---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, March 2, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 43

                             Headlines

ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Remains a Defendant in Global Warming Suit
AMERIGROUP CORP: Continues to Defend "Toure" Suit in New York
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Awaits Ruling on Request to Transfer to Texas
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Discovery Is Ongoing in Tronox Suit
ARBITRON INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in New York

ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: Damages in Mine Class Action to Exceed $5MM
BANK OF HAWAII: Defends "Taulava" Suit in Hawaii
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Appeal From Summary Judgment Still Pending
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
BECKMAN COULTER: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Calif.

BERKSHIRE HILLS: Settles Class Suits Over Rome Bancorp Merger
BLUE COAT: Appeal in IPO Suit Settlement Remains Pending
CADENCE DESIGN: Reaches Settlement in Securities Litigation
CALIX INC: Continues to Defend Class Suits Over Occam Merger
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Continues to Defend "Reed" Suit in Calif.

CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Obtains Final Court Approval of "Luque" Suit
CHINA VALVES: April 5 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
CLECO CORP: Awaits Ruling on Jurisdiction Conflict in Class Suits
CMS ENERGY: Still Faces Class Action Suits Over Natural Gas Prices
CNO FINANCIAL: Awaits Order on Motion to Dismiss Pension Fund Suit

CNO FINANCIAL: Preliminary Hearing on Settlement Set for March 25
CNO FINANCIAL: Awaits Outcome of Appeal in ValuLife Suit
CNO FINANCIAL: Appeal From Summary Judgment Still Pending
CNO FINANCIAL: Trial in Consolidated Suit to Commence May 7, 2012
CNO FINANCIAL: Class Certification in "Rowe" Suit Still Pending

COLGATE PALMOLIVE: ERISA Class Action Lawsuits Still Pending
COUNTRYWIDE FIN'L: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
DAYMAR COLLEGES: Faces Class Action Over "Substandard Programs"
DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Australians File Class Action Over Implants
DISH NETWORK: Continues to Defend Appeal in Channel Bundling Suit

DISH NETWORK: Obtains Court Okay of $60M Retailer Class Settlement
DORCHESTER MINERALS: Class Certification Hearing Set for Late July
DYNAVOX INC: Pennsylvania IPO Suit Dismissed
ELAN CORP: SFMS Files Securities Class Action in New York
ENSCO PLC: Pride Shareholders' Class Action Suits Still Pending

EXCO RESOURCES: Class Actions Over Stock Acquisition Still Pending
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Hays" Suit in Calif.
FREDDIC MAC: Continues to Defend OPERS Securities Class Suit
FREDDIE MAC: Continues to Defend Kuriakose Securities Class Suit
FRESENIUS MEDICAL: RCG Continues to Defend Tennessee Suit

GEEKNET INC: Appeals on IPO Suit Settlement Remain Pending
GOLFSMITH INTERNATIONAL: Awaits Court OK of "O'Flynn" Settlement
GOLFSMITH INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Leo" Suit in Calif.
HOME DELIVERY: Sued in Massachusetts for Misclassifying Workers
HOMESTORE.COM: Jury Awards Damages to CalSTRS, Investors

HOWARD INDUSTRIES: Faces Discrimination Class Action
HUGHES COMMS: Being Sold to EchoStar for Too Little, Suit Says
INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Appeal on Dismissal of Suit Still Pending
INTERNAP NETWORK: Awaits Ruling on Dismissal of Securities Suit
JANUS CAPITAL: Supreme Court Ruling on Appeal Expected Mid-2011

JANUS CAPITAL: Awaits Appellate Court Ruling in "Steinberg" Suit
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Suits Over RehabCare Merger
LABRANCHE & CO: D&Os Face 2nd Suit Over Sale to Cowen
LIFE PARTNERS: April 4 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Continues to Defend California Workers' Suit

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Continues to Defend FLSA Suit in Florida
MASTERCARD INC: Awaits Outcome of Appeals in Consumer Suits
MASTERCARD INC: Continues to Defend Interchange Litigation
MONTEREY FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Talent Fees
NICOR GAS: Continues to Defend Five Shareholder Class Suits

NYSE EURONEXT: D&Os Face 2nd Suit Over Sale to Deutsche Borse
OILSANDS QUEST: Scott+Scott LLP Files Class Action in New York
ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Remain Pending
PENN VIRGINIA: Enters Into MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits
PHILIP MORRIS: Illinois Court Reinstates Tobacco Class Action

PHITEN: Faces Class Action for Misleading Advertising
QWEST COMMS: Judge Approves Shareholder Class Action Settlement
REGIONS FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suits
REGIONS FINANCIAL: Class Suits Over Overdraft Fees Still Pending
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Continues to Defend "Scott" Class Action Suit

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Trial in "Brown" Action Set for May 6
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Appeal of "Sateriale" Suit Dismissal Pending
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Appeal in "Seminal Lights" Case Still Pending
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Turner" Suit Still Pending in Illinois Court
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Howard" Action Still Pending in Madison County

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Collora" Case Still Pending in Missouri
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Black" Case Still Pending in Missouri
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Dahl" Action in Minnesota Remains Stayed
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Thompson" Suit Likely to Remain Active in 2011
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Briefing on "Cleary" Appeal Underway

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Discovery in "VanDyke" Action Still Underway
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Shaffer" Suit Discovery Still Underway
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Young" Action in Louisiana Still Stayed
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Parsons" Suit in West Virginia Still Stayed
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Jones" Suit Remains Pending in Missouri

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Romo" Plaintiffs Seek Voluntary Dismissal
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: JTI Assumes Defense of Canadian Suits
ROME BANCORP: Settles Merger-Related Shareholder Class Suits
SANDISK CORP: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Ritz Camera Suit
SECURITIES AMERICA: Court Temporarily Halts Arbitration Cases

SEI INVESTMENTS: Subsidiary Still Faces Class Action Over ETFs
SEI INVESTMENTS: Class Action Suits in Louisiana Still Pending
SMART BALANCE: Court to Rule on Class Certification This Month
SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Reaches Tentative Pact in "Galura" Class Suit
SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit

SPRINT NEXTEL: Kansas Securities Class Suit Deemed Closed
STEEL DYNAMICS: Discovery Ongoing in Antitrust Class Complaints
SUPERMEDIA INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Texas
SUPERMEDIA INC: Class Certification in ERISA Suit Still Pending
SUPERMEDIA INC: Awaits Ruling on Dismissal of Former Employee Suit

SYCAMORE NETWORKS: Appeals in IPO Suit Settlement Remain Pending
TALECRIS BIO: Awaits Final Court OK of Merger-Related Suits Deal
TONGXIN INT'L: March 4 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls Additional 2.17 Million U.S. Vehicles
TOYOTA MOTOR: MDL Plaintiff Lawyers Investigating New Recalls

UMB FINANCIAL: Unit Continues to Defend Suits Re Overdraft Fees
UNITE: Judge Approves $4-Mil. Cintas Class Action Settlement
UNITED STATES: Cobell Settlement Media Campaign Underway
UNITED STATES: DOJ Balks at $223MM Legal Fee Bid in Cobell Case
VERISIGN INC: Continues to Defend Herbert & Bentley Class Suits

W ROSS: Faces Class Action Over Abuse of Disabled Students
WELLS FARGO: Hagens Berman Joins Class Action as Co-Lead Counsel
WYETH: Fen-Phen Plaintiffs Lawyer Ordered to Forfeit 32% of Fees



                             *********


ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Remains a Defendant in Global Warming Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny Energy, Inc., continues to defend itself from a class
action lawsuit alleging that the Company's greenhouse gases
contributed to global warming thus causing Hurricane Katrina and
plaintiffs' damages, according to the Company's February 23, 2011
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On April 9, 2006, the Company, along with numerous other companies
with coal-fired generation facilities and companies in other
industries, was named as a defendant in a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi.  On behalf of a purported class of residents and
property owners in Mississippi who were harmed by Hurricane
Katrina, the named plaintiffs allege that the emission of
greenhouse gases by the defendants contributed to global warming,
thereby causing Hurricane Katrina and plaintiffs' damages.  The
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages.  On December 6, 2006, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint on
jurisdictional grounds and then joined a motion filed by other
defendants to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.
At a hearing on August 30, 2007, the Court granted the motion to
dismiss that the Company had joined and dismissed all of the
plaintiffs' claims against all defendants. Plaintiffs appealed
that ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit.  On October 6, 2009, the assigned panel of the appellate
court issued a written opinion that reversed the judgment entered
by the District Court in favor of the defendants with respect to
certain of the plaintiffs' claims and remanded the case to the
District Court for further proceedings.  On November 25, 2009, the
Company and others filed a petition to have all of the judges of
the Fifth Circuit rehear the issues addressed in the panel's
October 6, 2009 opinion.  That petition was granted and oral
argument was set for May 24, 2010.  However, the parties were
notified on April 30, 2010 that the Court was unable to empanel
the necessary nine judges to hear the merits of the appeal due to
recusals.  The Court then entered an order on May 28, 2010,
reinstating the ruling of the lower court that entered judgment in
favor of the defendants and dismissing plaintiffs' appeal.
Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Mandamus with the United States
Supreme Court on August 26, 2010, and Defendants subsequently
filed their response to the petition.  The Supreme Court denied
Plaintiffs' petition on or about January 20, 2011.


AMERIGROUP CORP: Continues to Defend "Toure" Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
AMERIGROUP Corporation continues to defend a purported employee
class action suit commenced in New York, seeking overtime pay and
other compensation, according to the Company's February 23, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On November 22, 2010, a former AMERIGROUP New York, LLC marketing
representative filed a putative collective and class action
Complaint against AMERIGROUP Corporation and AMERIGROUP New York,
LLC in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New
York styled as Hamel Toure, Individually and on Behalf of All
Other Persons Similarly Situated v. AMERIGROUP CORPORATION and
AMERIGROUP NEW YORK, L.L.C. f/k/a CAREPLUS, L.L.C. (Case No.:
CV10-5391).  The Complaint alleges, inter alia, that the plaintiff
and certain other employees should have been classified as non-
exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and during the
course of their employment should have received overtime and other
compensation under the FLSA from October 22, 2007 until the entry
of judgment and under the New York Labor Law from October 22, 2004
until the entry of judgment.  The Complaint requests certification
of the action as a class action, designation of the action as a
collective action, a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, an
award of unpaid overtime compensation, an award of liquidated
and/or punitive damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
as well as costs and attorneys' fees.

The Company notes that at this early stage of the case, it is
unable to make a reasonable estimate of the amount or range of
loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome in the matter
because the scope and size of the potential class has not been
determined, no discovery has occurred and no specific amount of
monetary damages has been alleged.  The Company believes that it
has meritorious defenses to the claims against it and intend to
defend the case vigorously.


ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Awaits Ruling on Request to Transfer to Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation continues to defend itself and
certain of its officers against a consolidated class action
currently pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, according to the Company's
February 23, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

Two separate class action complaints were filed in June and August
2010 in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of purported purchasers of the Company's
stock between June 12, 2009, and June 9, 2010, against Anadarko
and certain of its officers.  The complaints allege causes of
action arising pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for
purported misstatements and omissions regarding, among other
things, the Company's liability related to the Deepwater Horizon
events.  The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, including interest thereon, as well as litigation fees
and costs.

