payment of Wages

DEL MONTE: D&Os Face Third Suit Over Sale of Company to KKR
DIEBOLD INC: Court Enters Final Approval of ERISA Suit Settlement
DIEBOLD INC: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suit in Ohio
DIEBOLD INC: Awaits Court Approval of Wage & Hour Suit Settlement
DIOCESE OF ANTIGONISH: To Pay Class Action Claims in Two Years

E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Discovery in "Freudenberg" Suit Still Ongoing
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss "Oughtred" Suit Still Pending
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Initial Discovery in "Roling" Suit Ends March 6
ELI LILLY: Zyprexa Plaintiffs' Reconsideration Request Pending
EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Board Sued Over Sale of Company to CD&R

FANNIE MAE: Faces Consumer Fraud Class Action
FMC CORP: Class Action Lawsuits in Canada Still Pending
HUDSON HOLDING: Defends Shareholder Suit Over Rodman Merger
KINDER MORGAN: Awaits Final Hearing on Second Arbitration
LE CREUSET: Recalls 1,800 Le Creuset Glass Lids

MATCH.COM LLC: Faces Class Action Over Fraudulent Profiles
MEDCO HEALTH: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in Pennsylvania
MEDCO HEALTH: Summary Judgment Motion in "Blumenthal" Suit Pending
MEDCO HEALTH: Makes Final Distribution of Settlement Funds
MONTREAL, CANADA: Quebec Court OKs Sewage Flooding Class Action

NICOR GAS: Sued in Illinois Over Misleading Service Charges
NILES AUDIO: Recalls 4,160 Remote Control Systems
NPC INTERNATIONAL: To Oppose Conditional Certification Motion
PACKAGING CORP: Continues to Defend Containerboard Suit
PANERA BREAD: Final Hearing on Settlement Scheduled for June 22

PANERA BREAD: Remains a Defendant in "Sotoudeh" Suit
PANERA BREAD: Continues to Defend Suit over FLSA Violations
QWEST CORP: Plaintiffs' Appeal of Suit Dismissal Remains Pending
REED ELSEVIER: Lawyers Drop Fraud Claim in E-Filing Suit
SCREEN ACTORS GUILD: Judge OKs Royalties Class Action Settlement

STEC INC: 2nd Amended Complaint May Be Filed in Consolidated Suit
STRAYER EDUCATION: Defends "Kinnett" Suit in Florida
SYNGENTA CROP: Judge Hears Arguments in Atrazine Class Action
TEKELEC: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
TEMPLE-INLAND: Consolidated Class Suit in Illinois Still Pending

THERATECHNOLOGIES INC: Awaits Ruling on Shareholder Class Suit
UNITED CONTINENTAL: Court Dismisses Merger-Related Lawsuit
UNITED STATES: FBI Faces Class Action for Spying on Muslims
VIVENDI SA: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
WALT DISNEY: Employees File Class Action for Privacy Violations

WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Awaits Final Approval of Settlement
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Unit's Dismissal Plea Remains Pending
WYETH: Disbarment of Fen-Phen Class Action Lawyer Sought



                             *********


AK STEEL: Subsidiary Still Faces "Schumacher" Class Suit in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed by William Schumacher against the
pension plan of AK Steel Holding Corp.'s subsidiary remains
pending, according to the Company's February 22, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On October 20, 2009, William Schumacher filed a purported class
action against the AK Steel Corporation Retirement Accumulation
Pension Plan, or AK RAPP, and the AK Steel Corporation Benefit
Plans Administrative Committee in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 1:09cv794.  The
complaint alleges that the method used under the AK RAPP to
determine lump sum distributions does not comply with ERISA and
the Internal Revenue Code and resulted in underpayment of benefits
to him and the other class members.  Plaintiff and the other
purportedly similarly situated individuals on whose behalf
plaintiff filed suit were excluded by the Court in 2005 from the
West litigation based on previous releases of claims they had
executed in favor of the Company.   On January 11, 2010, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint based upon a
statute of limitations ground.  That motion was denied on March 8,
2010, and defendants filed their answer to the complaint on
March 22, 2010.  On August 11, 2010, plaintiff filed his motion
for class certification.  On January 24, 2011, that motion was
granted.  No trial date has yet been set.  The defendants intend
to contest this matter vigorously.


AK STEEL: Subsidiary Still Faces Class Suits in Ohio & Kentucky
---------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of AK Steel Holding Corp. continues to defend itself
from class action lawsuits filed by Judith Patrick and Margaret
Lipker in Ohio and Kentucky, according to the Company's
February 22, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On October 20, 2005, Judith Patrick and another plaintiff filed a
purported class action against AK Steel Corporation and the AK
Steel Corporation Benefit Plans Administrative Committee in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
Case No. 1:05-cv-681.  The complaint alleges that the defendants
incorrectly calculated the amount of surviving spouse benefits due
to be paid to the plaintiffs under the applicable pension plan.
On December 19, 2005, the defendants filed their answer to the
complaint.  The parties subsequently filed cross-motions for
summary judgment on the issue of whether the applicable plan
language had been properly interpreted.  On September 28, 2007,
the United States Magistrate Judge assigned to the case issued a
Report and Recommendation in which he recommended that the
plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment be granted and
that the defendants' motion be denied.  The defendants filed
timely objections to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation.
On March 31, 2008, the court issued an order adopting the
Magistrate's recommendation and granting partial summary judgment
to the plaintiffs on the issue of plan interpretation.  The
plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted by the
Court on October 27, 2008.  The case is proceeding with respect to
discovery on the issue of damages.  No trial date has been set.

On May 27, 2009, a case asserting a similar claim was filed
against AK Steel by Margaret Lipker in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Case No. 09-00050.
The Complaint in the Lipker Litigation alleged that AK Steel
incorrectly calculated the amount of Ms. Lipker's surviving spouse
benefits due to be paid under the applicable pension plan (which
was a different plan from that at issue in the Patrick
Litigation).  The parties filed cross-motions for summary
judgment.  On February 23, 2010, the Court in the Lipker
Litigation granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and
found that Ms. Lipker is entitled to a surviving spouse benefit of
approximately four hundred sixty three dollars per month.  AK
Steel appealed that February 23, 2010, decision to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on March 11, 2010,
Case No. 10-5298.  The issues in the appeal have been fully
briefed by the parties.  In addition, counsel representing the
plaintiffs in the Patrick Litigation filed an amicus curiae brief
on July 20, 2010, on the ground that the decision in the Lipker
Litigation could impact the merits of the issues in the Patrick
Litigation.  The amicus curiae brief requested the Court of
Appeals to affirm the district court's decision in the Lipker
Litigation on the issue of plan interpretation and liability.

The defendants intend to contest both of these matters vigorously.


AK STEEL: Continues to Defend Price-Fixing Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits filed by a group of companies against AK
Steel Holding Corp. and eight other steel manufacturers remains
pending in Illinois and Tennessee, according to the Company's
February 22, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

In September and October 2008, several companies filed purported
class actions in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, against nine steel manufacturers, including
AK Holding.  The case numbers for these actions are 08CV5214,
08CV5371, 08CV5468, 08CV5633, 08CV5700, 08CV5942 and 08CV6197.  An
additional action, case number 10CV04236, was filed in the same
federal district court on July 8, 2010.  On December 28, 2010
another action, case number 32321, was filed in state court in the
Circuit Court for Cocke County, Tennessee.  The plaintiffs are
companies which claim to have purchased steel products, directly
or indirectly, from one or more of the defendants and they purport
to file the actions on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased steel products for delivery or pickup in the United
States from any of the named defendants at any time from at least
as early as January 2005 to the present.  The complaints allege
that the defendant steel producers have conspired to restrict
output and to fix, raise, stabilize and maintain artificially high
prices with respect to steel products in the United States.  On
January 2, 2009, the defendants filed motions to dismiss all of
the claims set forth in the Complaints.  On June 12, 2009, the
court issued an Order denying the defendants' motions to dismiss.
Discovery has commenced.  No trial date has been set.  AK Holding
intends to contest this matter vigorously.


ALBANY MEDICAL: Settles Class Action for $4.5 Million
-----------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Albany Medical Center will pay
$4.5 million to settle its share of a federal class-action lawsuit
alleging officials conspired with counterparts at other hospitals
in the area to keep pay down for about 4,000 registered nurses.

According to court documents, similar settlements for about 2% of
nurses' pay from June 2002 to June 2006 were reached earlier with
companies operating St. Peter's Hospital in Albany, St. Mary's
Hospital in Amsterdam, Samaritan Hospital in Troy and Albany
Memorial Hospital.

The hospital companies admitted no wrongdoing.  The suit filed in
2006 is still pending against Ellis Hospital in Schenectady.

The nurses' attorney, Daniel Small, said on Feb. 23 that about $9
million is going in an escrow account for payouts pending the
conclusion of the case against Ellis.  Lawyers are requesting one-
third.  Mr. Small said his firm has similar lawsuits in various
stages in Chicago, Detroit, Memphis, Tenn., and San Antonio, while
other law firms also have cases.

After a law professor's article questioned why skilled nurses' pay
scales were lower than expected in a national nursing shortage,
the Service Employees International Union got interested in
litigation, Mr. Small said.  The union doesn't currently represent
registered nurses at the Albany-area hospitals that were sued.
Ellis nurses are members of the New York State Nurses Association,
he said.

"When we did investigate for the five cities we ended up filing
lawsuits in those," Mr. Small said.  "The investigations uncovered
evidence of conspiratorial activity to depress the wages of
nurses."

The suit alleges the hospitals in the greater Albany area were all
members of an association that published an annual survey of
upstate New York hospital salaries and benefits, including
customized reports about competitors.  The lawsuit also alleges
that the hospitals kept nursing pay artificially low and that the
hospitals paid entry-level RNs at an hourly rate that differed
from one another by no more than $1.

In 2009, a new RN at Ellis was earning $22.71 an hour, according
to its nurses' union.

"While Albany Medical Center continues to deny any wrongdoing as
we have from the outset of this case, we have agreed to settle
this lawsuit to limit the expense and distraction of additional
court proceedings," hospital spokeswoman Jennifer Freeman said.
"We will not put the cost to continue fighting this lawsuit before
the critical needs of our staff, patients and the public."


ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Accused of Violating New Mexico Forfeiture Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Albuquerque police and Bernalillo County officers make a habit of
seizing cash during arrests and failing to record it or return it.

A copy of the Complaint in Arguello, et al. v. City of
Albuquerque, et al., Case No. CV-2011-02077 (N.M. Dist. ct.,
Bernalillo Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/23/Easy.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph P. Kennedy, Esq.
          Shannon L. Kennedy, Esq.
          KENNEDY LAW FIRM
          1000 Second Street NW
          Albuquerque, NM 87102
          Telephone: (505) 244-1400


AMEDISYS INC: Response to Amended Complaint Due by March 21
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amedisys Inc. continues to defend itself from a consolidated class
action lawsuit pending in Louisiana, according to the Company's
February 22, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On June 7, 2010, a putative securities class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Louisiana against the Company and certain of its senior
executives.  Additional putative securities class actions were
filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Louisiana on July 14, July 16, and July 28, 2010.

On October 22, 2010, the Court issued an order consolidating the
putative securities class action lawsuits and the derivative
actions for pre-trial purposes.  In the same order, the Court
appointed the Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi
and the Puerto Rico Teachers' Retirement System as co-lead
plaintiffs for the putative class.  On December 10, 2010, the
Court also consolidated the ERISA class action lawsuit with the
putative securities class actions and derivative actions for pre-
trial purposes.

On January 18, 2011, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended,
consolidated class action complaint which supersedes the earlier-
filed securities class action complaints.  The Amended Complaint
alleges that the Company and certain of its senior executives made
false or misleading statements and failed to disclose material
facts about its business, financial condition, operations and
prospects, particularly relating to its policies and practices
regarding home therapy visits under the Medicare home health
prospective payment system and the related alleged impact on its
business, financial condition, operations and prospects.  The
Amended Complaint seeks a determination that the action may be
maintained as a class action on behalf of all persons who
purchased the Company's securities between August 2, 2005 and
September 28, 2010 . The Company must respond to the Amended
Complaint on or before March 21, 2011.  The Company intends to
vigorously defend itself, but no assurances can be given as to the
timing or outcome of this complaint.


AMERICAN BUSINESS: Judge Set to Enter Damages in Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that Madison County Circuit Judge Andreas Matoesian is set to
enter damages in a faxed ad class action spearheaded by Locklear
Electric of Wood River.

Locklear won default judgment in the suit filed in 2008 against
American Business Lending and Christopher Parks last year.

Locklear has led a number of class actions over what it claims are
illegally faxed advertisements in recent years.

The suits have been filed in both Madison and St. Clair Counties
and at least one other suit, filed in 2009 against the Taylorville
Chiropractic Clinic, remains pending in Madison County.

Matoesian is set to preside over the damages hearing March 4 at
9:00 a.m.

Neither American Business Lending nor Parks have entered an
appearance or filed any documents in the case to date.

The Taylorville suit has also seen little progress since its
filing two years ago.

Locklear has sought damages in excess of $50,000 and other relief
in the suits.

Lanny Darr represents Locklear in the 2008 case at hand.

Robert Sprague represents the company in the suit against
Taylorville.

The 2008 suit is Madison case number 08-L-1131.


B.O.B. TRAILERS: Recalls 357,000 Single and Double Strollers
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
B.O.B. Trailers Inc., of Boise, Idaho, announced a voluntary
recall of about 337,000 B.O.B.(R) single and double strollers in
the United States and 20,000 in Canada.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

A drawstring on the stroller can get wrapped around a child's
neck, posing a strangulation hazard.

The firm has received one report of an 11-month-old girl who got
entangled at the neck by the stroller's drawstring.  The child was
freed by her mother.

This recall involves the following 11 models of B.O.B.(R) single
and double strollers.  The name "B.O.B" appears on the cargo
basket under the stroller and on the front of the stroller.  All
of the recalled strollers have a yellow/orange drawstring at the
rear of the canopy which is used to gather loose fabric when the
canopy is pulled back.  Strollers have the serial number either
stamped in the frame or on a white label located on the stroller's
rear right leg.