In April 2010, the Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico, in which
Anadarko holds a 25% non-operating interest, discovered
hydrocarbon accumulations. During suspension operations, the well
blew out, an explosion occurred on the Deepwater Horizon drilling
rig, and the drilling rig sank, resulting in the release of
hydrocarbons into the Gulf of Mexico. Eleven people lost their
lives in the explosion and subsequent fire, and others sustained
personal injuries. Response and clean-up efforts are being
conducted by BP Exploration & Production Inc., the operator and
65% owner of the well, and by other parties, all under the
direction of the Unified Command of the United States Coast Guard.
On July 15, 2010, after several attempts to contain the oil spill,
BP successfully installed a capping stack that shut in the well
and prevented the further release of hydrocarbons. Installation of
the capping stack was a temporary solution that was followed by a
successful "static kill" cementing operation completed on
August 5, 2010. The Macondo well was permanently plugged on
September 19, 2010, when BP completed a "bottom kill" cementing
operation in connection with the successful interception of the
well by a relief well. Investigations by the federal government
and other parties into the cause of the well blowout, explosion,
and resulting oil spill, as well as other matters arising from or
relating to these events, are ongoing.

In November 2010, the New York District Court consolidated the two
cases, and appointed the Virgin Islands Group to act as Lead
Plaintiff.  In January 2011, the Lead Plaintiff filed its
Consolidated Amended Complaint.  Prior to filing its Consolidated
Amended Complaint, the Lead Plaintiff requested leave from the
court to transfer this lawsuit to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas.  The Company opposes the Lead
Plaintiff's request to transfer the case to the Texas District
Court.  The court has ordered the parties to brief the transfer of
venue issue.

These proceedings are at a very early stage; accordingly, the
Company currently cannot assess the probability of losses, or
reasonably estimate a range of any potential losses related to the
proceedings.  The Company intends to vigorously defend itself, its
officers and its directors in these proceedings.


ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Discovery Is Ongoing in Tronox Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation said in a Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 23, 2011, that discovery is
ongoing with respect to the class action complaint filed by
Tronox, Inc., shareholders.

A consolidated class action complaint has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purported purchasers of Tronox's equity and debt
securities between November 21, 2005, and January 12, 2009,
against Anadarko, Kerr-McGee, several former Kerr-McGee officers
and directors, several former Tronox officers and directors and
Ernst & Young LLP.  The complaint alleges causes of action arising
pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for purported
misstatements and omissions regarding, among other things,
Tronox's environmental-remediation and tort claim liabilities.
The plaintiffs allege that these purported misstatements and
omissions are contained in certain of Tronox's public filings,
including in connection with Tronox's initial public offering.
The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages,
including interest thereon, as well as litigation fees and costs.
Anadarko, Kerr-McGee and other defendants moved to dismiss the
class action complaint and in June 2010, the Court issued an
opinion and order dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint against
Anadarko, but granted the plaintiffs leave to re-plead their
claims.  The court further granted in part and denied in part the
motions to dismiss by Kerr-McGee and certain of its former
officers and directors, but permitted plaintiffs leave to re-plead
certain of the dismissed claims.  Plaintiffs' amended complaint
was filed in July 2010.

In August 2010, Anadarko, Kerr-McGee, and several of Kerr-McGee's
former officers and directors filed respective motions to dismiss.
In January 2011, the District Court issued an opinion and order
denying the motions of Kerr-McGee and several former Kerr-McGee
officers and directors.  The District Court also denied Anadarko's
motion to dismiss the remaining Section 20(a) claim under the
Exchange Act covering the period beginning on Aug. 10, 2006,
through the end of the alleged Class Period.  However, the
District Court dismissed this claim against Anadarko to the extent
it was based on a successor-in-interest theory of liability.  The
discovery process is ongoing.

These proceedings are at a very early stage; accordingly, the
Company currently cannot assess the probability of losses, or
reasonably estimate a range of any potential losses related to the
proceedings.  The Company intends to vigorously defend itself, its
officers and its directors in these proceedings.


ARBITRON INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Arbitron Inc. continues to defend itself in a securities class
action pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, according to the Company's
February 24, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On April 30, 2008, Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No. 630
Pension-Annuity Trust Fund filed a securities class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of a purported Class of all purchasers of
Arbitron common stock between July 19, 2007, and November 26,
2007. The plaintiff asserts that Arbitron, Stephen B. Morris (the
Company's former Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer),
and Sean R. Creamer (the Company's Executive Vice President, U.S.
Media Services & Chief Financial Officer) violated federal
securities laws.  The plaintiff alleges misrepresentations and
omissions relating, among other things, to the delay in
commercialization of the Company's PPM ratings service in November
2007, as well as stock sales during the period by company insiders
who were not named as defendants and Messrs. Morris and Creamer.
The plaintiff seeks class certification, compensatory damages plus
interest and attorneys' fees, among other remedies. On Sept. 22,
2008 the plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action Complaint. On
November 25, 2008, Arbitron, Mr. Morris, and Mr. Creamer each
filed Motions to Dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint. In
September 2009, the plaintiff sought leave to file a Second
Amended Class Action Complaint in lieu of oral argument on the
pending Motions to Dismiss. The court granted leave to file a
Second Amended Class Action Complaint and denied the pending
Motions to Dismiss without prejudice. On or about October 19,
2009, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint.
Briefing on motions to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action
Complaint was completed in March 2010. Arbitron and each of Mr.
Morris and Mr. Creamer again moved to dismiss the Second Amended
Class Action Complaint. On September 24, 2010, the Court granted
Mr. Creamer's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims against
him, and all claims against Mr. Creamer were dismissed with
prejudice. The motions to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action
Complaint by Arbitron and Mr. Morris were denied. Arbitron and Mr.
Morris each then filed answers denying the claims.

Arbitron Inc. -- http://www.arbitron.com/-- is a media and
marketing research firm serving the media -- radio, television,
cable and out-of-home -- as well as advertisers and advertising
agencies.  Arbitron's core businesses are measuring network and
local market radio audiences across the United States; surveying
the retail, media and product patterns of local market consumers;
and providing application software used for analyzing media
audience and marketing information data.  The company has
developed the Portable People Meter and PPM 360, new technologies
for media and marketing research.


ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: Damages in Mine Class Action to Exceed $5MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Trout, writing for The Reno Gazette-Journal, reports that
although a $5 million figure is listed under jurisdiction and
venue and was cited in several media reports, the plaintiffs in a
class action complaint filed earlier in February in U.S. District
Court in Reno in relation to the Yerington/Anaconda mine are
seeking more than that amount, one of their attorneys reported.

Several local residents who live north of the Yerington/Anaconda
Mine filed the civil complaint against defendants Atlantic
Richfield Company and BP America, Inc., on Feb. 14 a seeking
damages in response to alleged contamination from the mine.

As for the timing of the lawsuit filing now, Joel Rubenstein said
as his partner, Steven German had already said, "The answer is
because it's time for something to happen at the site, for my
clients' homes and wells to be cleaned up."

Mr. Rubenstein charged groundwater in the area is unsafe to drink
due to alleged contamination from the mine and "it's time for BP
to take responsibility and clean it up."

Regarding the $5 million figure, he said that amount was listed
under jurisdiction and venue as one monetary figure is a minimum
requirement to file the class action complaint with the U.S.
District Court in Reno.  However, he said they expect the "claim
we're asserting to far exceed $5 million," and this complaint
lists "unspecified damages.""

The complaint lists two couples, Philip and Anna Roeder and Lisa
and Michael Lackore, the two minor children of the Lackores, and
Dayna Anglin, as plaintiffs.

Mr. Rubenstein said the class includes the "entire impacted
community," those "in the footprint of the mine," and he expects
the number of plaintiffs to include many residents of the area.
He noted about 180 residents receive bottled water from ARC/BP.

The class allegations section of the complaint lists two classes
the plaintiffs are seeking to certify: "Property damage class" and
"medical monitoring class."

The property damage class is listed as: "All persons who, on or
after Feb. 14, 2011, have owned and/or rented real property
located within the boundaries of Paiute Drive to the north;
Alternate Highway 95 to the east; the Mine Site to the south and
the Mine Pass Road to the west in Yerington."

Although a $5 million figure is listed under jurisdiction and
venue and was cited in several media reports, the plaintiffs in a
class action complaint filed earlier this month in U.S. District
Court in Reno in relation to the Yerington/Anaconda mine are
seeking more than that amount, one of their attorneys reported.

Several local residents who live north of the Yerington/Anaconda
Mine filed the civil complaint against defendants Atlantic
Richfield Company and BP America, Inc., on Feb. 14 a seeking
damages in response to alleged contamination from the mine.

The medical monitoring class is listed as "all persons who, on or
before February 14, 2011, ever resided on property located within"
the previously listed boundaries, and who "were exposed to toxic
and hazardous substances."

While the complaint lists four different attorney firms
representing the plaintiffs', Mr. Rubenstein said the firms are
working jointly as co-counsel in representing the plaintiffs. He
said his firm became involved after being contacted by plaintiffs.

In a description of the parties of the lawsuit and the potential
damages, the document charges, "As a result of the actions of
Defendants, toxic and hazardous substances have entered into his
(or her) property, air, land, water, groundwater, drinking water,
dwelling, and surrounding environment, thereby causing (name) to
suffer damage to his property and personal finance, loss of the
use and enjoyment of his residence and destruction of his
community.

"Through consumption of contaminated well water and inhalation of
contaminated air, (name) has been exposed to Defendants' toxic and
hazardous substances. As a result of the actions of Defendants,
toxic and hazardous substances entered into (name) person,
property, air, land, water, groundwater, drinking water, dwelling
and surrounding environment, thereby causing (name) to suffer an
increased risk of future illness necessitating medical
monitoring."


BANK OF HAWAII: Defends "Taulava" Suit in Hawaii
------------------------------------------------
Bank of Hawaii Corporation is facing a purported class action
lawsuit filed by Lodley and Tehani Taulava in Hawaii, according to
the Company's February 23, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

On February 15, 2011, the Company was named a defendant in a
purported class action lawsuit filed by the Taulavas, on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of all similarly situated customers of
the Company, in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of
Hawaii (Civil Case No. 11-1-0337-02).  The complaint asserts
claims of unconscionability, conversion, unjust enrichment, and
violations of Hawaii's Uniform Deceptive Trade Practice Act
relating to overdraft fees on debit card transactions collected by
the Bank.  The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, restitution and
declaratory relief from the Company.  Management is evaluating the
claims of the lawsuit and is unable to estimate the possible loss
or range of possible loss that may result from this lawsuit.


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Appeal From Summary Judgment Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a summary judgment ruling in favor of Baxter
International Inc. in an ERISA class action lawsuit filed in
Illinois remains pending, according to the Company's February 23,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

In October 2004, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against
Baxter and its current Chief Executive Officer and then current
Chief Financial Officer and their predecessors for alleged
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,
as amended.  Plaintiff alleges that the defendants, along with the
Administrative and Investment Committees of the Company's 401(k)
plans, breached their fiduciary duties to the plan participants by
offering Baxter common stock as an investment option in each of
the plans during the period of January 2001 to October 2004.  In
March 2006, the trial court certified a class of plan participants
who elected to acquire Baxter common stock through the plans
between January 2001 and the present.  Summary judgment in the
company's favor was granted by the trial court in May 2010.  The
plaintiffs have appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit.

No updates were reported in the Company's latest annual report
filed with the SEC.


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc. continues to defend itself from a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending in Illinois,
according to the Company's February 23, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2010.

In September 2010, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the
Company and certain of its current executive officers.  The
complaint alleges that, from September 17, 2009 to May 3, 2010,
the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's plasma-based therapies business and the
Company's remediation of its COLLEAGUE infusion pumps causing the
Company's common stock to trade at artificially high levels.  A
similar suit was filed against the Company and certain of its
executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois in November 2010.  These suits seek to
recover the lost value of investors' stock as damages.  These
suits have been consolidated for further proceedings.


BECKMAN COULTER: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Beckman Coulter, Inc., is defending itself against a consolidated
securities class action in California, according to the Company's
February 23, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On Sept. 3, 2010, and Sept. 7, 2010, two securities class action
complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court in the Central
District of California against Beckman Coulter, Inc., Scott Garret
(the Company's former Chairman of the Board, former President and
former Chief Executive Officer) and Charles P. Slacik (the
Company's Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer)
alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants, and violation of Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 against the individual
defendants.  The Securities Action asserts that the defendants
issued allegedly materially false and misleading statements
including statements related to the Company's troponin test kits,
FDA compliance, product quality and assurance, customer loyalty,
and earnings guidance for fiscal year 2010.  On Dec. 8, 2010, the
Honorable Josephine Staton Tucker issued an order consolidating
the two cases under the caption as In re Beckman Coulter, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 8:10-CV-01327-JST (RNBx), and
appointing Arkansas Teacher Retirement System and Iron Workers
District Council of New England Pens ion Fund as Lead Plaintiff.

On Feb. 7, 2011, Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint asserting claims on behalf of an alleged class of stock
purchasers between July 31, 2009 and July 22, 2010, claiming that
the stock price was artificially inflated during the alleged class
period due to the alleged misrepresentations and omissions.  The
Securities Action seeks unspecified damages based on declines in
the stock price after disclosures regarding FDA matters, troponin
test kits and downward guidance for 2010.

The company intends to vigorously defend itself against these
claims and any additional related lawsuits that may be filed.


BERKSHIRE HILLS: Settles Class Suits Over Rome Bancorp Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement has been reached in class action suits wherein
Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc., has been named a defendant in
relation to its merger agreement with Rome Bancorp, Inc.,
according to the Company's February 23, 2011, Form 8-K filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.

On February 23, 2011, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation and to allow stockholders to
vote on the proposals required in connection with the merger at
the scheduled meeting, Rome Bancorp entered into a memorandum of
understanding with plaintiffs' counsel and other named defendants
regarding the settlement of two putative class action lawsuits
filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of the
Bronx and the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
Oneida on behalf of Rome Bancorp's  stockholders following the
public announcement of the execution of the Agreement and Plan of
Merger, dated October 12, 2010 by and among Berkshire Hills
Bancorp, Inc. and Rome Bancorp.

On October 18, 2010, Stephen Bushansky filed a stockholder class
action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of the Bronx, on October 27, 2010, James and Liliana
DiCastro filed a stockholder class action lawsuit in the Chancery
Court of the State of Delaware, and on November 15, 2010, and
Samuel S. Rapasodi filed a stockholder class action lawsuit in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Oneida, each
against Rome Bancorp, Berkshire Hills, and the directors of Rome
Bancorp.  The lawsuit filed in Delaware was subsequently withdrawn
voluntarily.  The active lawsuits purport to be brought on behalf
of all of Rome Bancorp's  public stockholders and allege that the
directors of Rome Bancorp breached their fiduciary duties to Rome
Bancorp's stockholders by failing to take steps necessary to
obtain a fair and adequate price for Rome Bancorp's common stock
and that Berkshire Hills knowingly aided and abetted Rome Bancorp
directors' breach of fiduciary duty.  The lawsuits seek to enjoin
the proposed merger from proceeding and seek unspecified
compensatory or rescissory damages on behalf of Rome Bancorp's
stockholders.  On December 7 and December 20, 2010, plaintiffs in
the Rapasodi and Bushansky actions filed amended complaints
repeating their claims regarding the adequacy of the merger price
and adding allegations that the disclosures to be provided to Rome
Bancorp's stockholders, as set forth in the preliminary S-4
Registration Statement filed with the SEC on November 23, 2010,
fail to provide required material information necessary for Rome
Bancorp's stockholders to make a fully informed decision
concerning the merger.

Under the terms of the memorandum negotiated by Rome Bancorp, Rome
Bancorp, the other named defendants and the plaintiffs have agreed
to settle the two lawsuits subject to court approval.  If the
court approves the settlement contemplated in the memorandum, the
lawsuits will be dismissed with prejudice.  Pursuant to the terms
of the memorandum, Rome Bancorp has agreed to make available
additional information to its stockholders.  In return, the
plaintiffs have agreed to the dismissal of the lawsuits and to
withdraw all motions filed in connection with the lawsuits.  In
connection with the settlement, plaintiffs intend to seek an award
of attorneys' fees and expenses not to exceed $395,000, subject to
court approval.  Rome Bancorp and its insurance carrier have
agreed to pay the legal fees and expenses of plaintiffs' counsel,
in an amount not to exceed $395,000 and ultimately to be
determined by the court.  This payment will not affect the amount
of merger consideration to be paid in the merger.  If the
settlement is finally approved by the court, it is anticipated
that it will resolve and release all claims in all actions that
were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the
proposed merger, the Merger Agreement, and any disclosure made in
connection therewith (but excluding claims for appraisal under
Section 262 of the Delaware General Corporation Law).  There can
be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve the
settlement even if the parties were to enter into a stipulation.
In that event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the
memorandum of understanding may be terminated.  The details of the
settlement will be set forth in a notice to be sent to Rome
Bancorp's stockholders prior to a hearing before the court to
consider both the settlement and plaintiffs' fee application.

The settlement will not affect the merger consideration to be paid
to stockholders of Rome Bancorp in connection with the proposed
merger between Rome Bancorp and Berkshire Hills or the timing of
the special meeting of stockholders of Rome Bancorp scheduled for
March 9, 2011, in Rome, New York to vote upon a proposal to adopt
the Merger Agreement.  Rome Bancorp and the other defendants deny
all of the allegations in the lawsuits and believe the disclosures
are appropriate under the law.  Nevertheless, Rome Bancorp and the
other defendants have agreed to settle the putative class action
litigation in order to avoid costly litigation and reduce the risk
of any delay to the closing of the merger.

Rome Bancorp and the other defendants have vigorously denied, and
continue to vigorously deny, that they have committed or aided and
abetted in the commission of any violation of law or engaged in
any of the wrongful acts that were or could have been alleged in
the lawsuits, and expressly maintain that, to the extent
applicable, they diligently and scrupulously complied with their
fiduciary and other legal burdens and are entering into the
contemplated settlement solely to eliminate the burden and expense
of further litigation, to put the claims that were or could have
been asserted to rest, and to avoid any possible delay in the
consummation of the merger.  The Company says nothing in its Form
8-K, the Memorandum of Understanding or any stipulation of
settlement will be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or
materiality under applicable laws of any of the disclosures set
forth.


BLUE COAT: Appeal in IPO Suit Settlement Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in the class action lawsuit arising from Blue Coat
Systems, Inc.'s initial public offering remains pending with the
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, according to the
Company's February 24, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
January 31, 2011.

Beginning on May 16, 2001, a series of putative securities class
actions were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the firms that underwrote
the Company's initial public offering, the Company, and some of
the Company's officers and directors. These cases have been
consolidated under the case captioned In re CacheFlow, Inc.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1-
01-CV-5143. In November 2001, a putative class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the firms that underwrote Packeteer's
initial public offering, Packeteer, and some of its officers and
directors. An amended complaint, captioned In re Packeteer, Inc.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civil Action No.
01-CV-10185, was filed on April 20, 2002.

These are two of a number of actions coordinated for pretrial
purposes as In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
21 MC 92, with the first action filed on January 12, 2001.
Plaintiffs in the coordinated proceeding are bringing claims under
the federal securities laws against numerous underwriters,
companies, and individuals, alleging generally that defendant
underwriters engaged in improper and undisclosed activities
concerning the allocation of shares in the IPOs of more than 300
companies during late 1998 through 2000. Among other things, the
plaintiffs allege that the underwriters' customers had to pay
excessive brokerage commissions and purchase additional shares of
stock in the aftermarket in order to receive favorable allocations
of shares in an IPO.

The consolidated amended complaint in the Company's case seeks
unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
of the Company's common stock between December 9, 1999 and
December 6, 2000. Pursuant to a tolling agreement, the individual
defendants were dismissed without prejudice. On February 19, 2003,
the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the claims
against the Company.

The amended complaint in the Packeteer case seeks unspecified
damages on behalf of a purported class of purchaser's of
Packeteer's common stock between July 27, 1999 and December 6,
2000.

In June 2004, a stipulation of settlement and release of claims
against the issuer defendants, including the Company and
Packeteer, was submitted to the Court for approval. On August 31,
2005, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement. In December
2006, the appellate court overturned the certification of classes
in six test cases that were selected by the underwriter defendants
and plaintiffs in the coordinated proceedings. Because class
certification was a condition of the settlement, it was deemed
unlikely that the settlement would receive final Court approval.
On June 25, 2007, the Court entered an order terminating the
proposed settlement based upon a stipulation among the parties to
the settlement. Plaintiffs have filed amended master allegations
and amended complaints in the six focus cases. On March 26, 2008,
the Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
complaints.

The parties reached a global settlement of the litigation and the
plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary settlement approval with
the Court on April 2, 2009. Under the settlement, the insurers
will pay the full amount of settlement share allocated to the
Company and Packeteer, and the Company and Packeteer would not
bear any financial liability. On October 5, 2009, the Court
entered an order granting final approval of the settlement.
Certain objectors appealed that order to the Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit and submitted their opening briefs in fall
2010. In December 2010, the plaintiffs moved to dismiss one of the
appeals based on alleged violations of the Second Circuit's rules,
including failure to serve, falsifying proofs of service, and
failure to include citations to the record.

Blue Coat Systems, Inc., provides hardware appliances and software
for controlling and securing Web-based communications in the
secure Internet gateway and WAN application delivery markets
worldwide. The company is headquartered in Sunnyvale, Calif.


CADENCE DESIGN: Reaches Settlement in Securities Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cadence Design Systems, Inc., has reached a settlement agreement
in the federal securities class action against it, according to
the Company's Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 23, 2011.

During fiscal 2008, three complaints were filed in the District
Court all alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of Cadence's common stock.

The three complaints are:

     (1) Hu v. Cadence Design Systems, Inc., Michael J. Fister,
         William Porter and Kevin S. Palatnik, filed on Oct. 29,
         2008;

     (2) Vyas v. Cadence Design Systems, Inc., Michael J.
         Fister, and Kevin S. Palatnik, filed on Nov. 4, 2008;
         and

     (3) Collins v. Cadence Design Systems, Inc., Michael J.
         Fister, John B. Shoven, Kevin S. Palatnik and William
         Porter, filed Nov. 21, 2008.

On March 4, 2009, the District Court entered an order
consolidating these three complaints and captioning the
consolidated case In re Cadence Design Systems, Inc. Securities
Litigation.  The District Court also named a lead plaintiff and
lead counsel for the consolidated litigation.  The lead plaintiff
filed its consolidated amended complaint on April 24, 2009, naming
Cadence, Michael J. Fister, Kevin S. Palatnik, William Porter and
Kevin Bushby as defendants, and alleging violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of
Cadence's common stock who traded Cadence's common stock between
April 23, 2008 and Dec. 10, 2008.  The amended complaint alleged
that Cadence and the individual defendants made statements during
the Alleged Class Period regarding Cadence's financial results
that were false and misleading because Cadence had recognized
revenue that should have been recognized in subsequent quarters.
The amended complaint requested certification of the action as a
class action, unspecified damages, interest and costs, and
unspecified equitable relief.  On June 8, 2009, Cadence and the
other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On Sept. 11, 2009, the District Court held that the plaintiffs had
failed to allege a valid claim under the relevant legal standards,
and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.  The District Court gave the plaintiffs leave to file
another amended complaint, and the plaintiffs did so on Oct. 13,
2009.  The amended complaint filed on Oct. 13, 2009, names the
same defendants, asserts the same causes of action, and seeks the
same relief as the earlier amended complaint.  Cadence moved to
dismiss the Oct. 13, 2009, amended complaint.  The District Court
denied the motion to dismiss on March 2, 2010.  On July 7, 2010,
the parties agreed, and the District Court ordered, that the
litigation be stayed in order to facilitate a mediation scheduled
in late August 2010.