            Model                       Serial # ranges
            -----                        ---------------

       Sport Utility Stroller             12362 - 35107
                                         AA00001 - AA025490
       Sport Utility Stroller D'Lux       12362 - 35107
                                         AB000001 - AB007940
           Ironman(R)                     800000 - 803700
                                         AC000001- AC027923
       Sport Utility Duallie               002001 - 008068
                                         AD000001 - AD011252
         Ironman(R) Duallie              AE000001 - AE008909
         Revolution                      AF000001 - AF189112
         Revolution 12"                  AK000001 - AK024149
         Stroller Strides(R)             AG000001 - AG011163
         Revolution Duallie              AH000001 - AH072921
         Revolution Duallie 12"          AL000001 - AL012657
         Stroller Strides(R) Duallie     AM000001 - AM003229

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11143.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and China and
sold through REI, buy Baby and other stores nationwide and on the
Web at Babiesrus.com, Target.com and Amazon.com between April 2002
and February 2011 for between $300 and $600.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled strollers and
remove the drawstring.  If using a separately purchased Weather
Shield or Sun Shield accessory with the recalled stroller, contact
B.O.B. Trailers for a free canopy retrofit kit.  For additional
information, or to order a canopy retrofit kit, contact B.O.B.
Trailers at (855) 242-2245 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,
Mountain Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site
at http://www.bobcanopy.com/


BP PLC: Plaintiff Panel Wants Judge to Okay Class Action Notice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff lawyers leading litigation over the Deepwater Horizon
explosion and oil spill have found a short cut to their goal of
pursuing class actions.

A notice that the plaintiff steering committee proposes to
publish, apparently concerning rig owner Transocean, encourages
readers to sue oil company BP and others.

The steering committee wants U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier to
approve the notice, but defendants have objected.

For BP, Don Haycraft of New Orleans wrote that the committee's
purpose wasn't to advertise a deadline for claims against
Transocean but to gain claimants.

"The plaintiff steering committee is free to advertise for clients
on its own within the relevant legal and ethical guidelines," he
wrote.

Transocean lawyer Steven Roberts of Houston wrote that there was
no need for any notice because the company already published a
clear and simple one.

Plaintiff lawyers who don't belong to the steering committee also
objected.

"The notice is unclear, misleading and lacks full disclosure of
the elements of the attorney client relationship," wrote
Peter Cambs of Bonita Springs, Fla.

Anthony Buzbee of Houston wrote that only the steering committee
would benefit from the notice, to the exclusion of other
attorneys.

Danny Becnel of Reserve wrote, "Much of the work being done by the
plaintiff steering committee is unnecessary and involves efforts
to garner fees rather than develop facts."

Transocean holds a unique position in the litigation because a 160
year old federal law limits the liability of a vessel's owner to
the value of the vessel.

Plaintiffs, states and local governments challenge the limit,
claiming the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 repealed the old law.

Judge Barbier, responsible for hundreds of suits from many federal
courts, can't proceed on claims against other defendants until he
determines Transocean's liability.

He set trial strictly on the limitation question for next
February.

He set an April 20 deadline for claims against Transocean.

The steering committee called for publication of notice ahead of
the deadline.

Their version carries a headline announcing, "To protect your
right to recover money and other damages against Transocean."

It says, "Filing this claim form will also join you in the master
lawsuit that has been filed against BP and the other defendants.

"You can participate in the federal lawsuit even if you already
filed a claim with BP's Gulf Coast Claims Facility.

"Filing the claim form will not prevent you from recovering money
through BP's Gulf Coast Claims Facility."

It provides a telephone number and recommends contacting a lawyer
for advice.

The notice widened a gap between a steering committee that seeks
to control the claims facility and individual lawyers who find its
performance satisfactory.

Mr. Cambs wrote, "Anyone filing a claim against Transocean would,
in effect, make the plaintiff steering committee his or her
counsel, for both the limitation and as to all other defendants in
the master lawsuit."

He wrote that it would result in unwarranted fees and reduce the
net recovery available to claimants.

Mr. Becnel wrote that there is no necessity for a master
complaint, and he endorsed the management of claims facility
administrator Kenneth Feinberg.

"The history of this case has been one of constant attempts and
maneuvers to unnecessarily extend and protract this litigation and
undermine the work of Mr. Feinberg and the Gulf Coast Claims
Facility," Mr. Becnel wrote.

He wrote that the notice doesn't disclose that one who files a
claim in the limitation proceeding actually does more than that.

He had checked a Web site that the notice advertised, but he found
it blank.

"What is the court approving and sanctioning by approval of this
notice directing potential claimants to an empty Web site?" he
wrote.


CAREER EDUCATION: Discovery Still Ongoing in "Schuster" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation disclosed in its Feb. 22, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010, that merits discovery is
still ongoing in the class action lawsuit Schuster, et al. v.
Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. and Career Education Corporation.

On March 5, 2008, original named plaintiffs Shannon Gozzi and
Megan Koehnen filed a complaint in Portland, Oregon in the Circuit
Court of the State of Oregon in and for Multnomah County.
Plaintiffs filed the complaint individually and as a putative
class action and alleged two claims for equitable relief:
violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act and unjust
enrichment. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 10,
2008, which added two claims for money damages: fraud and breach
of contract. Plaintiffs allege that Western Culinary Institute,
Ltd. made a variety of misrepresentations to them, relating
generally to WCI's placement statistics, students' employment
prospects upon graduation from WCI, the value and quality of an
education at WCI, and the amount of tuition students could expect
to pay as compared to salaries they may earn after graduation. WCI
subsequently moved to dismiss certain of plaintiffs' claims under
Oregon's UTPA; that motion was granted on September 12, 2008.
Shannon Gozzi subsequently withdrew as a named plaintiff and
former named plaintiff Meghan Koehnen's claims have been
dismissed. Jennifer Schuster became a plaintiff, and when Ms.
Koehnen's claims were dismissed, she became the sole named
plaintiff. The parties completed written discovery on class
issues. On February 5, 2010, the Court entered a formal Order
granting class certification on part of plaintiff's UTPA and fraud
claims purportedly based on omissions, denying certification of
the rest of those claims and denying certification of the breach
of contract and unjust enrichment claims. The class consists of
students who enrolled at WCI between March 5, 2006 and March 1,
2010, excluding those who dropped out or were dismissed from the
school for academic reasons. The class consists of approximately
2,600 members.

Because Ms. Schuster was not a member of the certified class (she
enrolled before March 5, 2006), Plaintiff's counsel recently
substituted in a new class representative for her named Nathan
Surrett pursuant to a stipulation among the parties which
provided, among other things, that WCI retains the right to
challenge whether the new class representative is adequate (with
Plaintiff retaining the burden of proof on that issue). Plaintiffs
filed a Fifth Amended Complaint on December 7, 2010, which
included individual and class allegations by Mr. Surrett. Class
notice is expected to be sent out shortly. The parties are
currently engaged in merits discovery.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already
arisen, and that may arise in the future, the outcome of this
legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information
available at present, the Company says it cannot reasonably
estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for this action
because of the inherent difficulty in assessing the appropriate
measure of damages and the number of class members who might be
entitled to recover damages, if the Company was to be found
liable. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any liability
associated with this action.


CAREER EDUCATION: Still Defends Two Suits Over Text Message Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation is continues to defend itself against
two class action lawsuits -- Fahey, et al., v. Career Education
Corporation; and Rojas, et al., v. Career Education Corporation --
involving unauthorized text message advertising, according to the
Company's Feb. 22, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

On August 4, 2010, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, by Sheila Fahey
alleging that she had received an unauthorized text message
advertisement in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act. On September 3, 2010, CEC removed this case to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On
November 22, 2010, CEC filed a motion to dismiss the Fahey case.
That motion is still pending. On August 18, 2010, the same counsel
representing plaintiffs in the Fahey action filed a similar
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on behalf of Sergio Rojas containing similar allegations.
Rojas, like Fahey, seeks class certification of his claims. The
alleged classes are defined to include persons who received
unauthorized text message advertisements from CEC. Rojas and Fahey
each seek an award trebling the statutory damages to the class
members, together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. The
Rojas case is in the earliest stages of discovery.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the
outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. The
Company says that based on information available to it at present,
it cannot reasonably estimate a potential range of loss for this
action because these matters are in their early stages, and
involve many unresolved issues of fact and law. Moreover, the
Company says that it does not know the number of class members, if
any, entitled to recovery. Accordingly, the Company has not
accrued any liability associated with these actions.


CAREER EDUCATION: Hearing on Class Discovery Expected 2nd Quarter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing on class discovery in a lawsuit against Career Education
Corporation is expected to be set during the second quarter,
according to the Company's Feb. 22, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2010.

On June 23, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
Los Angeles County Superior Court entitled Daniel Vasquez and
Cherish Herndon v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. and
Career Education Corporation. The plaintiffs allege causes of
action for fraud, constructive fraud, violation of the California
Unfair Competition Law and violation of the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiffs allege improper conduct in
connection with the admissions process during the alleged class
period. The alleged class is defined as including "all persons who
purchased educational services from California School of Culinary
Arts, Inc., or graduated from CSCA, within the limitations periods
applicable to the herein alleged causes of action (including,
without limitation, the period following the filing of the
action)." Defendants successfully demurred to the constructive
fraud claim and the Court has dismissed it. Defendants also
successfully demurred to Plaintiffs' claims based on alleged
violations of California's former Educational Reform Act.
Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on January 28, 2011.
The parties are engaged in class discovery and the Court is
expected to set a hearing on class discovery during the second
quarter of 2011.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the
outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. The
Company says that based on information available to it at present,
it cannot reasonably estimate a potential range of loss for this
action because these matters are in their early stages, and
involve many unresolved issues of fact and law. Moreover, the
Company says that it does not know the number of class members, if
any, entitled to recovery. Accordingly, the Company has not
accrued any liability associated with this action.


CAREER EDUCATION: To Appeal Class Certification in "Lilley" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in the lawsuit Lilley, et al. v. Career Education
Corporation, et al., are expected to file an appeal from a class
certification order, according to the Company's Feb. 22, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

On February 11, 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the
Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois, naming as defendants
Career Education Corporation and Sanford-Brown College, Inc.
Plaintiffs filed amended complaints on September 5, 2008 and
September 24, 2010. The five plaintiffs named in the amended
complaint are former students who attended a medical assistant
program at Sanford-Brown College located in Collinsville,
Illinois. The class is alleged to be all persons who enrolled in
that program since July 1, 2003. The amended class action
complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of the Illinois
Private Business and Vocational Schools Act, for alleged unfair
conduct and deceptive conduct under the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act, as well as common law claims
of fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent omission.

In the amended complaint filed on September 24, 2010, the
plaintiffs allege that the school's enrollment agreements
contained false and misleading information regarding placement
statistics, job opportunities and salaries and that Admissions,
Financial Aid and Career Services personnel used standardized
materials that allegedly contained false and/or deceptive
information. Plaintiffs also allege that the school misused a
standardized admissions test to determine program placement when
the test was not intended for that purpose; failed to provide
allegedly statutorily required loan repayment information; and
misrepresented the transferability of credits. Plaintiffs seek
compensatory, treble and punitive damages, disgorgement and
restitution of all tuition monies received from medical assistant
students, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
October 20, 2010. On October 27, 2010 the Court granted
defendants' motion with respect to plaintiffs' fraudulent omission
claims. The Court denied the motion with respect to the statutory
claims under the Private Schools Act and the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act and the common law fraudulent misrepresentation claim.

By Order dated December 3, 2010, the Court certified a class
consisting of all persons who attended SBC in Collinsville,
Illinois and enrolled in the Medical Assisting Program during the
period from July 1, 2003 through November 29, 2010. This class
consists of approximately 2,300 members. Defendants filed a
petition for leave to appeal the trial court's class certification
order to the Fifth District Court of Appeals.  On February 10,
2011, the Fifth District Court of Appeals granted defendants'
petition for leave to appeal.  While that appeal is pending, all
proceedings in the Circuit Court are stayed.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the
outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. The
Company says that based on information available to it at present,
it cannot reasonably estimate a potential range of loss for this
action because these matters are in their early stages, and
involve many unresolved issues of fact and law. Moreover, the
Company says that it does not know the number of class members, if
any, entitled to recovery. Accordingly, the Company has not
accrued any liability associated with this action.


CAREER EDUCATION: Awaits Approval of Settlement in Two Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation continues to await court approval of
its $40.8 million settlement of the class action lawsuits entitled
Amador, et al. v. California Culinary Academy and Career Education
Corporation; and Adams, et al., v. California Culinary Academy and
Career Education Corporation.

On September 27, 2007, Allison Amador and 36 other current and
former students of the California Culinary Academy filed a
complaint in the California Superior Court in San Francisco.
Plaintiffs plead their original complaint as a putative class
action and allege four causes of action: fraud; constructive
fraud; violation of the California Unfair Competition Law; and
violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
Plaintiffs contend that CCA made a variety of misrepresentations
to them, primarily oral, during the admissions process. The
alleged misrepresentations relate generally to the school's
reputation, the value of the education, the competitiveness of the
admissions process, and the students' employment prospects upon
graduation, including the accuracy of statistics published by CCA.

On April 3, 2008, the same counsel representing plaintiffs in the
Amador action filed the Adams action on behalf of Jennifer Adams
and several other unnamed members of the Amador putative class.
The Adams action also is styled as a class action and is based on
the same allegations underlying the Amador action and attempts to
plead the same four causes of action pled in the Amador action.
The Adams action has been deemed related to the Amador action and
is being handled by the same judge. The Adams action has been
stayed.

Plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint on or about March 19,
2010, alleging the same causes of action, but included a new claim
based on violations of the California Education Code, which was
recently reinstated by the California legislature. Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss this new claim. The motion was taken
under submission by the Court and has not been ruled on.

In October 2010, the parties reached agreement on all the material
terms of a settlement and executed a formal settlement agreement
as of November 1, 2010. The settlement is subject to court
approval. The monetary component of the settlement involves
payment by the Company of approximately $40.8 million to pay
claims by all students who enrolled in CCA and/or graduated from
CCA from September 28, 2003 through October 8, 2008. The payment
includes plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and certain expenses to be
incurred in connection with the implementation of the settlement.
During 2010, the Company recorded a pretax charge of $40.8 million
which represents the Company's best estimate of the loss related
to this matter.