In February 2011, the Company reached an agreement to settle the
federal securities class action in the cases captioned "In re
Cadence Design Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation" and the
individual defendants reached an agreement to settle the related
state and federal derivative cases, both captioned "In re Cadence
Design Systems, Inc. Derivative Litigation."

Though the settlement was reached subsequent to fiscal 2010 year-
end, Cadence recorded an expense of approximately $15.8 million in
respect of the settlements for the fourth quarter of 2010, which
is the aggregate settlement cost of approximately $40 million, net
of approximately $24.2 million that Cadence expects will be paid
by its insurance carriers.  Cadence agreed to these settlements
without admitting any wrongdoing on the part of the Company or any
of its current or former directors and executive officers and the
settlements are subject to completion of final settlement
documentation by the parties and court approval.  This settlement
was reached after Cadence's earnings release for fiscal 2010 and
the fourth quarter of fiscal 2010 and investors should review
Cadence's Form 10-K for fiscal 2010 when it is filed for
additional detail with respect to the impact of this settlement-
related expense on Cadence's GAAP financial performance for fiscal
2010.

Cadence Design Systems, Inc. -- http://www.cadence.com/--
develops electronic design automation (EDA) software and hardware.
The company licenses software, sells or leases hardware
technology, and provides design, methodology and education
services throughout the world to help manage and accelerate
electronics product development processes.  Its range of products
and services are used by the electronics companies to design and
develop complex integrated circuits (ICs) and electronics systems.
The company offers its customers three license types for its
software: perpetual, term and subscription.


CALIX INC: Continues to Defend Class Suits Over Occam Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Calix Inc. continues to defend itself from a series of class
action complaints filed by Occam Networks Inc.'s stockholders in
connection with their merger agreement, according to the Company's
February 24, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On September 16, 2010, the Company, Occam Networks, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, Ocean Sub I, Inc., a Delaware corporation
and a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of Calix, and Ocean Sub II,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and a direct, wholly-
owned subsidiary of Calix entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger and Reorganization.  In response to the announcement of the
Merger Agreement, on September 17, 2010, September 20, 2010 and
September 21, 2010, three purported class action complaints were
filed by three purported stockholders of Occam in the California
Superior Court for Santa Barbara County: Kardosh v. Occam
Networks, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1371748), or the Kardosh
complaint; Kennedy v. Occam Networks, Inc., et al. (Case No.
1371762), or the Kennedy complaint; and Moghaddam v. Occam
Networks, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1371802), or the Moghaddam
complaint, respectively. The Kardosh, Kennedy and Moghaddam
complaints, which are referred to collectively as the California
class action complaints, are substantially similar.  Each of the
California class action complaints names Occam, the former members
of the Occam board and Calix as defendants.  The Kennedy complaint
also names Calix's merger subsidiaries, Ocean Sub I and Ocean Sub
II, as defendants.

The California class action complaints generally allege that the
former members of the Occam board breached their fiduciary duties
in connection with the acquisition of Occam by Calix, by, among
other things, engaging in an allegedly unfair process and agreeing
to an allegedly unfair price for the proposed merger transaction.
The California class action complaints further allege that Occam
and the other entity defendants aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty.  The plaintiffs in the California
class action complaints seek injunctive relief directing the
individual defendants to comply with their fiduciary duties and
enjoining the proposed merger transaction, and rescinding the
merger transaction and awarding damages in an unspecified amount
in the event the merger transaction closes, as well as plaintiffs'
costs, attorney's fees, and other relief.  On November 2, 2010,
the three California class action complaints were consolidated
into a single action, with the Kardosh action becoming the lead
action, and on November 19, 2010, the California Superior Court
issued an order staying the California class actions in favor of a
substantively identical stockholder class action pending in the
Delaware Court of Chancery.

On October 6, 2010, a purported class action complaint was filed
by purported stockholders of Occam in the Delaware Court of
Chancery: Steinhardt v. Howard-Anderson, et al. (Case No. 5878-
VCL).  On November 24, 2010, these purported stockholders filed an
amended complaint, or the amended Steinhardt complaint.  The
amended Steinhardt complaint names Occam and the former members of
the Occam board as defendants.  The amended Steinhardt complaint
does not name Calix as a defendant.

Like the California class action complaints, the amended
Steinhardt complaint generally alleges that the former members of
the Occam board breached their fiduciary duties in connection with
the acquisition of Occam by Calix, by, among other things,
engaging in an allegedly unfair process and agreeing to an
allegedly unfair price for the proposed merger transaction.  The
amended Steinhardt complaint also alleges that Occam and the
former members of the Occam board breached their fiduciary duties
by failing to disclose certain allegedly material facts about the
proposed merger in the preliminary Form S-4 Registration Statement
that Calix filed with the SEC on November 2, 2010.  The amended
Steinhardt complaint seeks injunctive relief enjoining the
proposed merger, or rescinding the merger transaction and awarding
damages in an unspecified amount in the event the merger
transaction closes, as well as plaintiffs' costs, attorney's fees,
and other relief.

On November 12, 2010, a complaint was filed by two purported
stockholders of Occam in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California: Kennedy and Moghaddam v. Occam Networks,
Inc., et al. (Case No. CV10-8665), or the Federal complaint.  The
Federal complaint names Occam, the former members of the Occam
board, Calix, Ocean Sub I, and Ocean Sub II as defendants.  The
Federal complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated
sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the acquisition of Occam by Calix, by, among other
things, making material misstatements and omissions about the
proposed merger in the preliminary Form S-4 Registration Statement
that Calix filed with the SEC on November 2, 2010, and/or aiding
and abetting the issuance of the allegedly misleading registration
statement.  The plaintiffs in the Federal complaint seek
injunctive relief enjoining the proposed merger transaction, as
well as plaintiffs' costs, attorney's fees, and other relief.

On January 24, 2011, the Delaware Court of Chancery held a hearing
on the motion by the plaintiffs to preliminarily enjoin the
stockholder vote to adopt the Merger Agreement.  Following the
hearing, the Court of Chancery enjoined the stockholder vote until
at least 10 calendar days after Occam filed certain supplemental
disclosures to the Definitive Proxy Statement with the SEC.  Such
supplemental disclosures were filed on February 7, 2011.  Occam's
management believes that the allegations in the California
actions, the Delaware action, and the Federal action are without
merit and intends to vigorously contest the actions.  However,
there can be no assurance that the defendants will be successful
in their defense.  In addition, Occam has obligations, under
certain circumstances, to hold harmless and indemnify each of the
defendant former directors against judgments, fines, settlements
and expenses related to claims against such directors and
otherwise to the fullest extent permitted under Delaware law and
Occam's bylaws and certificate of incorporation.  Such obligations
may apply to these lawsuits.  An unfavorable outcome in these
lawsuits could result in substantial costs.

Calix is reviewing the California class action complaints, the
Federal complaint and the Steinhardt complaint and has not yet
formally responded to them, but believes the plaintiffs'
allegations are without merit and intends to defend against them
vigorously.  However, litigation is inherently uncertain and there
can be no assurance regarding the likelihood that Calix's defense
of these actions will be successful.  Additional complaints
containing substantially-similar allegations may be filed in the
future.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Continues to Defend "Reed" Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated continues to defend itself
against a class action lawsuit over claims of California Labor
Code violations, according to the Company's February 23, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 28, 2010.

On May 10, 2010, three current hourly restaurant employees in the
State of California filed a class action lawsuit in the California
Superior Court, Placer County, against the company alleging
violations of the California Labor Code by requiring employees to
purchase uniforms and other work tools to perform their jobs,
among other claims.  The lawsuit is entitled Reed v. The
Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No. S CV27073.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified amounts of penalties and other
monetary payments on behalf of the plaintiffs and other purported
class members.  The plaintiffs also seek attorneys' fees.

The company intends to vigorously defend this action.  Based on
the current status of this matter, the company has not reserved
for any potential future payments.

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


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Obtains Final Court Approval of "Luque" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A California court approved the final settlement agreement that
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated reached in Luque v. The
Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc.; Case No. BC415640, according
to the Company's February 23, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 28,
2010.

On August 5, 2009, two former hourly restaurant employees in the
State of California filed a class action lawsuit in the Los
Angeles County Superior Court (Luque v. The Cheesecake Factory
Restaurants, Inc.; Case No. BC415640) against the company alleging
violations of California's wage and hour laws with respect to
alleged failure to pay proper vacation wages at termination,
failure to furnish wage statements, and violations of the
California Business and Professions Code, among other claims.
This lawsuit seeks unspecified amounts of penalties and other
monetary payments on behalf of the respective plaintiffs and other
purported class members.  The plaintiffs also seek attorneys'
fees.  The plaintiffs' deadline for filing their motion for class
certification was June 11, 2010, and they failed to timely file.
On Oct. 12, 2010, the parties conditionally settled Case No.
BC415640 for a nominal amount.  The final settlement agreement was
approved by the court on October 21, 2010.


CHINA VALVES: April 5 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. reminds investors of the April 5, 2011
lead plaintiff deadline in the securities action filed by the
firm.  If you purchased the common stock of China Valves
Technology, Inc., you should contact the Rosen Law Firm for more
information about the importance of serving as lead plaintiff.
The lawsuit is seeking to recover damages for investors from
violations of federal securities laws.

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

To join the China Valves class action, visit the firm's Web site
at http://www.rosenlegal.com/ or call Laurence Rosen, Esq. or
Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email
lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

The Complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act
against China Valves and its officers and directors for
misrepresenting the nature, circumstances, and related party
nature of the Company's acquisitions of Able Delight (Changsha)
Valve Co. and Shanghai Pudong Hanwei Valve Co., Ltd.  The
Complaint asserts that defendants concealed that both acquisitions
involved payments to entities or persons that were related to
management in violation of generally accepted accounting
principles and SEC rules.  The Complaint also alleges that
Defendants materially overstated the financial condition and
business prospects of the acquired companies.  When the market
learned of this adverse information, the price of China Valves
stock dropped damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 5, 2011.   A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Weekends Tel: (917) 797-4425
          Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                  pkim@rosenlegal.com
          Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


CLECO CORP: Awaits Ruling on Jurisdiction Conflict in Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cleco Corporation is awaiting a ruling from the appellate courts
regarding the conflict in jurisdiction of two purported class
action lawsuits filed by Opelousas, Louisiana customers, according
to the Company's February 24, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

On March 9, 2010, a complaint was filed in the 27th Judicial
District Court of St. Landry Parish, State of Louisiana, on behalf
of three Cleco Power customers in Opelousas, Louisiana.  The
complaint alleges that Cleco Power overcharged the plaintiffs by
applying to customers in Opelousas the same retail rates as Cleco
Power applies to all of its retail customers.  The plaintiffs
allege that Cleco Power should have established, solely for
customers in Opelousas, retail rates that are separate and
distinct from the retail rates that apply to other customers of
Cleco Power and that Cleco Power should not collect from customers
in Opelousas the storm surcharge approved by the LPSC following
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.  Cleco Power currently operates in
Opelousas pursuant to a franchise granted to Cleco Power by the
City of Opelousas in 1986 and an operating and franchise agreement
dated May 14, 1991, pursuant to which Cleco Power operates its own
electric facilities and leases and operates electric facilities
owned by the City of Opelousas.  In April 2010, Cleco Power filed
a petition with the LPSC appealing to its expertise in declaring
that the ratepayers of Opelousas have been properly charged the
rates that are applicable to Cleco Power's retail customers and
that no overcharges have been collected.  In addition, Cleco Power
removed the purported class action lawsuit filed on behalf of
Opelousas electric customers from the state court to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana in April
2010, so that it could be properly addressed under the terms of
the Class Action Fairness Act.  On May 11, 2010, a second class
action lawsuit was filed in the 27th Judicial District Court of
St. Landry Parish, State of Louisiana, repeating the allegations
of the first complaint, which was submitted on behalf of a number
of Opelousas residents.  Cleco Power has responded in the same
manner as with the first class action lawsuit.  On September 29,
2010, the federal court remanded both cases to the state court in
which they were originally filed for further proceedings.  On
January 21, 2011, the presiding judge in the state court
proceeding ruled that the jurisdiction to hear the two class
actions resides in the state court and not with the LPSC as argued
by both Cleco and the LPSC Staff.  On February 7, 2011, the
administrative law judge in the LPSC proceeding ruled that the
commission has jurisdiction to decide the claims raised by the
class action plaintiffs.  The conflict in jurisdiction between the
LPSC and the Louisiana state court will be decided through appeal
to Louisiana's appellate courts, including the Louisiana Supreme
Court.  Management believes that these lawsuits will not have a
material adverse effect on the Registrants' financial condition,
results of operations, or cash flows.

Cleco Corp. -- http://www.cleco.com/-- is a regional energy
company headquartered in Pineville, La.  It operates a regulated
electric utility company, Cleco Power LLC, which serves about
277,000 retail customers across Louisiana.  Cleco also operates a
wholesale energy business, Cleco Midstream Resources LLC, which
includes the pending sale of Acadia Power Station Unit 2.


CMS ENERGY: Still Faces Class Action Suits Over Natural Gas Prices
------------------------------------------------------------------
CMS Energy Corporation, the parent of Consumers Energy Co.,
continues to defend itself from class action lawsuits over alleged
inaccurate natural gas price reporting, according to the Company's
February 24, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.  

CMS Energy, along with CMS MST, CMS Field Services, Cantera
Natural Gas, Inc., and Cantera Gas Company, are named as
defendants in various class action and individual lawsuits arising
as a result of alleged inaccurate natural gas price reporting to
publications that report trade information.  Allegations include
manipulation of NYMEX natural gas futures and options prices,
price-fixing conspiracies, restraint of trade, and artificial
inflation of natural gas retail prices in Colorado, Kansas,
Missouri, and Wisconsin.  The following provides more detail on
these proceedings:

     * In 2005, CMS MST was served with a summons and complaint
       that named CMS Energy, CMS MST, and CMS Field Services as
       defendants in a putative class action filed in Kansas state
       court, Learjet, Inc., et al. v. Oneok, Inc., et al.  The
       complaint alleges that during the putative class period,
       January 1, 2000 through October 31, 2002, the defendants
       engaged in a scheme to violate the Kansas Restraint of
       Trade Act.  The plaintiffs, who allege they purchased
       natural gas from the defendants and others for their
       facilities, are seeking statutory full consideration
       damages consisting of the full consideration paid by
       plaintiffs for natural gas.

     * In 2007, a class action complaint, Heartland Regional
       Medical Center, et al. v. Oneok, Inc. et al., was filed in
       Missouri state court alleging violations of Missouri
       antitrust laws.  Defendants, including CMS Energy, CMS
       Field Services, and CMS MST, are alleged to have violated
       the Missouri antitrust law in connection with their natural
       gas price reporting activities.

     * Breckenridge Brewery of Colorado, LLC and BBD Acquisition
       Co. v. Oneok, Inc., et al., a class action complaint
       brought on behalf of retail direct purchasers of natural
       gas in Colorado, was filed in Colorado state court in May
       2006.  Defendants, including CMS Energy, CMS Field
       Services, and CMS MST, are alleged to have violated the
       Colorado Antitrust Act of 1992 in connection with their
       natural gas price reporting activities.  Plaintiffs are
       seeking full refund damages.

     * A class action complaint, Arandell Corp., et al. v. XCEL
       Energy Inc., et al., was filed in 2006 in Wisconsin state
       court on behalf of Wisconsin commercial entities that
       purchased natural gas between January 1, 2000 and October
       31, 2002.  The defendants, including CMS Energy, CMS ERM,
       and Cantera Gas Company, are alleged to have violated
       Wisconsin's antitrust statute. The plaintiffs are seeking
       full consideration damages, plus exemplary damages, and
       attorneys' fees.  After dismissal on jurisdictional grounds
       in 2009, plaintiffs filed a new case in the U.S. District
       Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.  In November
       2010, the MDL judge issued an opinion and order granting
       the CMS Energy defendants' motion to dismiss the new
       Michigan case on statute-of-limitations grounds and all CMS
       Energy defendants have been dismissed from the Arandell
       Michigan case.

     * Another class action complaint, Newpage Wisconsin System v.
       CMS ERM, CMS Energy, and Cantera Gas Company, was filed in
       2009 in circuit court in Wood County, Wisconsin, against
       CMS Energy defendants and 19 other non-CMS Energy
       companies.  The plaintiff is seeking full consideration
       damages, treble damages, costs, interest, and attorneys'
       fees.

     * In 2005, J.P. Morgan Trust Company, in its capacity as
       Trustee of the FLI Liquidating Trust, filed an action in
       Kansas state court against a number of energy companies,
       including CMS Energy, CMS MST, and CMS Field Services.  The
       complaint alleges various claims under the Kansas Restraint
       of Trade Act.  The plaintiff is seeking statutory full
       consideration damages for its purchases of natural gas
       between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2001.  This case
       is not a class action.

After removal to federal court, the Learjet, Heartland,
Breckenridge, both Arandell cases, Newpage, and J.P. Morgan cases
were transferred to the MDL case.  CMS Energy was dismissed from
the Learjet, Heartland, and J.P. Morgan cases in 2009, but other
CMS Energy defendants remain parties.  All CMS Energy defendants
were dismissed from the Breckenridge case in 2009.  It is expected
that the plaintiffs in this case will appeal this decision after
all claims against defendants have been dismissed.  At this time,
there is no pending appeal.  In June 2010, CMS Energy and Cantera
Gas Company were dismissed from the Newpage case; the Arandell
(Wisconsin) case was reinstated against CMS ERM; and the Arandell
(Wisconsin) case was consolidated with the Newpage case.  These
two consolidated cases remain pending only against CMS ERM.
Pending before the court in all of the MDL cases are the
defendants' renewed motions for summary judgment based on FERC
preemption.  In all but the J.P. Morgan case, there are also
pending plaintiffs' motions for class certification.  These
motions are not yet decided.  In October 2010, the MDL court
entered an order denying the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend
their complaint to add a federal Sherman Act antitrust claim.

These cases involve complex facts, a large number of similarly
situated defendants with different factual positions, and multiple
jurisdictions.  Presently, any estimate of liability would be
highly speculative; the amount of CMS Energy's possible loss would
be based on widely varying models previously untested in this
context.  Defenses are being pursued vigorously, which could
result in the dismissal of the cases completely, but CMS Energy is
unable to predict the outcome of these matters.  If the outcome is
unfavorable, these cases could have a material adverse impact on
CMS Energy's liquidity, financial condition, and results of
operations.


CNO FINANCIAL: Awaits Order on Motion to Dismiss Pension Fund Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action filed by the Plumbers and Pipefitters
Local Union No. 719 Pension Trust Fund against CNO Financial
Group, Inc., remains pending in New York, according to the
Company's February 24, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

On August 6, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No. 719 Pension Trust
Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v.
Conseco, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-CIV-6966, on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from
August 4, 2005 to March 17, 2008.  The complaint charges CNO and
certain of its officers and directors with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  On June 2, 2010, the plaintiff
filed a second amended complaint.  The amended complaint alleges
that, during the Class Period, the defendants issued numerous
statements regarding the Company's financial performance.  As
alleged in the complaint, these statements were materially false
and misleading because the defendants misrepresented and/or failed
to disclose the following adverse facts, among others: (i) that
the Company was reporting materially inaccurate revenue figures;
(ii) that the Company's reported financial results were materially
misstated and did not present the true operating performance of
the Company; (iii) that the Company's shareholders' equity was
materially overstated during the Class Period, including the
overstatement of shareholders' equity by $20.6 million at
December 31, 2006; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, the
defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements
about the Company, its corporate governance practices, its
prospects and earnings growth.  On August 2, 2010, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

The Company believes the action is without merit and intend to
defend it vigorously.  The ultimate outcome of the action cannot
be predicted with certainty.


CNO FINANCIAL: Preliminary Hearing on Settlement Set for March 25
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing to consider preliminary approval of a settlement entered
by CNO Financial Group, Inc., and plaintiffs in In re Conseco
Insurance Co. Annuity Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation has
been scheduled for March 25, 2011, according to the Company's
February 24, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On November 17, 2005, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, Robert H.
Hansen, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Conseco Insurance Company, an Illinois corporation
f/k/a Conseco Annuity Assurance Company, Cause No. C0504726.
Plaintiff in this putative class action purchased an annuity in
2000 and is claiming relief on behalf of the proposed national
class for alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act; elder abuse; unlawful, deceptive and
unfair business practices; unlawful, deceptive and misleading
advertising; breach of fiduciary duty; aiding and abetting of
breach of fiduciary duty; and unjust enrichment and imposition of
constructive trust.  On January 27, 2006, a similar complaint was
filed in the same court entitled Friou P. Jones, on Behalf of
Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Conseco Insurance
Company, an Illinois company f/k/a Conseco Annuity Assurance
Company, Cause No. C06-00537.  Mr. Jones had purchased an annuity
in 2003.  Each case alleged that the annuity sold was
inappropriate and that the annuity products in question are
inherently unsuitable for seniors age 65 and older.  On March 3,
2006 a first amended complaint was filed in the Hansen case adding
causes of action for fraudulent concealment and breach of the duty
of good faith and fair dealing.  In an order dated April 14, 2006,
the court consolidated the two cases under the original Hansen
cause number and retitled the consolidated action: In re Conseco
Insurance Co. Annuity Marketing & Sales Practices Litig.  A
settlement in principle has been reached in this case, and the
hearing for preliminary approval of the settlement is set for
March 25, 2011.


CNO FINANCIAL: Awaits Outcome of Appeal in ValuLife Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
CNO Financial Group, Inc.'s subsidiary is awaiting the outcome of
its appeal from a February 2, 2011, declaratory judgment on its
Valulife and Valuterm block of policies, according to the
Company's February 24, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

On March 4, 2008, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, Celedonia
X. Yue, M. D. on behalf of the class of all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the General Public v. Conseco Life
Insurance Company, successor to Philadelphia Life Insurance
Company and formerly known as Massachusetts General Life Insurance
Company, Cause No. CV08-01506 CAS.  Plaintiff in this putative
class action owns a Valulife universal life policy insuring the
life of Ruth S. Yue originally issued by Massachusetts General
Life Insurance Company in 1995.  Plaintiff is claiming breach of
contract on behalf of the proposed national class and seeks
injunctive and restitutionary relief pursuant to California
Business & Professions Code Section 17200 and declaratory relief.
The putative class consists of all owners of Valulife and Valuterm
universal life insurance policies issued by either Massachusetts
General or Philadelphia Life and that were later acquired and
serviced by Conseco Life.   Plaintiff alleges that members of the
class will be damaged by increases in the cost of insurance that
are set to take place in the twenty first policy year of Valulife
and Valuterm policies.  No such increases have yet been applied to
the subject policies.  During 2010, Conseco Life voluntarily
agreed not to implement the cost of insurance rate increase at
issue in this litigation and is following a process with respect
to any future cost of insurance rate increases as set forth in the
regulatory settlement agreement.  Plaintiff filed a motion for
certification of a nationwide class and a California state class.
On December 7, 2009, the court granted that motion.  On October 8,
2010, the court dismissed the causes of actions alleged in the
California state class.  On January 19, 2011, the court granted
the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to the declaratory
relief claim and on February 2, 2011, the court issued an advisory
opinion, in the form of a declaratory judgment, as to what, in its
view, Conseco Life could consider in implementing future cost of
insurance rate increases related to its Valulife and Valuterm
block of policies.  On February 17, 2011, Conseco Life filed
notice that it is appealing the court's decision.