No updates were reported in the Company's Feb. 22, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.


CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Asks for Addt'l Docs in PPO Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that Madison County Circuit Judge William Mudge is asking for more
documents from parties battling over a disputed settlement claim
worth more than $500,000 in a Preferred Provider Organization
(PPO) class action.

Judge Mudge signed his order seeking documents related to that
claim Feb. 18.

The Illinois Bone and Joint Institute (IBJI) claims that
defendants Cincinnati Insurance Company and Cincinnati Casualty
Company wrongly denied its settlement claim to the tune of what is
now more than $500,000.

IBJI was part of a 32,000 member class that sued the insurance
companies for allegedly taking improper PPO discounts.

The class was led by chiropractor Frank Bemis and his practice.

Judge Mudge heard arguments on the matter in January.

The suit is one of a series of class actions filed in the early
part of the last decade on claims that insurance companies took
improper discounts from workers' compensation injury and other
claims.

The suits were filed by the firms of Freed & Weiss in Chicago and
the then-Lakin Law Firm of Wood River.

That partnership dissolved in 2007.  The Lakin firm became
LakinChapman LLC.

The Cincinnati settlement totaled about $3.5 million.

Bemis got $5,000 as lead plaintiff.

Class counsels Bradley Lakin and Robert Schmieder II took home
more than $700,000 in fees.

The Cincinnati defendants allege that IBJI did not comply with the
claims procedure and missed deadlines in filing documentation.

The insurance companies say they denied the settlement claims for
that reason.

The defense also cites the $57,000 it paid out of the $458,000
claim.'

IBJI now says it has found more discounted claims bringing the
total it seeks to over $500,000.

The insurers contend they denied the rest due to the improper
documentation sent by IBJI.

Judge Mudge took the issue under advisement and asked parties to
submit the disputed documents for review.

In the Feb. 14 order, Judge Mudge explains he has not had enough
time to review the supporting documents for the claims and he
wants to review more documents within 21 days.

Judge Mudge took over the case from Madison County Circuit Judge
Barbara Crowder after she became the county's asbestos judge last
year.

Omar Odland represents Cincinnati.

Mr. Schmieder II appeared for the class and IBJI at the Jan. 19
hearing on the claim.

The case is Madison case number 05-L-178.


CLEARWIRE CORP: Continues to Await Ruling on Minnick Suit Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clearwire Corporation continues to await a ruling on an appeal
from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit in Washington,
according to the Company's February 22, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2010.

On April 22, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Clearwire U.S. LLC in Superior Court in King County,
Washington by a group of five plaintiffs from Hawaii, Minnesota,
North Carolina and Washington (Chad Minnick, et al.).  The lawsuit
generally alleges that the Company disseminated false advertising
about the quality and reliability of its services; imposed an
unlawful early termination fee or "ETF;" and invoked
unconscionable provisions of its Terms of Service to the detriment
of subscribers.  Among other things, the lawsuit seeks a
determination that the alleged claims may be asserted on a class-
wide basis; an order declaring certain provisions of the Company's
Terms of Service, including the ETF provision, void and
unenforceable; an injunction prohibiting the Company from
collecting ETFs and further false advertising; restitution of any
early termination fees paid by the Company's subscribers;
equitable relief; and an award of unspecified damages and
attorneys' fees.  On May 27, 2009, an amended complaint was filed
and served, adding seven additional plaintiffs, including
individuals from New Mexico, Virginia and Wisconsin.  On June 2,
2009, plaintiffs served the amended complaint.  The Company
removed the action to the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington.  On
July 23, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.  The Court stayed discovery pending its ruling on the
motion.  The Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss in its
entirety on February 2, 2010.  Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal
to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Oral argument before the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals took place on November 3, 2010.
The Court has not yet ruled on the appeal.

No updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC filing.

The case is in the early stages of litigation, its outcome is
unknown and an estimate of any potential loss cannot be made at
this time, the Company related.


CLEARWIRE CORP: Response Deadline to Kwan Class Suit Is March 3
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clearwire Corporation has until March 3, 2011, to answer a fourth
amended class action complaint brought by certain plaintiffs for
unlawful placing of phone calls for collection purposes, according
to the Company's February 22, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

On September 1, 2009, Clearwire was served with a purported class
action lawsuit filed in King County Superior Court, brought by
representative plaintiff Rosa Kwan.  The complaint alleges that
the Company placed unlawful telephone calls using automatic
dialing and announcing devices and engaged in unlawful collection
practices.  It seeks declaratory, injunctive, and/or equitable
relief and actual and statutory damages under federal and state
law.  On October 1, 2009, the Company removed the case to the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington.  On October 22, 2009, the Court issued a stipulated
order granting plaintiff until October 29, 2009 to file an Amended
Complaint.  The parties further stipulated to allow a Second
Amended Complaint, which plaintiffs filed on December 23, 2009.
The Company then filed a motion to dismiss that was fully briefed
on January 15, 2010.  On February 22, 2010 the Court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss in part, dismissing certain claims
with prejudice and granting plaintiff leave to further amend the
complaint.  Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint, adding
additional state law claims and joining Bureau of Recovery or
"BOR", a purported collection agency, as a co-defendant.  The
parties have stipulated that plaintiff may file a Fourth Amended
Complaint, adding two new class representatives.

Clearwire's response to the Fourth Amended Complaint is due on
March 3, 2011.  Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is due
April 7, 2011.

The Company says the case is in the early stages of litigation,
its outcome is unknown and an estimate of any potential loss
cannot be made at this time.


CLEARWIRE CORP: Dennings Plaintiffs to Amend Complaint on March 3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Angelo Dennings, on behalf of similarly situated defendants, is
expected to file, on March 3, 2011, an amended class complaint
alleging network management violations against Clearwire
Corporation, according to the Company's February 22, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On November 15, 2010 a purported class action was filed by Angelo
Dennings against Clearwire in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington.  The complaint generally alleges
that the Company's slow network speeds when network demand is
highest and that such network management violates the Company's
agreements with subscribers and is contrary to the Company's
advertising and marketing claims.  Plaintiffs also allege that
subscribers do not review the Terms of Service prior to
subscribing, and when subscribers cancel service due to network
management, the Company charges an Early Termination Fee or
restocking fee that the Plaintiffs claim is unconscionable under
the circumstances.  The claims asserted include violations of the
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, breach of contract, breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment.
Plaintiffs seek class certification; unspecified damages and
restitution; a declaratory judgment that Clearwire's ETF and
restocking fee are unconscionable under the alleged circumstances;
an injunction prohibiting Clearwire from engaging in alleged
deceptive marketing and from charging ETFs; interest; and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiff had indicated that it will file an Amended Complaint
adding additional class representatives by March 3, 2011.  If the
Amended Complaint is filed, Clearwire's responsive motions are due
by March 31, 2011.

The case is in the early stages of litigation, its outcome is
unknown and an estimate of any potential loss cannot be made at
this time, the Company relates.


CNA FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend NJ Antitrust Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation continues to defend an antitrust class
litigation in New Jersey, the Company reported in its February 22,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

In August 2005, the Company and certain insurance subsidiaries
were joined as defendants, along with other insurers and brokers,
in multidistrict litigation pending in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, In re Insurance Brokerage
Antitrust Litigation, Civil No. 04-5184 (GEB).  The plaintiffs'
consolidated class action complaint alleges bid rigging and
improprieties in the payment of contingent commissions in
connection with the sale of insurance that violated federal and
state antitrust laws, the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO) Act and state common law.  After discovery,
the District Court dismissed the federal antitrust claims and the
RICO claims, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over the state law claims.  The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal
of their complaint to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.  In
August 2010, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's
dismissal of the antitrust claims and the RICO claims against CAN
Financial and certain insurance subsidiaries, but vacated the
dismissal of those claims against other parties.  The Court of
Appeals also vacated and remanded the dismissal of the state law
claims against CNA Financial and certain insurance subsidiaries
and other parties to allow for further proceedings before the
District Court.  During the fourth quarter of 2010, CNA Financial
and certain of its insurance subsidiaries filed a motion to
dismiss the state law claims.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the action and
intends to defend the case vigorously.

CNA Financial is engaged through its subsidiaries in commercial
and specialty property and casualty insurance.


COVIDIEN PLC: Faces Class Action Over Non-Payment of Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Covidien plc is looking at a class action suit over alleged
non-payment of wages.

Current and former employees of Covidien and staffing services
firms Kimco Staffing Services Inc. and KimstaffHR Inc. of Orange
County, Calif., filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court for
Central California seeking restitution for allegedly unpaid wages
and overtime pay and failure to properly calculate hours worked.

Plaintiffs Gerald Fleming, Robert Morales, Eddie Ramirez and
Sergio Montenegro, all current and former "Materials Specialists,"
for Covidien, are seeking class action certification on behalf of
other Covidien workers employed between August 5, 2006, and
approximately Nov. 12, 2009.

The plaintiffs were or are still employed at Covidien's San
Bernardino County, Calif. facility. They allege that Covidien and
the staffing firms also failed to provide them with proper
documentation concerning hours worked and their compensation. That
allegedly led to non-payment and payment miscalculations,
according to court documents.

The jury trial is set to begin July 26, according to the
documents.


DEL MONTE: D&Os Face Third Suit Over Sale of Company to KKR
-----------------------------------------------------------
NECA-IBEW Pension Fund (The Decatur Plan) on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated v. Del Monte Foods Company, et al., Case
No. 6027-VCL (Del. Ch. Ct. February 21, 2011), accuses the members
of Del Monte's Board of Directors of breach of fiduciary duties in
connection with their decision to cause the Company to enter into
a definitive merger agreement with defendant Blue Acquisition
Group, Inc., an entity formed by a consortium of private equity
funds affiliated with defendants Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
L.P. ("KKR"), Vestar Capital Partners, and Centerview Partners, in
a transaction where the shareholders of Del Monte would receive
$19 per share.  The deal is valued at approximately $5.3 billion,
including assumption of $1.3 billion in net debt.

A redacted version of the Complaint was filed Feb. 18, 2011.  The
subject complaint is the amended complaint e-filed Feb. 21, 2011.

According to the plaintiff, the $19.00 per share price offered by
the Sponsors is grossly unfair to Del Monte's shareholders and
significantly undervalues the Company, and does not reflect the
Company's intrinsic value and the value of the Company as the
target of a full and fair auction process.  Moreover, the
plaintiff says, Del Monte's officers and directors, who are
beneficial owners of an illiquid block of over 9.5 million shares
of Del Monte stock, stand to gain over $180 million from the
proposed transaction, of which almost $90 million, or 50%,
represents special payments, which Del Monte's public shareholders
will not receive, for currently unvested options and stock units,
all of which will be deemed vested upon the closing of the
proposed transaction.

Plaintiff also brings this action against Barclays Capital, Inc.,
the Company's financial advisor, KKR, Vestar and Centerview, and
certain of their affiliates, for aiding and abetting the Board's
breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and tortious
interference with contract.

The Plaintiff says that the Board breached their fiduciary duties
owed to Del Monte's shareholders by "making affirmative decisions
at crucial moments in the sale process that were decidedly
contrary to shareholders' interests and not reasonably calculated
to the maximization of shareholder value."

Further, according to the Plaintiff, the Del Monte directors
failed to exercise adequate oversight over Barclays, and thereby
permitted Barclays to induce KKR, Vestar and Centerview to breach
confidentiality agreements and "to engage in outright fraud such
that the process resulting in the sale of Del Monte was
irreconcilably corrupted."  Finally, the Complaint adds, Del Monte
directors, "having been educated through this litigation regarding
the corrupted sales process that resulted from their lack of
oversight of Barclays", failed to take affirmative action to
reevaluate the merits of and their recommendation regarding the
proposed transaction, failed to take any action designed to remedy
the tainted sales process, and failed to take any action against
Barclays or any of the Sponsors relating to their "deceitful"
conduct and their breach of contractual obligations to the Company
and, as third party beneficiaries, the Company's shareholders.

Del Monte, together with its consolidated subsidiaries, is one of
the country's largest producers, distributors and marketers of
premium quality branded pet products and food products for
the U.S. retail market, generating $3.7 billion in net sales in
fiscal 2010.

Defendant Barclays is an investment banking firm that, as part of
its investment banking activities, provides valuations of
businesses and their securities in connection with, among
other things, mergers and acquisitions.  Barclays also provides
financing to, among others, financial buyers in mergers and
leveraged buy-outs.

Defendant KKR is a leading global alternative asset manager with
$55.5 billion in assets under management as of September 30, 2010.

Defendant Vestar is a leading international private equity firm
specializing in management buyouts and growth capital investments
with $7 billion in assets under management.

Defendant Centerview operates a private equity business and an
investment banking advisory practice.

Defendant Blue Acquisition Group is a Delaware corporation that
wholly owns defendant Blue Merger Sub.  Blue Acquisition Group and
Blue Merger Sub are being used to facilitate the merger with Del
Monte.  The Sponsors control both of these entities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hung G. Ta, Esq.
          Brenda Szydlo, Esq.
          Michele Carino, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          485 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722-8500

               - and -

          Stuart M. Grant, Esq.
          Michael J. Barry, Esq.
          Diane Zilka, Esq.
          Christine Mackintosh, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          1201 North Market Street, Suite 2100
          Wilmington, DE 19801-2599
          Telephone: (302) 622-7000

               - and -

          Randall J. Baron, Esq.
          A. Rick Atwood, Jr., Esq.
          David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
          Edward M. Gergosian, Esq.
          David A. Knotts, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058

               - and -

          Patrick J. O'Hara, Esq.
          CAVANAGH & O'HARA
          407 East Adams Street
          Springfield, IL 62701
          Telephone: (217) 544-1771


DIEBOLD INC: Court Enters Final Approval of ERISA Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Diebold, Incorporated obtained final court approval of its
settlement of a consolidated class-action lawsuit alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,
according to the Company's Feb. 22, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

The Company has been served with various lawsuits, filed against
it and certain current and former officers and directors, by
shareholders and participants in the Company's 401(k) savings
plan.  These complaints seek compensatory damages in unspecified
amounts, fees and expenses related to the lawsuits and the
granting of extraordinary equitable or injunctive relief:
   
   * McDermott v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV170 (N.D. Ohio,
     filed January 24, 2006).