The Company believes the action is without merit, and intends to
defend it vigorously.  The ultimate outcome of the action cannot
be predicted with certainty.


CNO FINANCIAL: Appeal From Summary Judgment Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
CNO Financial Group, Inc.'s appeal from a summary judgment entered
by a Florida court in a purported class action remains pending,
according to the Company's February 24, 2011 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

On December 8, 2008, a purported Florida state class action was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, Sydelle Ruderman individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. Washington National Insurance Company, Case
No. 08-23401-CIV-Cohn/Selzer.  In the complaint, plaintiff alleges
that the inflation escalation rider on her policy of long-term
care insurance operates to increase the policy's lifetime maximum
benefit, and that Washington National breached the contract by
stopping her benefits when they reached the lifetime maximum.  The
Company takes the position that the inflation escalator only
affects the per day maximum benefit.  Plaintiffs filed their
motion for class certification, and the motion has been fully
briefed by both sides.  The court has not yet ruled on the motion
or set it for hearing.  Additional parties have asked the court to
allow them to intervene in the action, and on January 5, 2010, the
court granted the motion to intervene and granted the plaintiff's
motion for class certification.  The court certified a (B) (3)
Florida state class alleging damages and a (B) (2) Florida state
class alleging injunctive relief.  The parties have reached a
settlement in principle of the (B) (3) class.  The plaintiffs
filed a motion for summary judgment as to the (B) (2) class which
was granted by the court on September 8, 2010.  The Company filed
a notice of appeal on October 6, 2010.

The Company believes the action is without merit, and intends to
defend it vigorously.  The ultimate outcome of the action cannot
be predicted with certainty.


CNO FINANCIAL: Trial in Consolidated Suit to Commence May 7, 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An MDL court will commence trial in a consolidated class action
lawsuit against CNO Financial Group, Inc.'s affiliate on May 7,
2012, according to the Company's February 24, 2011 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

On December 24, 2008, a purported class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
Cedric Brady, et. al. individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. Conseco, Inc. and Conseco Life Insurance
Company Case No. 3:08-cv-05746.  The plaintiffs allege that
Conseco Life and Conseco, Inc. committed breach of contract and
insurance bad faith and violated various consumer protection
statutes in the administration of various interest sensitive whole
life products sold primarily under the name "Lifetrend" by
requiring the payment of additional cash amounts to maintain the
policies in force and by making changes to certain non-guaranteed
elements in their policies.  On April 23, 2009, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint adding the additional counts of breach
of fiduciary duty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, conversion
and declaratory relief.  On May 29, 2009, Conseco, Inc. and
Conseco Life filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  On
July 29, 2009, the court granted in part and denied in part the
motion to dismiss.  The court dismissed the allegations that
Conseco Life violated various consumer protection statutes, the
breach of fiduciary duty count, and dismissed Conseco, Inc. for
lack of personal jurisdiction.  On October 15, 2009, Conseco Life
filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, seeking the establishment of an MDL proceeding
consolidating this case and the McFarland case into a single
action.

On July 2, 2009, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Bill W.
McFarland, and all those similarly situated v. Conseco Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 3:09-cv-598-J-32MCR.  The plaintiff
alleges that Conseco Life committed breach of contract and has
been unjustly enriched in the administration, including changes to
certain non-guaranteed elements, of various interest sensitive
whole life products sold primarily under the name "Lifetrend."
The plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief,
compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorney fees.

On February 3, 2010, the Judicial Panel on MDL ordered this case
be consolidated for pretrial proceedings.  On July 7, 2010,
plaintiffs filed an amended motion for class certification of a
nationwide class and a California state class.  The Company filed
its motion in opposition on July 21, 2010.  On October 6, 2010,
the court granted the motion for certification of a nationwide
class and denied the motion for certification of a California
state class.  Trial is set for May 7, 2012.

The Company believes the action is without merit and intends to
defend it vigorously.  The ultimate outcome of the action cannot
be predicted with certainty.


CNO FINANCIAL: Class Certification in "Rowe" Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel and Estella Rowe's class certification request in a
purported class action filed against Bankers Life & Casualty
Company and Bankers Life Insurance Company of Illinois is still
pending, according to CNO Financial Group, Inc.'s February 24,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On January 26, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Samuel Rowe and Estella Rowe, individually and on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Bankers Life &
Casualty Company and Bankers Life Insurance Company of Illinois,
Case No. 09CV491.  The plaintiffs are alleging violation of
California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq.
and 17500 et seq., breach of common law fiduciary duty, breach of
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and violation of
California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 15600 on behalf
of the proposed national class and seek injunctive relief,
compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorney fees.  The
plaintiff alleges that the defendants used an improper and
misleading sales and marketing approach to seniors that fails to
disclose all facts, misuses consumers' confidential financial
information, uses misleading sales and marketing materials,
promotes deferred annuities that are fundamentally inferior and
less valuable than readily available alternative investment
products and fails to adequately disclose other principal risks
including maturity dates, surrender penalties and other
restrictions which limit access to annuity proceeds to a date
beyond the applicants actuarial life expectancy.  Plaintiffs have
amended their complaint attempting to convert this from a
California only class action to a national class action.  In
addition, the amended complaint adds causes of action under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act; aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty and for unjust enrichment.  On
September 13, 2010, the court dismissed the plaintiff's RICO
claims.  On October 25, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint re-alleging their RICO claims.  A hearing date
on the motion for class certification has not been set.

The Company believes the action is without merit, and intends to
defend it vigorously.  The ultimate outcome of the action cannot
be predicted with certainty.


COLGATE PALMOLIVE: ERISA Class Action Lawsuits Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Three ERISA class action lawsuits filed against Colgate Palmolive
Company by participants under its retirement income plan remain
pending, according to the Company's February 24, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

In October 2007, a putative class action claiming that certain
aspects of the cash balance portion of the Colgate-Palmolive
Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan (the Plan) do not comply
with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act was filed against
the Plan and the Company in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  Specifically, Proesel, et al.
v. Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan, et
al. alleges improper calculation of lump sum distributions, age
discrimination and failure to satisfy minimum accrual
requirements, thereby resulting in the underpayment of benefits to
Plan participants.

Two other putative class actions filed earlier in 2007, Abelman,
et al. v. Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income
Plan, et al., in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, and Caufield v. Colgate-Palmolive Company
Employees' Retirement Income Plan, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana, both alleging improper
calculation of lump sum distributions and, in the case of Abelman,
claims for failure to satisfy minimum accrual requirements, were
transferred to the Southern District of New York and consolidated
with Proesel into one action, In re Colgate-Palmolive ERISA
Litigation.  The complaint in the consolidated action alleges
improper calculation of lump sum distributions and failure to
satisfy minimum accrual requirements, but does not include a claim
for age discrimination.  The relief sought includes recalculation
of benefits in unspecified amounts, pre- and post-judgment
interest, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.  This action has
not been certified as a class action as yet.  The parties are in
discussions via non-binding mediation to determine whether the
action can be settled.  The Company and the Plan intend to contest
this action vigorously should the parties be unable to reach a
settlement.


COUNTRYWIDE FIN'L: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Carlyn Kolker, writing for Reuters Legal, reports that a federal
judge in Los Angeles on Feb. 25 approved a $601.5 million
settlement of a class-action suit against Countrywide Financial
Corp., one of the largest class-action settlements stemming from
the subprime mortgage crisis, a lawyer for the plaintiffs said.

The case, filed in 2007, alleged that Countrywide, now a unit of
Bank of America Corp. (BAC.N), misled investors about its
financial condition and lending practices, failing to disclose the
extent of subprime loans it held.

The settlement approved on Friday by Judge Mariana Pfaelzer
includes an additional so-called "set aside" of $22.5 million,
which Bank of America can use to settle future cases with
investors who opted out of the class action.  If it is not used in
two years, it will go to the shareholders in the current
settlement.

Joel Bernstein, Esq. -- jbernstein@labaton.com -- a partner at
Labaton Sucharow who represented the lead plaintiffs, said it was
an "excellent settlement" for the class.

"If these institutions who opted out decide to bring their own
cases, they will have their own battles," he said.

Bank of America agreed to the settlement to "avoid the additional
expense and uncertainty associated with continued litigation,"
Shirley Norton, a spokeswoman for the bank, said in an e-mail.

More than 30 investors, including large institutional shareholders
such as the California Public Employees' Retirement System,
Teachers Retirement System of Texas and BlackRock Investment
Management LLC (BLK.N), said in October they were opting out.

That development allowed Bank of America to pull out of an earlier
settlement, inked in May, in which Bank of America would have paid
$600 million and Countrywide's former auditors, KPMG LLP, would
have paid $24 million.

Investors typically opt out of major settlements when they believe
that they can get a better deal if they file their own lawsuits.
They usually decide to do that after the lead plaintiffs have
already cut a deal with the defendants, as happened in the
Countrywide case.

"At this point, the company wants to wind it up and make it go
away, so opting out might get (shareholders) a better deal than
participating," said Michael Perino, a professor of securities law
at St. John's University School of Law.

Some opt-out investors, including funds belonging to the states of
Oregon and Michigan and retirees from Fresno, California, have
already sued Bank of America separately.

Other opt-outs may be waiting in the wings.  Blair Nicholas, Esq.
-- blairn@blbglaw.com -- a partner at Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann who represents 16 large institutional opt-outs, said he
will "vigorously pursue" Bank of America.  In the past he has
represented opt-out claims on behalf of shareholders who sued Tyco
Internationa, Qwest Communications and Marsh & McLennan.

About 970 institutional investors held stock in Countrywide during
the period covered by the lawsuit, Bernstein said.

At the hearing, Judge Pfaelzer also approved Labaton Sucharow's
request for attorneys' fees, Mr. Bernstein said.  The firm, which
represents New York state retirement funds, had cut its request to
$46.47 from $47.37 million.


DAYMAR COLLEGES: Faces Class Action Over "Substandard Programs"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Been at Courthouse News Service reports that in the latest
class action against profit-seeking colleges, 39 students claim
Daymar Colleges Group lured them into enrolling in its
"substandard programs," which left them debt-ridden and without
any job opportunities.  Daymar runs career colleges in Kentucky,
Indiana and Ohio.

The class claims Daymar made false claims about transferability of
its credits, job placements, and the terms and availability of
student loans.  They claim Daymar "deceived" them into buying
textbooks and other school-related materials at inflated prices,
and that Daymar faculty and staff are not qualified for their
positions.

The class claims that after Daymar "assisted each of them in
securing various types of loans to pay for their tuition," they
"became indebted to the extent of thousands of dollars in order to
receive the degrees that were fraudulently induced and for which
they could not transfer."

They claim they "were unable to use the degrees for any useful
professional or business purpose, leaving them in debt and having
wasted both significant amounts of money, resources and time, all
to their detriment."

Named as defendants are Daymar Colleges Group LLC, Daymar Learning
of Paducah, Daymar Learning of Ohio, Daymar Learning, The Daymar
Foundation and Daymar President Mark Gabis, of Owensboro.

The class seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and
punitive damages for conspiracy, breach of contract, fraudulent
inducement, consumer protection violations, fraud,
misrepresentation and Kentucky antitrust violations.

A copy of the Complaint in Lancaster, et al. v. Daymar Colleges
Group, LLC, et al., Case No._________ (Ky. Cir. Ct., Jefferson
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/25/Daymar.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kenneth L. Sales, Esq.
          David G. Bryant, Esq.
          SALES, TILLMAN, WALLBAUM, CATLETT & SATTERLEY, PLC
          1900 Waterfront Plaza
          325 W. Main Street
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 589-5600

               - and -

          Mark P. Bryant, Esq.
          Emily Ward Roark, Esq.
          BRYANT LAW CENTER
          601 Washington Street
          P.O. Box 1876
          Paducah, KY 42002-1876
          Telephone: (270) 442-1422


DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Australians File Class Action Over Implants
---------------------------------------------------------------
Australian Associated Press reports that a class action has been
launched after hip implants used by more than 5000 Australians
were found to be faulty.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn filed the lawsuit on Feb. 28 against UK
manufacturer DePuy and its Australian distributor Johnson and
Johnson over the faulty hip implants used by patients extensively
in the past five years.

A "hazard alert" was issued to surgeons by DePuy last August when
the devices were found to have a failure rate of 12 to 13% over a
five-year period.

Figures from the Australian Orthopaedic Association's joint
replacement registry shows that between 2003 and 2009 more than
5000 Australians had the faulty prosthetic hips implanted and will
now need to have them removed.

When the metal-on-metal devices fail, users commonly experience
pain, swelling and a decreased range of movement, usually caused
by inflammation.

Maurice Blackburn NSW principal solicitor Ben Slade said the
implants were designed to last 15 years.

"One of the problems that appears to happen is that the metal wear
debris gets into the bloodstream and causes soft tissue reaction
and also degradation of the bone around the hip," Mr. Slade told
AAP.

"The longer you keep these devices in, the probability of more
difficult revision surgery is increased as time goes on.

"It also means that the new hip can't grab as effectively to the
bone and the bone doesn't grow over the hip implant as effectively
as it would have had this not occurred."

He said the recall of devices was too late for many people left
with serious health problems that can continue even after an
operation to remove and replace them with safe devices.

Lead class action applicant Tammy Stanford, 40, has been unable to
return to work as a Hobart high school teacher after she developed
worsening symptoms following a left hip replacement in late 2005.

By the end of 2010, revision surgery found Ms Stanford's hip joint
was inflamed and that the tissue around the joint and her bone had
degenerated.

"I'm concerned for my health and for my quality of life," Ms
Stanford said.

"I had this implant in for five years and I don't know what the
long term impacts are. I don't want to suffer in silence on this.

"I've seen how hard it is for older people with hip replacements
but they need to be checked out if they are having problems."

The class action will seek compensation for personal injuries
caused by pain and suffering, economic loss and career costs.


DISH NETWORK: Continues to Defend Appeal in Channel Bundling Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DISH Network Corporation continues to defend a pending appeal in a
class action complaint that alleges channel bundling against the
Company.

During 2007, a purported class of cable and satellite subscribers
filed an antitrust action against DISH Network in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.  The
suit also names as defendants DirecTV, Comcast, Cablevision, Cox,
Charter, Time Warner, Inc., Time Warner Cable, NBC Universal,
Viacom, Fox Entertainment Group and Walt Disney Company.  The suit
alleges, among other things, that the defendants engaged in a
conspiracy to provide customers with access only to bundled
channel offerings as opposed to giving customers the ability to
purchase channels on an "a la carte" basis.  On October 16, 2009,
the District Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss with
prejudice.  The plaintiffs have appealed.

No updates were reported in the Company's February 24, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend the case.
However, it cannot predict with any degree of certainty the
outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential
liability or damages.

                      About DISH Network

DISH Network Corporation is the third largest pay television
provider in the United States with 14.1 million subscribers as of
Dec. 31, 2009.  Annual revenues approximate $11.6 billion.

The Company's balance sheet at Dec. 31, 2010 showed $9.63 billion
in total assets, $10.76 million in total liabilities and
$1.13 billion in total stockholders' deficit.


DISH NETWORK: Obtains Court Okay of $60M Retailer Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
A $60 million settlement providing for resolution of class action
suits filed by certain retailers of DISH Network Corporation has
been granted final court approval, according to the Company's
February 24, 2011, Form 10-k filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

During 2000, lawsuits were filed by retailers in Colorado state
and federal courts attempting to certify nationwide classes on
behalf of certain of DISH Network's retailers.  The plaintiffs
requested that the Courts declare certain provisions of, and
changes to, alleged agreements between the Company and the
retailers invalid and unenforceable, and to award damages for lost
incentives and payments, charge backs and other compensation.  On
September 20, 2010, the Company agreed to a settlement of both
lawsuits that provides, among other things, for mutual releases of
the claims underlying the litigation, payment by the Company of up
to $60 million, and the option for certain class members to elect
to reinstate certain monthly incentive payments, which the parties
agreed have an aggregate maximum value of $23 million.  The
Company says it cannot predict with any degree of certainty how
many class members will elect to reinstate those monthly incentive
payments.  As a result, the Company recorded $60 million as a
"Litigation accrual" on its Consolidated Balance Sheets and in
"Litigation expense" for the year ended December 31, 2010 on its
Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income
(Loss).

On February 9, 2011, the court granted final approval of the
settlement.  The Company, however, notes that its payment of the
settlement amount is still subject to the satisfaction of certain
conditions, including the lapse of all applicable appeal periods.


DORCHESTER MINERALS: Class Certification Hearing Set for Late July
------------------------------------------------------------------
A Texas court will hold a hearing in late July 2011 to consider
class certification in a purported class action lawsuit against
Dorchester Minerals, L.P., according to the Company's February 24,
2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In January 2002, some individuals and an association called Rural
Residents for Natural Gas Rights sued Dorchester Hugoton, Ltd.,
along with several other operators in Texas County, Oklahoma
regarding the use of natural gas from the wells in residences.
The operating partnership now owns and operates the properties
formerly owned by Dorchester Hugoton.  These properties contribute
a major portion of the Net Profit Interests amounts paid to the
Company.  On April 9, 2007, plaintiffs, for immaterial costs,
dismissed with prejudice all claims against the operating
partnership regarding such residential gas use.  On October 4,
2004, the plaintiffs filed severed claims against the operating
partnership regarding royalty underpayments, which the Texas
County District Court subsequently dismissed with a grant of time
to replead.  On January 27, 2006, one of the original plaintiffs
again sued the operating partnership for underpayment of royalty,
seeking class action certification.  On October 1, 2007, the Texas
County District Court granted the operating partnership's motion
for summary judgment finding no royalty underpayments.
Subsequently, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration, and the plaintiff filed an appeal.  On March 31,
2010, the appeal decision reversed and remanded to the Texas
County District Court to resolve material issues of fact.  A
hearing regarding the requested class action certification is set
for late July 2011.  No court hearing has been scheduled on the
merits.

The Company said an adverse decision could reduce amounts it
receives from the NPIs.


DYNAVOX INC: Pennsylvania IPO Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------
On February 18, 2011, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice a purported class action lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
against DynaVox Inc., two of the company's officers, Edward L.
Donnelly, Jr. and Kenneth D. Misch, and two of the underwriters of
the company's April 2010 initial public offering, according to the
Company's February 23, 2011 Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Notice of Voluntary Dismissal states that the lead plaintiff
has determined not to proceed with this action and has not
received any compensation or payments of any kind from the
defendants.  The purported class action lawsuit, which was filed
by plaintiffs on October 14, 2010, had sought unspecified damages
on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased Class A
common stock of DynaVox Inc. pursuant to the company's prospectus
dated April 21, 2010, filed with the SEC in accordance with Rule
424(b) of the Securities Act on April 23, 2010.

DynaVox Inc. (Nasdaq:DVOX) is a publicly traded holding Company
with its headquarters in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, whose primary
operating entities are DynaVox Systems LLC and Mayer-Johnson LLC.
DynaVox is the leading provider of speech generating devices and
symbol-adapted special education software used to assist
individuals in overcoming their speech, language and learning
challenges. These solutions are designed to help individuals who
have complex communication and learning needs participate in the
home, classroom and community. The Company's mission is to enable
its customers to realize their full communication and education
potential by developing industry-leading devices, software and
content and by providing the services to support them. The Company
assists individuals, families, and professionals with an extensive
field support organization, as well as centralized technical and
reimbursement support. For more information, visit
http://www.dynavoxtech.com/


ELAN CORP: SFMS Files Securities Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP disclosed it has filed a
lawsuit seeking class action status in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York (Civil Action No.
11-CV-01232-SAS) on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased publicly traded stock or American Depository Shares of
Elan Corporation, PLC between July 2, 2009 and Aug. 5, 2009.  A
copy of the Complaint may be obtained from the Court, or you can
either call our office toll free at (866) 540-5505 to speak with
an attorney regarding this matter, or email us
pklingman@sfmslaw.com or kleser@sfmslaw.com and we will send you a
copy of the Complaint.

The Complaint asserts claims under the federal securities laws
against Elan, G. Kelly Martin, the Company's President and Chief
Executive Officer and Shane Cooke, Elan's Chief Financial Officer.

Among other things, the Complaint asserts that, during the Class
Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
about a transaction between Elan and Johnson & Johnson.
Specifically, the Complaint asserts that Defendants stated that
JNJ had agreed to pay $1 billion for 18.4% ownership of Elan and
50.1% ownership of a new company, Janssen Alzheimer Immunotherapy,
a subsidiary formed by JNJ to acquire Elan's Alzheimer's
immunotherapy program, but that Defendants failed to disclose that
the agreement with JNJ violated the terms of an existing
collaboration agreement between Elan and Biogen Idec Inc. for the
development and sale of the multiple sclerosis drug Tysabri.  As
the Complaint alleges, Elan was ultimately forced to renegotiate
its agreement with JNJ, whereby JNJ paid $115 million less to Elan
than previously agreed.  When the potential breach of the
Elan/Biogen agreement became public, requiring the renegotiation
of the JNJ transaction, the price of Elan's ADSs declined as
artificial inflation came out of the price of those securities.

If you purchased stock or ADSs of Elan during the Class Period,
you may qualify to serve as lead plaintiff on behalf of the Class.
All motions for appointment as lead plaintiff must be filed with
the Court by no later than 60 days from Feb. 25, 2011.  Any member
of the proposed Class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff in this action through counsel of their choice, or may
remain an absent Class member.  There are certain legal
requirements to serve as lead plaintiff, which we would be pleased
to discuss with you.  Please contact:

          Patrick A. Klingman, Esq.
          Karen M. Leser-Grenon, Esq.
          Toll-Free: (866) 540-5505
          E-mail: pklingman@sfmslaw.com
                  kleser@sfmslaw.com

if you would like to discuss this action or have any questions
regarding this notice or your rights.

Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP -- http://www.sfmslaw.com/
-- is a law firm that represents investors, including institutions
and individuals, as well as consumers, in class action and
corporate governance matters throughout the country.  The firm has
offices in California, Connecticut, Florida, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.