   * Barnett v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV361 (N.D. Ohio,
     filed February 15, 2006).

   * Farrell v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV307 (N.D. Ohio,
     filed February 8, 2006).

   * Forbes v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV324 (N.D. Ohio,
     filed February 10, 2006).

   * Gromek v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV579 (N.D. Ohio,
     filed March 14, 2006).

The McDermott, Barnett, Farrell, Forbes and Gromek cases, which
allege breaches of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 with respect to the 401(k) plan, have
been consolidated into a single proceeding.  In May 2009, the
Company agreed to settle the 401(k) class action litigation for
$4,500,000 to be paid out of the Company's insurance policies.  On
February 11, 2011, the court entered an order approving the
settlement.


DIEBOLD INC: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suit in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diebold Incorporated continues to defend itself from a shareholder
class action lawsuit pending in Ohio, according to the Company's
Feb. 22, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On June 30, 2010, a shareholder filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio alleging violations of the federal securities
laws against the Company, certain current and former officers, and
the Company's independent auditors (Louisiana Municipal Police
Employees Retirement System v. KPMG et al., No. 10-CV-1461).  The
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of a
class of persons who purchased the Company's stock between
June 30, 2005, and January 15, 2008, and fees and expenses related
to the lawsuit.  The complaint generally relates to the matters
set forth in the court documents filed by the SEC in June 2010,
finalizing the settlement of civil charges stemming from the
investigation of the Company conducted by the Division of
Enforcement of the SEC (SEC Settlement).


DIEBOLD INC: Awaits Court Approval of Wage & Hour Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Diebold Incorporated is awaiting finalization and court approval
of a settlement of a wage and hour lawsuit filed against the
Company in California, according to Diebold's Feb. 22, 2011 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On August 28, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California alleging that a class of all California technicians
employed by the Company who were scheduled to be on standby were:
(a) not paid for all hours that they worked; (b) not paid overtime
compensation at the correct rate of pay; (c) not properly paid for
missed meal and rest breaks and (d) not given correct paycheck
stubs (Francisco v. Diebold, Incorporated, Case No. CV 1889 WQH
WMC).  The complaint seeks additional overtime and other
compensation under the California Labor Code, various civil
penalties and attorneys' fees and expenses, and a request for an
injunction for future compliance with the California Labor Code
provisions that were alleged to have been violated.  A mediation
was held in the first quarter of 2011, which resulted in a
tentative settlement, subject to agreement on final settlement
terms and court approval, that is not considered material to the
consolidated financial statements.


DIOCESE OF ANTIGONISH: To Pay Class Action Claims in Two Years
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Beswick, writing for TheChronicleHerald.ca, reports that the
Diocese of Antigonish plans on paying off the $15.5-million
settlement it reached with members of a class action over sexual
abuse by clergy in less than two years.

According to an update recently posted on a diocesan Web site, the
settlement will be paid in three installments, the first on
May 31, 2011, the next on Nov. 1, 2011, and the final payment on
Nov. 1, 2012.

The settlement, certified by the Nova Scotia Supreme Court last
year, covers dozens of people who claimed to have been sexually
assaulted by a priest of the Catholic Episcopal Corp. of
Antigonish since Jan. 1, 1950.

The update also states that a streamlined review process has been
agreed to by church and claimant lawyers for determining
individual payouts to members of the class action.

Under that process, the church won't force claimants it considers
valid to disclose all the documents related to their abuse,
undergo examination by its lawyers or provide psychological,
medical and economic reports about the consequence of the abuse.

"If we acknowledge that these victims have suffered, why would we
put them through another three to six months of verifying and
getting documents?" Father Paul Abbass, diocesan spokesman, said
on Feb. 22.

"The whole principal of this agreement is that we, as a church,
take responsibility for the crimes against these young people."

Claimants taking part in the streamlined process will be paid an
additional $10,000 on top of their settlement awards.

The claims the church considers questionable will be processed
separately.

The diocese intends to have all claims negotiated, reviewed and
approved by Justice Walter Goodfellow by May 8, 2011.

The diocese's goal is to raise $18.5 million to cover the
$12-million settlement reached in the class action as well as
$3.5 million in legal fees associated with it. In addition, the
diocese is setting aside another $3 million for private lawsuits
not connected to the class action.

Father Abbass said nearly $2 million has been raised since the
diocese began selling properties last year to cover the settlement
costs.

"It's moving along the way we hoped it would and in some ways a
little bit better," said Father Abbass.  "Sales are a little
slower now, but we've been advised that this would be a slower
time of year.  There are lots of properties you can't really see
this time of year."

He said the sale of properties has been difficult for parishioners
because they had fundraised and donated properties to the diocese
over the decades, only to have them sold due to the actions of a
handful of clergy members.

The properties for sale can be viewed at:

               http://www.churchpropertysales.info/

Not included are churches and parish halls, which Father Abbass
said the diocese will only sell as a last resort.

"We'll do everything we can to avoid selling churches, but it's
too soon for me to say with any certainty that we won't sell the
halls," said Father Abbass.

"We will grow in the sense that people will be a lot more
demanding of accountability and greater transparency and they'll
look to us to do more than just talk."

In October, the diocese released the Responsible Ministry and Safe
Environment Protocol.  It lays out the rules all clergy, employees
and volunteers of the church must follow.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Discovery in "Freudenberg" Suit Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in a consolidated securities class action lawsuit
against E*TRADE Financial Corporation captioned Freudenberg v.
E*Trade Financial Corporation et al., remains ongoing, according
to the Company's Feb. 22, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

On October 2, 2007, a class action complaint alleging violations
of the federal securities laws was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company and its then Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer, Mitchell H. Caplan and Robert J. Simmons, by Larry
Freudenberg on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated. On July 17, 2008, the trial court consolidated this
action with four other purported class actions, all of which were
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York and which were based on the same facts and
circumstances. On January 16, 2009, plaintiffs served their
consolidated amended class action complaint in which they also
named Dennis Webb, the Company's former Capital Markets Division
President, as a defendant. Plaintiffs contend, among other things,
that the value of the Company's stock between April 19, 2006 and
November 9, 2007 was artificially inflated because the defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose that the Company was experiencing a rise in delinquency
rates in its mortgage and home equity portfolios; failed to timely
record an impairment on its mortgage and home equity portfolios;
materially overvalued its securities portfolio, which included
assets backed by mortgages; and based on the foregoing, lacked a
reasonable basis for the positive statements made about the
Company's earnings and prospects. Plaintiffs seek to recover
damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest and
attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants filed their motion to
dismiss on April 2, 2009, and briefing on defendants' motion to
dismiss was completed on August 31, 2009. On May 11, 2010, the
Court issued an order denying defendants' motion to dismiss. The
Company filed an Answer to the Complaint on June 25, 2010. Fact
discovery and expert discovery are expected to conclude on May 15,
2012. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against
these claims.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss "Oughtred" Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
E*Trade Financial Corporation is still awaiting a ruling on its
request to dismiss an amended securities class action complaint by
John W. Oughtred, according to the Company's Feb. 22, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

On April 2, 2008, a class action complaint alleging violations of
the federal securities laws was filed by John W. Oughtred on his
own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company. Plaintiff contends, among other things, that
the Company committed various sales practice violations in the
sale of certain auction rate securities to investors between
April 2, 2003, and February 13, 2008 by allegedly misrepresenting
that these securities were highly liquid and safe investments for
short term investing. On December 18, 2008, plaintiffs filed their
first amended class action complaint. Defendants filed their
pending motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint on
February 5, 2009, and briefing on defendants' motion to dismiss
was completed on April 15, 2009. Plaintiffs seek to recover
damages in an amount to be proven at trial, or, in the
alternative, rescission of auction rate securities purchases, plus
interest and attorney's fees and costs. On March 18, 2010, the
District Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice. On
April 22, 2010, Plaintiffs amended their complaint. The Company
has moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Decision on this
motion is pending. The Company intends to continue to vigorously
defend itself against the claims raised in this action.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Initial Discovery in "Roling" Suit Ends March 6
------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial discovery in a class action lawsuit against E*TRADE
Securities LLC will end on March 6, 2011, according to E*TRADE
Financial Corporation's Feb. 22, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2010.

On February 3, 2010, a class action complaint was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against E*TRADE Securities LLC by Joseph Roling on his
own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated.  The
lead plaintiff alleges that E*TRADE Securities LLC unlawfully
charged and collected certain account activity fees from its
customers. Claimant, on behalf of himself and the putative class,
asserts breach of contract, unjust enrichment and violation of
California Civil Code Section 1671 and seeks equitable and
injunctive relief for alleged illegal, unfair and fraudulent
practices under California's Unfair Competition Law, California
Business and Professional Code Section 17200 et seq.  The
plaintiff seeks, among other things, certification of the class
action on behalf of alleged similarly situated plaintiffs,
unspecified damages and restitution of amounts allegedly
wrongfully collected by E*TRADE Securities LLC, attorneys fees and
expenses and injunctive relief.  The Company moved to transfer
venue on the case to the Southern District of New York; that
motion was denied. The Court granted E*TRADE's motion to dismiss
in part and denied the motion to dismiss in part. The Court
bifurcated discovery to permit initial discovery on individual
claims and class certification. Discovery on the merits will not
commence until a class could be certified; the Court set March 6,
2011 as the date on which the initial phase of discovery will
conclude. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against
the claims raised in this action.


ELI LILLY: Zyprexa Plaintiffs' Reconsideration Request Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the Zyprexa lawsuit against Eli Lilly & Co. are
seeking review of a judgment entered in favor of the Company,
according to the Company's Feb. 22, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

In 2005, two lawsuits were filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York purporting to be
nationwide class actions on behalf of all consumers and third-
party payors, excluding governmental entities, which have made or
will make payments for their members or insured patients being
prescribed Zyprexa.  These actions were consolidated into a single
lawsuit, brought under certain state consumer protection statutes,
the federal civil RICO statute, and common law theories, seeking a
refund of the cost of Zyprexa, treble damages, punitive damages,
and attorneys' fees.  Two additional lawsuits were filed in the
EDNY in 2006 on similar grounds.  As with the product liability
suits, these lawsuits allege that Eli Lilly inadequately tested
for and warned about side effects of Zyprexa and improperly
promoted the drug.  In September 2008, Judge Weinstein certified a
class consisting of third-party payors, excluding governmental
entities and individual consumers and denied the Company's motion
for summary judgment.  In September 2010, both decisions were
reversed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which found that
the case cannot proceed as a class action and entered a judgment
in the Company's favor on plaintiffs' overpricing claim.
Plaintiffs are seeking review of this decision by the U.S. Supreme
Court.


EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Board Sued Over Sale of Company to CD&R
----------------------------------------------------------
Larry Pieri, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Emergency Medical Services Corporation, et al., Case No. 6205-
(Del. Ch. Ct. February 22, 2011), accuses the Board of Directors
of EMS of breaching their fiduciary duties to the Company's public
shareholders in connection with the proposed buyout of the EMS by
Clayton, Dubilier & Rice, LLC.  Under the terms of a definitive
merger agreement announced on Feb. 14, 2011, EMS shareholders will
receive $64.00 in cash for each share of EMS common stock they
hold.  The transaction is valued at approximately $3.2 billion.

Mr. Pieri says the offer price is more than 9% below the $70.66
price at which EMS shares were trading on Feb, 11, 2011, the last
day of trading before the announcement of the proposed
transaction.

Moreover, according to Mr. Pieri, Onex Corporation, EMS' largest
shareholder, owning approximately 31% of EMS outstanding common
stock and, on information and belief, wielding the right to 80% of
the voting power, has entered into a Voting Agreement in support
of the proposed transaction.  Allegedly, Onex Corp. will receive
benefits in connection with the proposed transaction that are not
being shared by the Company's other shareholders, namely with
respect to the percentage of the $300 million in transaction costs
that Onex Corp. will receive independent of the $878 million it
will receive for its EMS shares.

The Complaint says that the Merger Agreement contains certain
provisions that unfairly favor CDR by making an alternative
transaction either prohibitively expensive or otherwise
impossible.  These include a termination fee provision that
requires EMS to pay $116,505,000, or approximately 3.75% of the
total value of the proposed transaction, to CDR if the Merger
Agreement is terminated under certain circumstances.

The Merger Agreement also contains a "no shop" provision that
restricts EMS from considering alternative acquisition proposals,
by, among others, constraining EMS' ability to solicit or
communicate with potential buyers or consider their proposals.

Moreover, defendants have also agreed to provide CDR access to any
unsolicited bidder's financial information giving CDR the ability
to top any superior offer.

EMS, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Greenwood Village,
Colo., is a provider of emergency medical services in the United
States.

CDR, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, is one of the oldest
private equity investment firms in the world.  Since inception,
CDR has managed the investment of approximately $15 billion in 48
U.S. and European businesses representing a broad range of
industries with an aggregate transaction value of approximately
$80 billion.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jason L. Brodsky, Esq.
          Marc L. Ackerman
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 667-6200


FANNIE MAE: Faces Consumer Fraud Class Action
---------------------------------------------
Christopher Maag, writing for Credit.com, reports that Ohio
Attorney General Mike DeWine said in Congress that the mortgage
giant Fannie Mae is wasting millions of dollars of taxpayer money
on an excessive legal defense for its former leaders.

"Simply put, Fannie Mae and its former executives have been using
American taxpayer dollars to pay their highly compensated cadre of
lawyers to over-lawyer their indefensible actions," Mr. DeWine
said in testimony before the Oversight and Investigations
Subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee.  "It is
wrong, it is unconscionable and I urge the committee and Congress
to bring it to an end."

Mr. DeWine is the lead lawyer representing 29 million investors in
a class-action lawsuit against Fannie Mae, three former executives
and the companies accounting firm, KMPG.  The suit accuses the
defendants of consumer fraud.  It's been winding through the
courts for six years -- so long that Mr. DeWine is actually the
third attorney general from Ohio to play the role as lead
litigant.

In his testimony, Mr. DeWine described recent trial conferences in
which 35 to 40 lawyers and paralegals representing Fannie Mae
crammed into the judge's chambers to discuss the case.  The
plaintiffs brought three.

Taxpayers foot the bill for both sides.  The plaintiff's lawyers
are with Mr. DeWine's office.  Fannie Mae's army of lawyers is
paid by the federal government, which took ownership of the
company in 2008.  They have charged at least $132 million in legal
fees since the case began.

"Fannie Mae and the executives whom it is indemnifying are using
taxpayer resources to lawyer this case to death and delaying
justice for those whom they defrauded in the first place more than
six years ago, while simultaneously swindling every American
taxpayer," Mr. DeWine said.


FMC CORP: Class Action Lawsuits in Canada Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
FMC Corporation continues to face class action lawsuits in Canada,
according to the Company's Feb. 22, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

In February 2005, putative direct and indirect purchaser class
action complaints were filed against six U.S. hydrogen peroxide
producers (and certain of their foreign affiliates) in various
federal courts alleging violations of antitrust laws.  Related
cases were also filed in various state courts.  In January 2009,
FMC reached an agreement to settle with the direct purchaser class
for $10 million, with a pro rata credit for opt outs.  The $10
million figure was included as a component of "Restructuring and
other charges (income)" in the Company's consolidated statements
of income for the year ended December 31, 2008.  Ten companies
(predominantly paper producers) opted out of this class
settlement.  FMC settled with two of the 10 companies for an
amount within the opt out credit.  The remaining eight opt outs
filed suit against FMC and, in some cases, Foret.  These cases
were assigned to the same judge as the class action.  FMC's motion
to dismiss the opt out claims to the extent they were based on
foreign purchases was granted on April 1, 2010.  FMC has settled
the remaining claims of these eight opt outs for an aggregate of
$1.7 million which is net of a $0.3 million opt out credit.
Another individual opt out case was dismissed following the
bankrupt opt out's decision to participate in the class
settlement.  FMC settled the indirect purchaser class claims for
$0.25 million.  The settlement has been finally approved by the
Court, and all remaining state court cases have been dismissed
with prejudice.  The Company recorded the $2.0 million as a
component of "Restructuring and other charges (income)" in the
Company's consolidated statements of income for the year ended
December 31, 2010.  As a result, all U.S. litigation against FMC
regarding alleged price fixing in the hydrogen peroxide industry
is now concluded.

The Company still face putative class actions against it and five
other major hydrogen peroxide producers in provincial courts in
Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia under the laws of Canada.
Four of the defendants have settled these claims for a total of
approximately $20.5 million.  On September 28, 2009, the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice certified a class of direct and indirect
purchasers of hydrogen peroxide.  FMC moved for leave to appeal
the class certification decision, which was denied in June 2010.
The Company intends to defend these cases. The proceedings are in
the preliminary stages with respect to the merits.


HUDSON HOLDING: Defends Shareholder Suit Over Rodman Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder and former employee commenced a class action lawsuit
against Hudson Holding Corporation and others to enjoin its
proposed merger with Rodman & Renshaw Capital Group, Inc.,
according to the Company's February 22, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended December 31, 2010.

On Jan. 11, 2011, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed against the Company, various directors of the Company, and
Rodman & Renshaw Capital Group, Inc., in the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Hudson County, styled as, Ronald Schwartz v. Kenneth D.
Pasternak, Keith Knox, John W. Mascone, Anthony Sanfilippo, John
C. Shaw, Jr., Peter J. Zugschwert, Hudson Holding Corporation,
Rodman & Renshaw Capital Group, Inc. and HHC Acquisition, Inc.,
Case No. C-6-11.  The action was brought by Ronald Schwartz on
behalf of holders of common stock of the Company to enjoin the
acquisition of the publicly owned shares of the Company's common
stock by Rodman and its wholly owned subsidiary resulting from the
merger.  Mr. Schwartz, who is also a former Company employee,
claims that defendants violated applicable law by directly
breaching and aiding the other defendants' breach of their
fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, independence, good faith
and fair dealing by, among other things, allegedly failing to
properly value the Company and to maximize the value of the
Company to its public shareholders, and by approving the Merger
Agreement, including the non-solicitation and termination fee
provisions contained therein.  The complaint seeks, among other
relief, an order enjoining the defendants from consummating the
Merger and directing the defendants to implement a sale or auction
process, rescission of the Merger if already implemented, the
imposition of a constructive trust in favor of plaintiff upon any
benefits received by the defendants as a result of their alleged
breaches of duty, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs of
litigation.  The Company intends to vigorously defend against this
claim.


KINDER MORGAN: Awaits Final Hearing on Second Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., is awaiting the final hearing
on the claims and defenses of parties of a second arbitration
alleging miscalculation of royalties and other payments, according
to the Company's February 22, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

Kinder Morgan CO2 and Cortez Pipeline Company were among the named
defendants in CO2 Committee, Inc. v. Shell Oil Co., et al., an
arbitration initiated on November 28, 2005.  The arbitration arose
from a dispute over a class action settlement agreement which
became final on July 7, 2003 and disposed of five lawsuits
formerly pending in the U.S. District Court, District of Colorado.
The plaintiffs in such lawsuits primarily included overriding
royalty interest owners, royalty interest owners, and small share
working interest owners who alleged underpayment of royalties and
other payments on carbon dioxide produced from the McElmo Dome
unit.

The settlement imposed certain future obligations on the
defendants in the underlying litigation.  The plaintiffs in the
arbitration alleged that, in calculating royalty and other
payments, defendants used a transportation expense in excess of
what is allowed by the settlement agreement, thereby causing
alleged underpayments of approximately $12 million.  The
plaintiffs also alleged that Cortez Pipeline Company should have
used certain funds to further reduce its debt, which, in turn,
would have allegedly increased the value of royalty and other
payments by approximately $0.5 million.  On August 7, 2006, the
arbitration panel issued its opinion finding that defendants did
not breach the settlement agreement.  On June 21, 2007, the New
Mexico federal district court entered final judgment confirming
the August 7, 2006 arbitration decision.

On October 2, 2007, the plaintiffs initiated a second arbitration
(CO2 Committee, Inc. v. Shell CO2 Company, Ltd., aka Kinder Morgan
CO2 Company, L.P., et al.) against Cortez Pipeline Company, Kinder
Morgan CO2 and an ExxonMobil entity.  The second arbitration
asserts claims similar to those asserted in the first arbitration.
A second arbitration panel has convened and a final hearing on the
parties' claims and defenses is expected to occur in 2011.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC
filing.


LE CREUSET: Recalls 1,800 Le Creuset Glass Lids
-----------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Le Creuset of America Inc., of Early Branch, S.C., announced a
voluntary recall of about 1,800 Le Creuset glass lids.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The glass lids can crack or break during use, posing a laceration
hazard to consumers.

Le Creuset has received five reports of lids breaking in use.  No
injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Le Creuset glass lids sold after October
2010.  The clear glass lids measure between about 9 inches (24 cm)
and about 12 inches (30 cm) and have "Le Creuset" stamped on the
metal handles.  The affected models include: 24cm glass lid, 28cm
glass lid, and 30cm glass lid (including 30cm glass lids sold as
part of the Le Creuset Forged Hard-Anodized 30cm Shallow Casserole
with Lid set.).  Pictures of the recalled products are available
at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11142.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Le Creuset and other retailers nationwide from October 2010
through January 2011 for $20 for individual glass lids and $160
when part of a casserole set.

Consumers should stop using these lids immediately and return them
to Le Creuset for a full refund of the purchase price.  For
additional information, contact the Le Creuset toll-free at (866)
747-0186 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday
through Friday, email Le Creuset at
lidsvoluntaryrecall@lecreuset.com or visit the company's Web site
at http://www.lecreuset.com/en-us/


MATCH.COM LLC: Faces Class Action Over Fraudulent Profiles
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
more than half of the profiles on Match.com's dating site are
either inactive, fake, or are "fraudulently posted by scammers and
others."

A copy of the Complaint in Gamayo v. Match.com, L.L.C., Case No.
11-cv-00762 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/23/Match.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          2121 North California Blvd., Suite 1010
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 482-1515
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com

               - and -

          Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 989-9113
          E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com


MEDCO HEALTH: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
Medco Health Solutions, Inc., continues to defend itself in In re
Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust Litigation, according to the
Company's Feb. 22, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

                           Brady Action

In August 2003, a lawsuit captioned Brady Enterprises, Inc., et
al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al. was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against
Merck and the company.  The plaintiffs, who seek to represent a
national class of retail pharmacies that had contracted with the
company, allege that the company has conspired with, acted as the
common agent for, and used the combined bargaining power of plan
sponsors to restrain competition in the market for the dispensing
and sale of prescription drugs.  The plaintiffs allege that,
through the alleged conspiracy, the company has engaged in various
forms of anticompetitive conduct, including, among other things,
setting artificially low reimbursement rates to such pharmacies.
The plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Sherman Act and
seek treble damages and injunctive relief.  The plaintiffs' motion
for class certification is currently pending before the
Multidistrict Litigation Court.

                       North Jackson Action

In October 2003, a lawsuit captioned North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc.,
et al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al. was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama against
Merck and the company.  In their Second Amended Complaint, the
plaintiffs allege that Merck and the company engaged in price
fixing and other unlawful concerted actions with others, including
other PBMs, to restrain trade in the dispensing and sale of
prescription drugs to customers of retail pharmacies who
participate in programs or plans that pay for all or part of the
drugs dispensed, and conspired with, acted as the common agent
for, and used the combined bargaining power of plan sponsors to
restrain competition in the market for the dispensing and sale of
prescription drugs.  The plaintiffs allege that, through such
concerted action, Merck and the company engaged in various forms
of anticompetitive conduct, including, among other things, setting
reimbursement rates to such pharmacies at unreasonably low levels.
The plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Sherman Act and
seek treble damages and injunctive relief.  The plaintiffs' motion
for class certification has been granted, but this matter has been
consolidated with other actions where class certification remains
an open issue.

                   Mike's Medical Center Action

In December 2005, a lawsuit captioned Mike's Medical Center
Pharmacy, et al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al. was filed
against the company and Merck in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.  The plaintiffs seek to represent
a class of all pharmacies and pharmacists that had contracted with
the Company and California pharmacies that had indirectly
purchased prescription drugs from Merck and make factual
allegations similar to those in the Alameda Drug Company action
discussed below.  The plaintiffs assert claims for violation of
the Sherman Act, California antitrust law and California law
prohibiting unfair business practices.  The plaintiffs demand,
among other things, treble damages, restitution, disgorgement of
unlawfully obtained profits and injunctive relief.

                        Consolidated Action

In April 2006, the Brady plaintiffs filed a petition to transfer
and consolidate various antitrust actions against PBMs, including
North Jackson, Brady, and Mike's Medical Center before a single
federal judge.  The motion was granted in August 2006.  These
actions are now consolidated for pretrial purposes in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  The
consolidated action is known as In re Pharmacy Benefit Managers
Antitrust Litigation.  The plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in certain actions is currently pending before the
Multidistrict Litigation Court.

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


MEDCO HEALTH: Summary Judgment Motion in "Blumenthal" Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Medco Health Solutions, Inc.'s summary judgment motion in the
matter Blumenthal v. Merck-Medco Managed Care, L.L.C. remains
pendings.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York and asserts similar claims as in the matter
Gruer v. Merck-Medco Managed Care, L.L.C.  The plaintiff however
elected to opt out of the Gruer settlement.  In June 2010, the
company filed for summary judgment.

No updates were reported in the Company's Feb. 22, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

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


MEDCO HEALTH: Makes Final Distribution of Settlement Funds
----------------------------------------------------------
Medco Health Solutions, Inc., distributed the final settlement
funds in the class action lawsuit Gruer v. Merck-Medco Managed
Care, L.L.C., in December 2010, according to the Company's
Feb. 22, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

In December 1997, a lawsuit captioned Gruer v. Merck-Medco Managed
Care, L.L.C. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Merck & Co., Inc. and the Company.
The suit alleged that the Company should be treated as a
"fiduciary" under the provisions of ERISA (the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974) and that the Company had breached
fiduciary obligations under ERISA in a variety of ways. After the
Gruer case was filed, a number of other cases were filed in the
same Court asserting similar claims. In December 2002, Merck and
the Company agreed to settle the Gruer series of lawsuits on a
class action basis for $42.5 million, and agreed to certain
business practice changes, to avoid the significant cost and
distraction of protracted litigation. In September 2003, the
Company paid $38.3 million to an escrow account, representing the
Company's portion, or 90%, of the proposed settlement. After many
years of additional court proceedings, including appeals, the
settlement became final in 2010 and in December 2010, the final
settlement funds were distributed to the eligible class member
plans.


MONTREAL, CANADA: Quebec Court OKs Sewage Flooding Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a class-action lawsuit launched by a
Montrealer fed up with sewage-flooded basements has been approved
by Quebec Superior Court.

The lawsuit was initiated by Rosemont resident Eugene Robitaille,
owner of a sixplex building that he says has been repeatedly
flooded in recent years.

Mr. Robitaille blames Montreal's aging sewage pipes for the
estimated tens of thousands of dollars he says he had paid out
after three flooding episodes in the last five years.

He says he has been forced to gut entire apartments after they
were flooded with several inches of raw sewage.

"It's such big damage, it's so evident it's preventable, if they
put the money [in]," Mr. Robitaille said.  "It's about time they
do something about it."

It's difficult to get insurance companies to cover flooding
episodes in the area because it is in one of the most elevated
neighborhoods in Montreal, he said.

Mr. Robitaille is seeking other claimants neighboring his
building, at the corner of Belanger and Iberville Streets.

Any property owner between St-Zotique and Belanger Streets,
Bordeaux Street and 1st Avenue is eligible to join the suit, which
is seeking seeking $2,000 for each homeowner who signs on as well
as the cost of repairs.


NICOR GAS: Sued in Illinois Over Misleading Service Charges
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Nicor Gas Co. charges
customers for a "ComfortGuard service plan" and a "service charge"
that they didn't order and don't want, according to a class action
in Cook County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Birge v. Nicor Gas Company, et al.,
Case No. 11CH06556 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/23/GasCram.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Aaron Ross Walner, Esq.
          Lawrence Walner, Esq.
          THE WALNER FIRM, LTD.
          20 North Clark Street, Suite 2450
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 201-1616

               - and -

          Robert E. Williams, Esq.
          TOUHY TOUHY BUEHLER & WILLIAMS LLP
          55 West Wacker Drive, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 372-2209


NILES AUDIO: Recalls 4,160 Remote Control Systems
-------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Niles Audio Corp., of Miami, Fla., announced a voluntary recall of
about 4,160 remote control systems for entertainment electronics.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

If the battery falls from the remote control during handling, it
can rupture and smoke or ignite, posing a fire hazard.

The company has received four reports of batteries falling from
the remote control system during handling; one of the batteries
ignited and singed a carpet and the other three smoked.

This recall involves the Niles iRemoteTS and iC2 remote control
systems.  These are wireless remote control devices that are
designed to operate audio, video and home theater systems from a
single remote control.  The iRemoteTS measures 5.4 by 6.2 by 1.25
inches.  The Niles logo is featured in the top-left corner of the
unit.  The iC2 measures 5.2 by 3 by 7.5 inches. "iC2" and the
Niles logo are printed on the front of the unit.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11141.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
authorized dealers and distributors of audio/video equipment
between January 2008 and September 2010 for about $1,300 for the
iRemoteTS and $1,000 for the iC2.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product and
contact Niles Audio to schedule an in-home repair to receive a
replacement battery and a more secure battery cover.  Consumers
should not attempt to open the battery compartment.  Niles Audio
is directly contacting consumers who purchased the recalled remote
control systems.  For additional information, contact Niles Audio
at (800) 667-3991 between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://ww.nilesaudio.com/recall/


NPC INTERNATIONAL: To Oppose Conditional Certification Motion
-------------------------------------------------------------
NPC International, Inc., is preparing its opposition to a
conditional certification motion in a lawsuit entitled Jeffrey
Wass et al. v. NPC International, Inc., Case No. 2:09-CV-2254-JWL-
KGS, according to the Company's February 22, 2010 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 28, 2010.

On May 12, 2009, a lawsuit against the Company, entitled Jeffrey
Wass, et al. v. NPC International, Inc., Case No. 2:09-CV-2254-
JWL-KGS, was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Kansas.  A First Amended Complaint, entitled Jeffrey
Wass and Mark Smith, et al. v. NPC International, Inc., was filed
on July 2, 2009.  The Complaint was brought by Plaintiffs Wass and
Smith individually and on behalf of similarly situated employees
who work or previously worked as delivery drivers for NPC.  The
First Amended Complaint alleged a collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act  to recover unpaid wages and excessive
deductions owed to plaintiffs and similarly situated workers
employed by NPC in 28 states, and as a class action under Colorado
law on behalf of Plaintiff Smith and all other similarly situated
workers employed by NPC in Colorado to recover unpaid minimum
wages and excess payroll deductions and certain costs relating to
uniforms and special apparel.  The First Amended Complaint alleged
among other things that NPC deprived plaintiffs and other NPC
delivery drivers of minimum wages by providing insufficient
reimbursements for automobile and other job-related expenses
incurred for the purposes of delivering NPC's pizza and other food
items.

On March 2, 2010, the Court entered an Order granting NPC's
motions for judgment on the pleadings as to all claims brought by
plaintiffs in the First Amended Complaint, with the exception of a
claim for the reimbursement of uniform costs under Colorado law.
The Order provided that the claims failed to state a claim under
the FLSA and Colorado law and, therefore, would be dismissed with
prejudice unless plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint that
cured the deficiencies in the First Amended Complaint.  The Order
also operated to moot plaintiffs' then-pending motion for
conditional collective action certification.

Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on March 22, 2010,
which alleged a collective action under the FLSA on behalf of
plaintiffs and similarly situated workers employed by NPC in 28
states, and a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure on behalf of Plaintiff Smith and similarly
situated workers employed in states in which the state minimum
wage is higher than the federal minimum wage.  The Second Amended
Complaint contended that NPC deprived delivery drivers of minimum
wages by providing insufficient reimbursements for automobile
expenses incurred for the purposes of delivering NPC's pizza and
other food items.  NPC filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint on April 8, 2010.

On June 24, 2010, the Court granted NPC's motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint as to all claims filed by Plaintiff Wass,
all Plaintiffs who had opted in to the class and all putative
class members.  The only claims not dismissed were the individual
claims of one remaining class representative, Mark Smith.  The
Court's Order did not grant Plaintiffs leave to amend the Second
Amended Complaint, but Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to
amend. NPC filed an opposition to the motion on July 27, 2010.

On September 1, 2010, the Court granted plaintiffs leave to file
their Third Amended Complaint, which was filed on September 3,
2010, again asserting claims by Wass and all class members.  NPC
filed a motion for summary judgment as to named Plaintiff Wass'
claims on September 17, 2010.  Wass filed his opposition on
October 8, 2010. NPC replied on October 22, 2010.  Because the
motion is pending before the Court, NPC is not able to predict the
outcome of this suit or possible loss ranges, nor, its effect on
NPC's operations or financial condition.

On September 30, 2010, the Court entered a routine scheduling
order, setting January 21, 2011 as the deadline for plaintiffs to
file a motion for conditional certification of a collective action
under FLSA.  It also set deadlines for class discovery, but did
not at that time set deadlines for Rule 23 certification, final
discovery, dispositive motions, decertification, or trial.  On
January 21, 2011, Plaintiffs filed their motion for conditional
certification under FLSA.  NPC is currently preparing its
Opposition.  Because the motion is pending, NPC is not able to
predict its outcome at this time.

The Company believes the lawsuit is wholly without merit and will
defend itself from all claims vigorously.


PACKAGING CORP: Continues to Defend Containerboard Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Packaging Corporation of America remains a defendant in a
consolidated purported class action lawsuit under the caption
Kleen Products LLC v. Packaging Corp. of America et al., according
to the Company's February 22, 2010 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

During September and October 2010, the Company and eight other
U.S. and Canadian containerboard producers were named as
defendants in five purported class action lawsuits filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, alleging violations of the Sherman Act.  The lawsuits
have been consolidated in a single complaint under the caption
Kleen Products LLC v Packaging Corp. of America et al.  The
consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants conspired to
limit the supply of containerboard, and that the purpose and
effect of the alleged conspiracy was to artificially increase
prices of containerboard products during the period from August
2005 to the time of filing of the complaints.  The complaint was
filed as a purported class action suit on behalf of all purchasers
of containerboard products during such period.  The complaint
seeks treble damages and costs, including attorney's fees.

The Company believes the allegations are without merit and will
defend this lawsuit vigorously. However, as the lawsuit is in
preliminary stages, the Company is unable to predict the ultimate
outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses.


PANERA BREAD: Final Hearing on Settlement Scheduled for June 22
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court in Missouri will consider final approval of a
settlement in a purported class action against Panera Bread
Company and certain of its officers on June 22, 2011, according to
the Company's February 22, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 28,
2010.

On January 25, 2008 and February 26, 2008, purported class action
lawsuits were filed against the Company and three of its current
or former executive officers by the Western Washington Laborers-
Employers Pension Trust and Sue Trachet, respectively, on behalf
of investors who purchased the Company's common stock during the
period between November 1, 2005 and July 26, 2006.  Both lawsuits
were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, St. Louis Division.  Each complaint alleges
that the Company and the other defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act in connection with the Company's
disclosure of system-wide sales and earnings guidance during the
period from November 1, 2005 through July 26, 2006.  Each
complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of the
lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including
attorneys' and experts' fees, and such other relief as the Court
might find just and proper.  On June 23, 2008, the lawsuits were
consolidated and the Western Washington Laborers-Employers Pension
Trust was appointed lead plaintiff.

On August 7, 2008, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
extended the class period to November 1, 2005 through July 26,
2007. On October 6, 2008, the Company filed a motion to dismiss
all of the claims in this lawsuit.  Following filings by both
parties on the Company's motion to dismiss, on June 25, 2009, the
Court converted the Company's motion to one for summary judgment
and denied it without prejudice.  On August 10, 2009, the Company
filed a new motion for summary judgment.  On September 9, 2009,
the plaintiff filed a request to deny or continue the Company's
motion for summary judgment to allow the plaintiff to conduct
discovery.  Following a hearing and subsequent filings by both
parties on the plaintiff's request for discovery, on November 6,
2009, the Court denied the plaintiff's request.  On March 16,
2010, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's
motion for summary judgment. On April 5, 2010, the Court granted a
joint motion by the parties to stay the case through July 6, 2010,
which stay was subsequently extended by the Court until July 30,
2010, pending an attempt by the parties to resolve through
mediation.  On August 30, 2010 the Company answered the complaint.
On December 3, 2010, the parties filed a joint motion to stay the
case pending the submission of a stipulation of settlement and the
plaintiff's motion for preliminarily approval, to be filed on or
before January 28, 2011, which stay was extended until
February 11, 2011.  On February 11, 2011, the parties filed with
the Court a Stipulation of Settlement regarding the class action
lawsuit.  Under the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement, the
Company's primary directors and officers liability insurer will
deposit $5.7 million into a settlement fund for payment to class
members, plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs of administering
the settlement.  The settlement must be approved by the Court
before becoming effective.  The Stipulation of Settlement contains
no admission of wrongdoing.  The Company and the other defendants
have maintained and continue to deny liability and wrongdoing of
any kind with respect to the claims made in the class action
lawsuit.  However, given the potential cost and burden of
continued litigation, the Company believes the settlement is in
its best interests and the best interests of its stockholders.  On
February 22, 2011, the Court preliminary approved the settlement
and scheduled a settlement hearing on June 22, 2011.

If the Court grants final approval of the Stipulation of
Settlement, the Court will dismiss the class action lawsuit with
prejudice and the plaintiff will be deemed to have released all
claims against the Company relating to the allegations in the
class action.  The Company can provide no assurance that the Court
will approve the Stipulation of Settlement. If the Court does not
approve the Stipulation of Settlement, the Company will continue
to defend against these claims, which could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial condition and business.
If these matters were concluded in a manner adverse to the
Company, it could be required to pay substantially more in damages
than the amount provided for in the Stipulation of Settlement.  In
addition, the costs to the Company of defending any litigation or
other proceeding, even if resolved in its favor, could be
substantial.  That litigation could also substantially divert the
attention of the Company's management and its resources in
general.  The amount to be deposited by the Company's primary
directors and officers liability insurer into the settlement fund
of $5.7 million is included in other accounts receivable and
accrued expenses in the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheets.


PANERA BREAD: Remains a Defendant in "Sotoudeh" Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Panera Bread Company continues to defend itself from a purported
class action lawsuit filed by Nick Sotoudeh over violations of
California labor laws.

On December 9, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and one of its subsidiaries by Nick Sotoudeh,
a former employee of the Company.  The lawsuit was filed in the
California Superior Court, County of Contra Costa.  The complaint
alleges, among other things, violations of the California Labor
Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest
periods and termination compensation and violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law.  The complaint seeks, among
other relief, collective and class certification of the lawsuit,
unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys'
fees, and such other relief as the Court might find just and
proper.

The Company believes it and other defendants have meritorious
defenses to each of the claims in this lawsuit and the Company is
prepared to vigorously defend the lawsuit. There can be no
assurance, however, that the Company will be successful, and an
adverse resolution of the lawsuit could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's consolidated financial position and
results of operations in the period in which the lawsuit is
resolved. The Company is not presently able to reasonably estimate
potential losses, if any, related to the lawsuit and as such, have
not recorded a liability in its Consolidated Balance Sheets.

No updates were disclosed in the Company's February 22, 2011 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 28, 2010.


PANERA BREAD: Continues to Defend Suit over FLSA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit filed against Panera Bread
Company by certain of its employees pursuant to the Fair Standards
Act in Florida remains pending, according to the Company's
February 22, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 28, 2010.

The purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company
by Denarius Lewis and Corey Weiner, former employees of one of its
subsidiaries, and Caroll Ruiz, an employee of one of its
franchisees on December 16, 2010.  The lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for Middle District of Florida.  The
complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.  The complaint seeks, among other relief,
collective and class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified
damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and such
other relief as the Court might find just and proper.

The Company believes it and the other defendant have meritorious
defenses to each of the claims in this lawsuit and the Company is
prepared to vigorously defend the lawsuit.  There can be no
assurance, however, that the Company will be successful, and an
adverse resolution of the lawsuit could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's consolidated financial position and
results of operations in the period in which the lawsuit is
resolved.  The Company is not presently able to reasonably
estimate potential losses, if any, related to the lawsuit and as
such, have not recorded a liability in the Company's Consolidated
Balance Sheets.


QWEST CORP: Plaintiffs' Appeal of Suit Dismissal Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a putative class action against
Qwest Communications International Inc. remains pending, according
to Qwest Corporation's Feb. 22, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

Qwest Communications International (QCII) is the ultimate parent
of Qwest Corp.

A putative class action filed on behalf of certain of QCII's
retirees was brought against QCII, the Qwest Group Life Insurance
Plan and other related entities in federal district court in
Colorado in connection with QCII's decision to reduce the life
insurance benefit for these retirees to a $10,000 benefit.  The
action was filed on March 30, 2007.  The plaintiffs allege, among
other things, that QCII and other defendants were obligated to
continue their life insurance benefit at the levels in place
before QCII decided to reduce them.  Plaintiffs seek restoration
of the life insurance benefit to previous levels and certain
equitable relief.  The district court ruled in QCII's favor on the
central issue of whether QCII properly reserved its right to
reduce the life insurance benefit under applicable law and plan
documents.  The plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint to
assert additional claims.  In 2009, the court dismissed or granted
summary judgment to QCII on all of the plaintiffs' claims.  The
plaintiffs have appealed the court's decision to the Tenth Circuit
Court of Appeals.


REED ELSEVIER: Lawyers Drop Fraud Claim in E-Filing Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline J. Holness at Courthouse News Service reports that
attorneys taking on publishing conglomerate Reed Elsevier have
dismissed one claim for fraud from their class action against the
British publishing giant.  At the same time, the lawyer leading
the plaintiff's side of the case said Reed Elsevier has refused to
comply with discovery requests, a tune he expects will change when
the Dekalb County judge presiding over the case issues a discovery
order that is expected shortly.

The class action alleges that Lexis-Nexis Courtlink, owned by Reed
Elsevier, and Georgia's Fulton County are running a mandatory
e-filing system that violates the Georgia Constitution, primarily
because it hands off a key public responsibility to a foreign,
private publisher willing to charge large amounts for acting as
the electronic gateway to the courthouse.

"This class action arises from an illegal scheme perpetuated by
defendant Reed Elsevier Inc. dba Lexis-Nexis Courtlink Inc. to
impose an unlawful, mandatory e-filing system upon litigants in
Fulton County State and Superior Courts and to charge excessive
and unauthorized fees in connection therewith," the complaint
states.  "Defendant Fulton County has participated in Lexis'
illegal scheme by promulgating a 'pilot program' authorizing
Lexis' unlawful mandatory e-filing scheme and excessive fees
without the statutory authority to do so."

The attorneys seek to dismiss fraud and misrepresentation claims
in count six of their complaint.

In count six, lawyer Steven Newton claims that "defendant Lexis
knowingly misrepresented in its online agreement that its
subscribers are entitled to the remedy of a refund of fees
unlawfully charged and collected by defendant.  Defendant Lexis
now claims that any unlawfully collected fees are not refundable.
Nevertheless, in order to induce potential users into entering
into its online agreement and incurring its usage fees associated
therewith, defendant Lexis offered users the 'exclusive remedy' of
a refund of any fees which result in damages to the user."

Mr. Newton explained in an interview why he sought the partial
dismissal.

"We are not satisfied that we have sufficient evidence to support
these claims," Mr. Newton said.

He added that Lexis-Nexis and Fulton County have not been
forthcoming with data he needs for discovery, but he believes that
will change once DeKalb County Superior Court Judge Robert J.
Castellani sets a scheduling order for discovery.

"What we know currently is not worth fighting for today, but I
suspect we will have an overwhelming body of evidence in six
months," Mr. Newton said.  "We may reassert fraud then."

The dismissal comes on the heels of a recent victory for the
plaintiffs where Judge Castellani rejected Reed Elsevier's
argument that the Georgia Constitution does not guarantee access
to the state's courts.

"The plaintiffs have stated facts that could support a claim
against the Fulton courts and third parties acting together with
the Fulton Courts, that the e-filing system as instituted is an
unreasonable burden to litigants seeking redress in the courts of
Fulton County," said Dekalb County Superior Court Judge Robert
Castellani in his ruling.

The judge also shot down arguments by lawyers for Reed Elsevier
suggesting that the Georgia Constitution does not guarantee a
right of access to Georgia's courts.

"Based on Georgia Supreme Court precedent and the 14th Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution, citizens of the State of Georgia do
indeed have a right of access to the courts to resolve their
disputes and neither the Legislature nor any court of this state
can erect a total bar to that access or a bar that unreasonably
restricts that right of access," the judge wrote.

A copy of the Dismissal Without Prejudice of Fraud Claim in
Clowdus, et al. v. Fulton County, Georgia, et al., Case No. 2010-
CV-179757 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/23/FultonDismiss.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven J. Newton, Esq.
          Shuli L. Green, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN J. NEWTON
          215 14th Street NW
          Atlanta, GA 30318
          Telephone: (404) 874-5006

               - and -

          Irwin W. Stolz, Jr., Esq.
          James W. Hurt, Jr., Esq.
          HURT, STOLZ & CROMWELL, LLC
          650 Oglethorpe Avenue, Suite 6
          Athens, GA 30606
          Telephone: (706) 395-2750


SCREEN ACTORS GUILD: Judge OKs Royalties Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Holloway, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that
the class-action lawsuit filed by "Leave it to Beaver" actor
Ken Osmond in 2007 over the union's handling of foreign royalties
appears to have come to a close.

The long legal battle over the Screen Actors Guild's handling of
foreign royalties appears to have come to a close.  Variety
reports that a California state judge gave final approval late
Friday to a settlement of the class-action lawsuit filed by actor
Ken Osmond -- best known for playing Eddie Haskell on Leave it to
Beaver -- against the guild in 2007.  Mr. Osmond had contended
that SAG lacked the authority to collect royalties on behalf of
its members.  The Writers Guild of America West and the Directors
Guild of America have faced and settled similar lawsuits from its
own members in recent years.

According to SAG's Web site, royalties on foreign levies are money
collected in other countries "to compensate for private copying
(home taping), cable retransmissions, video rentals, and other
uses of audiovisual works."  The guild claims to have collected
$18.1 million on behalf of members, and thus far distributed
$8.78 million. Under the settlement, SAG must bring in an outside
consultant to review its distribution program and make "reasonable
efforts" to distribute 90% of funds collected in the next three
years.

Last month, the guild rolled out its online foreign royalties
tracker, which is intended to allow anyone due royalties to search
by name for the amount owed.  Performers due $10 or more should be
issued checks automatically.  Those due fewer than $10 can request
that a check be issued.


STEC INC: 2nd Amended Complaint May Be Filed in Consolidated Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEC, Inc., may be facing a second amended complaint in a
consolidated class action lawsuit pending in California, according
to the Company's Feb. 22, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2010.

From November 6, 2009 through March 2, 2010, seven purported class
action complaints were filed against the Company and several of
its senior officers and directors by the following plaintiffs,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California: Fred Jean (filed November 6, 2009), Hadi Sakhai (filed
November 6, 2009), Fred Greenwald (filed November 9, 2009), Daniel
Munter (filed November 10, 2009), Jonathan Fischer (filed
November 19, 2009), Marcel Weinberger (filed December 11, 2009),
and Ganesh Meda (filed March 2, 2010). The Court consolidated the
first six actions on January 21, 2010, and appointed Lead
Plaintiffs on February 8, 2010. Lead Plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint on April 9, 2010, and the defendants moved
to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On July 15, 2010, prior to
hearing the defendants' motion, the Court replaced the former Lead
Plaintiffs with a new Lead Plaintiff. The new Lead Plaintiff filed
a consolidated amended complaint on August 13, 2010, purportedly
on behalf of all persons and entities who acquired the Company's
common stock between June 16, 2009 and February 23, 2010. The
consolidated amended complaint alleged claims against the Company
and several of its senior officers and directors for violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 thereunder and claims against several of its senior officers
and directors for violations of Section 20A and Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act. In addition, the consolidated amended complaint
alleged claims against the Company, several of its senior officers
and directors, and four of its underwriters for violations of
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933; claims against the
Company, several of its senior officers, and one of its
underwriters for violations of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities
Act; and claims against several of the Company's senior officers
and directors for violations of Section 15 of the Securities Act.
The consolidated amended complaint sought compensatory damages for
all damages sustained as a result of the defendants' alleged
actions, including reasonable costs and expenses, rescission, and
other relief the Court deemed just and proper.

The defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint
and on January 21, 2011, the Court granted the defendants' motions
to dismiss without prejudice. Lead Plaintiff must file a second
amended complaint by February 22, 2011, and any motions to dismiss
must be filed by March 24, 2011. The motions will be fully briefed
by May 16, 2011. The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit
and intends to vigorously defend itself. No amounts have been
recorded in the consolidated financial statements for this matter
as the Company believes it is too early in the proceedings to
determine an outcome.


STRAYER EDUCATION: Defends "Kinnett" Suit in Florida
----------------------------------------------------
Strayer Education, Inc., is defending itself from a putative
securities class action pending in Florida, according to the
Company's Feb. 22, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2010.

On October 15, 2010, a putative securities class action styled
Kinnett v. Strayer Education, Inc., et al., was filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
On January 3, 2011, a shareholder derivative complaint styled
Vakharloskaya v. Silberman et al., was filed in Florida state
court in Hillsborough County, Florida. The Company believes these
lawsuits to be without merit and will contest them vigorously.
While the outcome of any legal proceedings cannot be predicted
with certainty, the Company does not presently expect that this
matter will have a material effect on its financial condition or
results of operations.


SYNGENTA CROP: Judge Hears Arguments in Atrazine Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that Madison County Circuit Judge William Mudge on Feb. 23 heard
arguments on discovery disputes in a proposed class action suit
against makers of the weed-killer atrazine.

He took up a plea by plaintiff Holiday Shores Sanitary District
that asked the judge to set an evidentiary hearing on when a
University of Chicago professor was retained by defendant Syngenta
Crop Protection Inc.

The future hearing would also take up the contents of 900
documents that were released last night related to that professor,
Don Coursey, and his work on behalf of the atrazine-production
industry.

A motion for sanctions related to Mr. Coursey and the 900
documents was filed before the hearing by plaintiff's counsel
Stephen Tillery.

It was not immediately available.

Holiday Shores is suing Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. and other
makers and distributors of atrazine.

The plaintiffs claim atrazine runs off farm fields into drinking
water supplies that they and other potential class members must
then remediate.

The plaintiffs have also claimed that atrazine in concentrations
lower than those legally allowed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency is harmful to human health.

The defendants deny the claims and have tried to have the suit
dismissed or stayed pending the outcome of a nearly identical
federal atrazine case filed last year.

According to Mr. Tillery, Syngenta originally claimed that
Mr. Coursey was retained as a litigation expert by the defense in
2006.

That put his work product off-limits from 2006 to the present.

However, more recent discussions between Mr. Tillery and Kurtis
Reeg, Syngenta's counsel, have led to a January 2009 date of
retention.

That led to the production of the 900 documents.

Mr. Tillery said that the changing retention date was "a cover-up"
of the documents' contents, parts of which he said at Wednesday's
hearing, constituted major blows to certain Syngenta positions.

"Why was there such an effort to hide these documents and to
adjust these dates," Mr. Tillery said.  "It's outrageous!"

The plaintiff's counsel then asked for an evidentiary hearing to
determine if the sanctions motion against the defense would be
granted and "to get to the bottom of this."

Mr. Reeg rejected Mr. Tillery's characterization of the document
production.

"That's argument, not fact," Mr. Reeg said.  "This is a colossal
waste of judicial resources and the parties' time."

Mr. Reeg told Judge Mudge that after the initial 2006 date was
suggested, added discovery led him and other attorneys involved in
the defense to dig further until they realized Mr. Coursey was
retained in 2009.

After the revelation, he said, the defense was able to produce
documents that were previously privileged.

"The plaintiffs asked for documents and now they are trying to
punish the people who produced them because they got what they
wanted," Mr. Reeg said.

Judge Mudge questioned the changing date and expressed doubts
about what he termed "eleventh hour" production.

The 900 documents were produced on Feb. 22, according to
statements by the attorneys at the hearing.

Mr. Reeg acknowledged he did not receive a copy of them until
9 a.m. on Feb. 23.

Judge Mudge asked the parties to submit proposed dates for the
hearing while he reviewed filings as well as past rulings in the
case.

He also asked the parties to discuss ways around issues contained
in a plaintiff motion to compel.

Those issues relate to amended interrogatories and on-going
international discovery.

A move for a stay pending the outcome of an appeal to the Illinois
State Supreme Court was not taken up.

That move was filed by the Heartland Institute, a non-party to the
case.

The Heartland Institute is among a number of non-parties to the
suit that has objected to discovery requests filed by Holiday
Shores.

Judge Mudge is hearing moves in the Syngenta suit, one of six
proposed class actions Holiday Shores filed on the claims in 2004.

Mr. Tillery, Christine Moody, and Christie Deaton represent the
Holiday Shores plaintiffs and the federal case's plaintiffs.

The lead plaintiff in the federal suit is the City of Greenville,
Ill.

Kurtis Reeg represents Syngenta in both cases.

The Syngenta suit is Madison case number 04-L-710.

The atrazine suits are case numbers 04-L-708 to 04-L-713.


TEKELEC: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
---------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC and its partner, the former Louisiana
Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr. remind investors that only
twelve days remain to file lead plaintiff applications in a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Tekelec between February 11,
2010 and Aug. 5, 2010, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

What You May Do

If you are a Tekelec shareholder and would like to discuss your
legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to
recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or
cost to you, e-mail or call KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn
-- lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com -- toll free 1-877-515-1850, or via
cell phone any time at 504-301-7900, or KSF Director of Client
Relations, Neil Rothstein, Esq. -- neil.rothstein@ksfcounsel.com
-- toll free at 877-694-9510, or via cell phone any time at 330-
860-4092.  If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class
action by overseeing lead counsel with the goal of obtaining a
fair and just resolution, you must act urgently and contact the
firm now so you have time to request this position by application
to the Court by March 7, 2011.  Any member of the putative class
may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of
their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent
class member.  KSF encourages both institutional and individual
purchasers of Tekelec to contact the firm.  The ultimate
resolution of any securities class action is strengthened through
the involvement of aggrieved shareholders and lead plaintiffs who
have large financial interests.  KSF also encourages anyone with
information regarding Tekelec's conduct during the period in
question to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former
employees, shareholders and others.

About the Lawsuit

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false and
misleading statements.  The complaint alleges that Tekelec failed
to disclose during the Class Period material adverse facts about
the Company's business prospects, including problems with
fulfilling orders, credit issues, and declines in new orders.

On Aug. 5, 2010, Tekelec announced its operating results for the
quarter ending June 30, 2010. Shares of the Company's common stock
fell more than 9% on significant volume.  Thereafter, shares have
further declined - falling 16% on February 10, 2011 - after the
Company reported lower than expected fourth-quarter results, along
with a lower forecast for full year 2011.

Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, whose partners include the Former
Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., --
http://www.ksfcounsel.com/-- is a law firm focused on securities
class action and shareholder derivative litigation with offices in
New York and Louisiana.


TEMPLE-INLAND: Consolidated Class Suit in Illinois Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Temple-Inland Inc. remains a defendant in a consolidated class
action lawsuit filed in Illinois.

On September 9, 2010, the Company was one of eight containerboard
producers named as defendants in a class action complaint that
alleged a civil violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The
suit is captioned Kleen Products LLC v. Packaging Corp. of
America. The complaint alleges that the defendants, beginning in
August 2005, conspired to limit the supply and thereby increase
prices of containerboard products.  The alleged class is all
persons who purchased containerboard products directly from any
defendant for use or delivery in the United States during the
period August 2005 to the present.  The complaint seeks to recover
an unspecified amount of treble actual damages and attorney's fees
on behalf of the purported class.  Four similar complaints were
filed and have been consolidated in the Northern District of
Illinois.

The Company strongly dispute the allegations made against it and
intends to defend vigorously against this litigation.  However,
because this action is in its preliminary stages, the Company is
unable to predict an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably
possible loss.

No updates were reported in to the Company's February 22, 2011
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended January 1, 2011.


THERATECHNOLOGIES INC: Awaits Ruling on Shareholder Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Theratechnologies Inc. continues to await ruling on a purported
shareholder class action suit related to the adverse effects of
the drug, EGRIFTA (TM), according to the Company's February 22,
2011, Form F-10 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On July 26, 2010, the Company received a motion of authorization
to institute a class action lawsuit against it, a director and a
former executive officer.  The Motion was filed in the Superior
Court of Quebec, district of Montreal.  The applicant is seeking
to initiate a class action suit to represent the class of persons
who were shareholders at May 21, 2010, and who sold their common
shares of the Company on May 25 or 26, 2010.  The applicant
alleges that the Company did not comply with its continuous
disclosure obligations as a reporting issuer by failing to
disclose certain alleged adverse effects relating to the
administration of EGRIFTA(TM), a treatment for HIV-associated
belly fat gain.

The Company asserts that the allegations contained in the Motion
are entirely without merit and intends to take all appropriate
actions to vigorously defend its position.

The Motion has not yet been heard by the Superior Court of Quebec
and a date has not been set for the hearing.

Theratechnologies is a Canadian biopharmaceutical company.


UNITED CONTINENTAL: Court Dismisses Merger-Related Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Texas District Court for Harris County has dismissed a
consolidated class action lawsuit against United Continental
Holdings, Inc., arising from the merger of UAL Corporation and
Continental Airlines, Inc., according to the Company's Feb. 22,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

Following Continental and UAL's announcement of the Merger on
May 2, 2010, three class action lawsuits were filed against
Continental, members of Continental's board of directors and UAL
in the Texas District Court for Harris County. The lawsuits
purported to represent a class of Continental stockholders opposed
to the terms of the Merger agreement. The lawsuits made virtually
identical allegations that the consideration to be received by
Continental's stockholders in the Merger was inadequate and that
the members of Continental's board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties by, among other things, approving the Merger at
an inadequate price under circumstances involving certain
conflicts of interest. The lawsuits also made virtually identical
allegations that UAL and Continental aided and abetted the
Continental board of directors in the breach of their fiduciary
duties to Continental's stockholders. Each lawsuit sought
injunctive relief declaring that the Merger agreement was in
breach of the Continental directors' fiduciary duties, enjoining
Continental and UAL from proceeding with the Merger unless
Continental implements procedures to obtain the highest possible
price for its stockholders, directing the Continental board of
directors to exercise its fiduciary duties in the best interest of
Continental's stockholders and rescinding the Merger agreement. On
May 24, 2010, these three lawsuits were consolidated before a
single judge.

On August 1, 2010, the parties reached an agreement in principle
regarding settlement of the action. Under the terms of the
settlement, the lawsuits will be dismissed with prejudice,
releasing all defendants from any and all claims relating to,
among other things, the Merger and any disclosures made in
connection therewith. In exchange for that release, UAL and
Continental provided additional disclosures requested by the
plaintiffs in the action related to, among other things, the
negotiations between Continental and UAL that resulted in the
execution of the Merger agreement, the method by which the
exchange ratio was determined, the procedures used by UAL's and
Continental's financial advisors in performing their financial
analyses and certain investment banking fees paid to those
advisors by UAL and Continental over the past two years. The
settlement will not affect any provision of the Merger agreement
or the form or amount of the consideration received by Continental
stockholders in the Merger. The defendants have denied and
continue to deny any wrongdoing or liability with respect to all
claims, events, and transactions complained of in the
aforementioned actions or that they have engaged in any
wrongdoing. The defendants entered into the settlement to
eliminate the uncertainty, burden, risk, expense, and distraction
of further litigation. On February 14, 2011, the court entered
final judgment and dismissed the case.


UNITED STATES: FBI Faces Class Action for Spying on Muslims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shan Li, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that the Federal
Bureau of Investigation violated the First Amendment rights of
hundreds of Muslims by using a paid informant to target and
monitor several Southern California mosques based solely on
religion, according to a federal class-action lawsuit filed on
Feb. 22 by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Council on
American-Islamic Relations.

Filed on behalf of three Muslim plaintiffs, the suit accuses the
FBI and seven of its employees, including Director Robert Mueller,
of paying Irvine resident Craig Monteilh to go undercover,
infiltrate mosques and record conversations in order to root out
potential terrorists.

Over the course of 14 months beginning in 2006, the FBI used
Mr. Monteilh to "indiscriminately collect" personal information on
hundreds or even thousands of Muslim Americans, the lawsuit
alleges.

Through this "dragnet" operation, the agency "gathered hundreds of
phone numbers, thousands of e-mail addresses, hundreds of hours of
video recordings that captured the interiors of mosques, homes and
businesses, and . . . thousands of hours of audio recordings," the
lawsuit alleges.

Mr. Monteilh, who has served prison time for forgery, has
previously told The Times that he was recruited by the FBI in 2004
to infiltrate drug-trafficking groups.  In 2006, Mr. Monteilh
said, he was asked to assume the identity of a Muslim convert and
go undercover to identify extremists and gather intelligence.

The lawsuit comes a year after Mr. Monteilh filed suit personally
against the FBI, accusing his law enforcement handlers of
endangering his life and violating his civil rights.  His claims
of working for the FBI in some capacity were confirmed in 2009
when a West Covina judge unsealed court records that showed the
agency intervened in 2007 to terminate Mr. Monteilh's parole on a
theft charge early.

The FBI declined to comment on the case on Feb. 22, citing ongoing
legal proceedings.  Spokeswoman Laura Eimiller said in an e-mail,
however, that the FBI does not target houses of worship or
religious groups but does focus on "people who are alleged to be
involved in criminal activity, regardless of their affiliations,
religious or otherwise."

ACLU lawyer Peter Bibring said members of the Muslim community
grew suspicious after Mr. Monteilh habitually asked probing and
invasive questions about their religious beliefs, political views,
loyalties and became "increasing aggressive about denouncing U.S.
foreign policy."

"Ironically, the operation ended when members of the Muslim
communities of Southern California reported the informant to the
police because of his violent rhetoric and ultimately obtained a
restraining order against him," the lawsuit alleged.

Mr. Bibring dismisses the idea that the FBI may have been
targeting individuals already suspected of criminal activity.

"That simply doesn't fit with the behavior that the entire
community observed," he said.  Mr. Monteilh "didn't focus on
individuals or small groups of people.  He probed a wide range of
people."

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, class-action status and the
destruction of all materials that Mr. Monteilh collected and
handed over to the FBI.


VIVENDI SA: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Vivendi on Feb. 22 disclosed that Judge Richard Holwell of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
has dismissed the claims of all purchasers of Vivendi's ordinary
shares and has limited the case to claims of certain purchasers of
Vivendi's American Depositary Shares.

This ruling, which was expected after the decision of the Supreme
Court in Morrison v. National Australia Bank Corp., has the effect
of eliminating more than 80% of the potential damages that could
have been awarded following the jury's verdict against Vivendi in
January 2010.  Vivendi plans to make a significant reduction in
the provisions that it established following the jury's verdict.

"We are very satisfied with [Tues]day's decision", said Vivendi's
CEO Jean-Bernard Levy.  "It is a substantial victory for Vivendi.
Judge Holwell has upheld a position that Vivendi has urged since
the beginning of the class action litigation, that claims by
shareholders who purchased Vivendi ordinary shares should not be
brought before a U.S. court."

Vivendi will now analyze Judge Holwell's decision in detail to
determine its next steps.


WALT DISNEY: Employees File Class Action for Privacy Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal class action,
employees claim The Walt Disney Co. violates their privacy by
putting their Social Security numbers in the barcode of their
Disney ID card.

A copy of the Complaint in Richards, et al. v. The Walt Disney
Company, et al., Case No. 11-cv-00298 (C.D. Calif.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/23/DisneyCA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Randy Renick, Esq.
          Cornelia Dai, Esq.
          Reem Salahi, Esq.
          HADSELL STORMER KEENY RICHARDSON AND RENICK LLP
          128 North Fair Oaks Avenue
          Pasadena, CA 91103-3664
          Telephone: (626) 585-9600


WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Awaits Final Approval of Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and certain of its subsidiaries, is
still awaiting final approval of its settlement agreement in a
consolidated lawsuit alleging improper or fraudulent reporting
practices related to the reporting of average wholesale prices of
certain products, according to the Company's February 22, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2010.

Beginning in July 2002, the company and certain of its
subsidiaries, as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies,
were named defendants in various state and federal court actions
alleging improper or fraudulent reporting practices related to the
reporting of average wholesale prices and wholesale acquisition
costs of certain products, and that the defendants committed other
improper acts in order to increase prices and market shares.  Some
of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts, under the caption, "In re:
Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation, MDL
Docket No. 1456."  The consolidated amended class-action complaint
in this case alleges that the defendants' acts improperly inflated
the reimbursement amounts paid by various public and private plans
and programs.  The amended complaint alleges claims on behalf of a
purported class of plaintiffs that paid any portion of the price
of certain drugs, which price was calculated based on its average
wholesale price, or contracted with a pharmacy benefit manager to
provide others with such drugs.

The company filed an answer to the amended consolidated class
action complaint on April 9, 2004.  The defendants in the
consolidated suit have been divided into two groups.  The company
and its named subsidiaries are contained in a large group of
defendants that is currently awaiting a ruling on the plaintiffs'
request for certification of classes of plaintiffs to maintain a
class-action against the drug company defendants.

Certain other defendants, referred to as the "Track One"
defendants, have proceeded on a more expedited basis.  Classes
were certified against these defendants, a trial has been
completed with respect to some of the claims against this group of
defendants, the presiding judge has issued a ruling granting
judgment to the plaintiffs, that judgment is being appealed, and
many of the claims have been settled.

The Track Two Defendants, including the company, have entered into
a settlement agreement resolving all claims of the Track Two
Defendants in the Consolidated Class Action.  The total amount of
the settlement for all of the Track Two Defendants is $125
million.

On July 2, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts preliminarily approved the Track Two settlement.
The amount to be paid by each Track Two Defendant is confidential.
On April 27, 2009, the Court held a hearing to further consider
the fairness of the proposed Track Two settlement.  The Court
adjourned the hearing without ruling on the fairness of the
proposed settlement until additional notices are provided to
certain of the class members in the action.

The Company said that the settlement is not expected to materially
adversely affect its business, results of operations, financial
condition and cash flows.


WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Unit's Dismissal Plea Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anda Inc.'s motion to dismiss claims of Medical West Ballas
Pharmacy, Ltd., in a class action lawsuit remains pending,
according to Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s February 22, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

In January 2008, Medical West Ballas Pharmacy, LTD, filed a
purported class action complaint against the Company alleging
conversion and alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act.  The case is entitled Medical West Ballas Pharmacy,
LTD, et al. v. Anda, Inc., (Circuit Court of the County of St.
Louis, State of Missouri, Case No. 08SL-CC00257).

In April 2008, plaintiff filed an amended complaint substituting
Anda, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company, as the defendant.  The
amended complaint alleges that by sending unsolicited facsimile
advertisements, Anda misappropriated the class members' paper,
toner, ink and employee time when they received the alleged
unsolicited faxes, and that the alleged unsolicited facsimile
advertisements were sent to the plaintiff in violation of the TCPA
and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.
The complaint seeks to assert class action claims on behalf of the
plaintiff and other similarly situated third parties.  In April
2008, Anda filed an answer to the amended complaint, denying the
allegations.

In November 2009, the court granted plaintiff's motion to expand
the class of plaintiffs from individuals for which Anda lacked
evidence of express permission or an established business
relationship to "All persons who on or after four years prior to
the filing of this action, were sent telephone facsimile messages
advertising pharmaceutical drugs and products by or on behalf of
Defendant."

In November 2010, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint
further expanding the definition and scope of the proposed class
of plaintiffs.  On November 30, 2010, Anda filed a petition with
the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), asking the FCC to
clarify the statutory bas is for its regulation requiring "opt-
out" language on faxes sent with express permission of the
recipient.  The FCC's ruling on Anda's petition may determine
whether fax recipients who expressly agree to receive faxes may
assert claims for receipt of such faxes pursuant to the TCPA.

On December 2, 2010, Anda filed a motion to dismiss claims the
plaintiff is seeking to assert on behalf of putative class members
who expressly consented or agreed to receive faxes from Defendant,
or in the alternative, to stay the court proceedings pending
resolution of Anda's petition to the FCC.  The motion remains
pending.

No trial date has been set.  Anda says it intends to defend the
action vigorously.  However, the Company notes that this action,
if successful, could have an adverse effect on the Company's
business, results of operations, financial condition and cash
flows.


WYETH: Disbarment of Fen-Phen Class Action Lawyer Sought
--------------------------------------------------------
Kentucky.com reports that class action lawyer Stanley M. Chesley
should lose his law license in Kentucky and return more than
$7.5 million in fees he collected in a controversial $200 million
fen-phen class action settlement, according to a hearing officer's
opinion.

The preliminary opinion, filed on Feb. 22, now goes to the Board
of Governors of the Kentucky Bar Association and the Kentucky
Supreme Court, which might or might not accept the recommendation
of the hearing officer, former Franklin Circuit Judge William L.
Graham.

Judge Graham noted in his findings on Feb. 22 that Mr. Chesley had
never been disciplined by a bar association during his long legal
career.  But he said Mr. Chesley's "character witnesses and his
prior unblemished record are insufficient to mitigate Chesley's
egregious conduct in this case."

He recommended that Mr. Chesley should be disbarred from
practicing law in Kentucky.

Prosecutors charged three Lexington-area lawyers, William Gallion,
Shirley Allen Cunningham and Melbourne Mills Jr., with illegally
pocketing millions of dollars that should have gone to clients in
the 2001 fen-phen case.

Mr. Gallion and Ms. Cunningham have been sentenced to 25 years and
20 years in prison, respectively, on federal criminal charges
stemming from the case.  They are appealing.  Mr. Mills, who was
acquitted of charges, was permanently disbarred.

Mr. Chesley joined the fen-phen case to use his class-action
expertise in reaching a settlement.  He was never charged.

Judge Graham concluded, however, that Mr. Chesley ultimately
received more than $20 million in fees, an amount Judge Graham
said was "unreasonable" and in violation of court procedural
rules.

He said Mr. Chesley should "disgorge" $7,555,000 in excess fees
"as restitution to his clients."


                             *********

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  * * *