ENSCO PLC: Pride Shareholders' Class Action Suits Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ensco plc and its subsidiary continue to defend themselves from
class action lawsuits filed by Pride International Inc.'s
shareholders, according to the Company's February 24, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On February 10, 2011, a lawsuit styled Saratoga Advantage Trust
vs. Pride International, Inc., et al, was filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware.  This is a purported
shareholder class action brought on behalf of the holders of Pride
International, Inc. common stock against Pride, Pride's directors
and Ensco plc arising out of the proposed sale of Pride to Ensco
in a stock and cash transaction valued at $41.60 per share of
Pride common stock.  The lawsuit alleges that the proposed
transaction undervalues Pride's shares, that Pride and the
individual (director) defendants violated their fiduciary duties
and that Ensco aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duties.
The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, a declaration of breach of
fiduciary duties, an order requiring the individual defendants to
properly exercise their fiduciary duties, and a declaration that
the proposed transaction is void or, if consummated, ordering
rescission, and attorneys' fees and costs.  At this time, the
Company is unable to predict the outcome of this matter or
estimate the extent to which it may be exposed to any resulting
liability.

On February 11, 2011, similar actions were filed in the District
Court of Harris County Texas styled Abrams v. Pride International,
Inc., et al., and Astor BK Realty Trust v. Pride International,
Inc.  These also are purported shareholder class actions against
Pride and its individual directors, which name ENSCO Ventures LLC
and ENSCO International Incorporated as parties defendant.  These
actions generally allege that the defendants violated their
fiduciary duties and seek to enjoin the proposed transaction
unless and until Pride adopts and implements a procedure or
process to obtain a transaction that provides the best possible
terms and value for Pride's shareholders and issues a statement
containing full and accurate disclosure.  The causes of action
against the individual (director) defendants are based upon
alleged breach of fiduciary duties and the causes of action
against Pride and the Ensco entities are based upon aiding and
abetting such breaches of fiduciary duties.  The prayers for
relief seek to enjoin the defendants from consummating the
proposed transaction unless and until the individual (directors)
defendants adopt and implement the aforesaid procedure or process,
a declaration that the transaction is void or, if consummated,
rescinded, monetary damages as well as costs, fees and expenses.
At this time, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of
these matters or estimate the extent to which it may be exposed to
any resulting liability.

On February 17, 2011, a similar action was filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware styled Elizabeth Wiggs-Jacques
vs. Pride International, Inc., et al.  This also is a purported
shareholder class action against Pride and its individual
directors, which names ENSCO International Incorporated and ENSCO
Ventures LLC as parties defendant.  This lawsuit generally alleges
that the defendants violated their fiduciary duties and that the
proposed merger is unfair to Pride's stockholders.  The causes of
action against the individual (director) defendants are based upon
alleged breach of fiduciary duties and the causes of action
against Pride and the Ensco entities are based upon aiding and
abetting such breaches of fiduciary duties.  The prayer for relief
generally seeks to enjoin the defendants from consummating the
proposed transaction unless and until Pride adopts and implements
a procedure or process to obtain the highest possible price or, if
consummated, rescind the transaction or award monetary damages, as
well as costs, fees and expenses.  At this time, the Company is
unable to predict the outcome of this matter or estimate the
extent to which it may be exposed to any resulting liability.


EXCO RESOURCES: Class Actions Over Stock Acquisition Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Exco Resources Inc. continues to defend itself from shareholder
derivative lawsuits and shareholder class actions in connection
with the proposed acquisition by Chief Executive Officer Douglas
Miller of the Company's stock, according to its February 24, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Between November 3, 2010 and February 1, 2011, nine related
shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed purportedly on behalf
of the Company in state and federal courts in Dallas, Texas
alleging claims related to Mr. Miller's proposal.  The lawsuits
name as defendants all of the members of the Company's board of
directors, and in some of the lawsuits, also name as defendants
two of its investors, Oaktree Capital Management, L.P. and Ares
Management, LLC.  The Company is named as a nominal defendant in
each of the cases.  The shareholder derivative lawsuits generally
allege that its directors have breached their fiduciary duties by
failing to implement fair and adequate procedures for the
consideration of Mr. Miller's proposal and for failing to maximize
shareholder value.  The remaining defendants are alleged to have
aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty.  The
plaintiffs seek on behalf of the Company an injunction preventing
consummation of Mr. Miller's proposed transaction, unspecified
compensatory damages from the defendants other than the Company,
and an award of attorney's fees and costs.

Also, since November 3, 2010, two putative shareholder class
actions have been filed against the Company and all of the members
of the Company's board of directors in a state district court in
Dallas County, Texas.  The purported class action alleges that the
Company and its directors breached fiduciary duties allegedly owed
to public shareholders by attempting to consummate a transaction
based on Mr. Miller's proposal.  The plaintiff seeks unspecified
damages, an order rescinding any transaction based on Mr. Miller's
proposal, an accounting from the defendants for any profits or
special benefits they may have received, and an award of
attorney's fees and costs.

All of the state and county court proceedings have been
consolidated into one court and lead plaintiffs counsel has been
appointed for both the derivative actions and the direct class
actions.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Hays" Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial Inc. continues to defend itself in a
class action lawsuit pending in California, according to the
Company's February 23, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

On November 24, 2010, plaintiffs filed a class action in the
United States District court, Northern District of California,
Oakland Division titled Vivian Hays, et al. vs. Commonwealth Land
Title Insurance Company, Lawyers Title Insurance Company, and Does
1-20. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons who
deposited their exchange funds with LandAmerica 1031 Exchange
Service and were not able to use them in their contemplated
exchanges due to the alleged illiquidity of LES caused by the
collapse of the auction rate security market in early 2008.
Plaintiffs allege Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company and
Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation (which was merged into
Fidelity National Title Insurance Company) knew of the problems at
LES and had an obligation of disclosure to exchangers, but did not
disclose and instead recommended exchangers use LES in order to
fund prior exchangers' transactions with money from new
exchangers. Plaintiffs have sued the Company's subsidiaries
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company and Lawyers Title
Insurance Corporation for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty,
constructive fraud and aiding and abetting LES. Plaintiffs ask for
compensatory and punitive damages, prejudgment interest and
reasonable attorney's fees.  The Company has employed counsel and
intends to vigorously defend the action. The case did not include
a statement as to the amount of damages demanded, but instead
included a demand for damages in an amount to be proved at trial.
Due to the early stage of this case, it is not possible to make
meaningful estimates, if any, of the amount or range of loss that
could result from this case at this time.

Fidelity National Financial, Inc. -- http://www.fnf.com/--
provides title insurance, mortgage services, specialty insurance,
claims management services and information services.  FNF is the
nation's largest title insurance company through its title
insurance underwriters -- Fidelity National Title, Chicago Title,
Commonwealth Land Title, Lawyers Title, Ticor Title, Security
Union Title and Alamo Title -- that collectively issue more title
insurance policies than any other title company in the United
States.  FNF also provides flood insurance, personal lines
insurance and home warranty insurance through its specialty
insurance business.  FNF also is a leading provider of outsourced
claims management services to large corporate and public sector
entities through its minority-owned subsidiary, Sedgwick CMS.  FNF
is also a leading information services company in the human
resource, retail and transportation markets through another
minority-owned subsidiary, Ceridian Corporation.


FREDDIC MAC: Continues to Defend OPERS Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation or Freddie Mac continues to
defend the securities class action suit, Ohio Public Employees
Retirement System vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, et al.

The class action lawsuit was filed against Freddie Mac and certain
former officers on January 18, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio purportedly on behalf of a class of
purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from August 1, 2006 through
November 20, 2007.  The plaintiff alleges that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by making "false and misleading
statements concerning [their] business, risk management and the
procedures [they] put into place to protect the company from
problems in the mortgage industry."  On April 10, 2008, the Court
appointed OPERS as lead plaintiff and approved its choice of
counsel.  On September 2, 2008, defendants filed a motion to
dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint.  On November 7, 2008, the
plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which removed certain
allegations against Richard Syron, Anthony Piszel, and Eugene
McQuade, thereby leaving insider-trading allegations against only
Patricia Cook.  The second amended complaint also extends the
damages period, but not the class period.  The plaintiff seeks
unspecified damages and interest, and reasonable costs and
expenses, including attorney and expert fees.  On November 19,
2008, the Court granted Freddie Mac's motion to intervene in its
capacity as Conservator.  On April 6, 2009, defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, which motion
remains pending.

No update was reported in Freddie Mac's February 24, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.


FREDDIE MAC: Continues to Defend Kuriakose Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation or Freddie Mac continues to
defend the  putative class action lawsuit, Kuriakose vs. Freddie
Mac, Richard Syron, Anthony Piszel, and Patricia Cook.

The lawsuit was filed against Freddie Mac and certain former
officers on August 15, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York for alleged violations of federal
securities laws purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of
Freddie Mac stock from November 21, 2007 through August 5, 2008.
The plaintiff claims that defendants made false and misleading
statements about Freddie Mac's business that artificially inflated
the price of Freddie Mac's common stock, and seeks unspecified
damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.  On February 6, 2009, the
Court granted Freddie Mac's motion to intervene in its capacity as
Conservator.  On May 19, 2009, plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated complaint, purportedly on behalf of a class of
purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from November 30, 2007 through
September 7, 2008.  Freddie Mac filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint on February 24, 2010, which motion remains pending.

No update was reported in Freddie Mac's February 24, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.


FRESENIUS MEDICAL: RCG Continues to Defend Tennessee Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Renal Care Group, Inc., an affiliate of Fresenius Medical Care AG
& Co. KGaA, continues to defend itself in a lawsuit pending in a
Tennessee court, according to Fresenius's February 23, 2011 Form
20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2010.

Renal Care Group, Inc., is named as a nominal defendant in a
complaint originally filed September 13, 2006 in the Chancery
Court for the State of Tennessee Twentieth Judicial District at
Nashville styled Indiana State District Council of Laborers and
Hod Carriers Pension Fund v. Gary Brukardt et al.  Following the
trial court's dismissal of the complaint, plaintiff's appeal in
part, and reversal in part by the appellate court, the cause of
action purports to be a class action on behalf of former
shareholders of RCG and seeks monetary damages only against the
individual former directors of RCG. The individual defendants,
however, may have claims for indemnification and reimbursement of
expenses against the Company. The Company expects to continue as a
defendant in the litigation, which is proceeding toward trial in
the Chancery Court, and believes that defendants will prevail.

Bad Homburg, Germany-based Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co. KGaA is
a dialysis provider. Its staff treats about 190,000 patients a
year at some 2,500 dialysis clinics worldwide, 1,700 of which are
based in the United States.

Renal Care Group, Inc. -- http://www.renalcaregroup.com-- is a
provider of dialysis services to patients with chronic kidney
failure, also known as end-stage renal disease.


GEEKNET INC: Appeals on IPO Suit Settlement Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from an order approving a global settlement of the class
action lawsuits relating to Geeknet, Inc.'s initial public
offering remain pending with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals,
according to the Company's February 24, 2011 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

In January 2001, the Company, two of its former officers, and
Credit Suisse First Boston, the lead underwriter in the Company's
initial public offering, were named as defendants in a shareholder
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, later consolidated and captioned In re VA
Software Corp. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 01-
CV-0242.  The plaintiffs' class action suit seeks unspecified
damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock from the time of the Company's initial
public offering in December 1999 through December 2000.  Among
other things, this complaint alleged that the prospectus pursuant
to which shares of common stock were sold in the Company's initial
public offering contained certain false and misleading statements
or omissions regarding the practices of the Underwriters with
respect to their allocation of shares of common stock in these
offerings and their receipt of commissions from customers related
to such allocations.  Various plaintiffs have filed actions
asserting similar allegations concerning the initial public
offerings of approximately 300 other issuers.  These various cases
were coordinated for pretrial proceedings as In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92.

In 2008, the parties reached a global settlement of the
litigation.  On October 5, 2009, the Court entered an order
certifying a settlement class and granting final approval of the
settlement.  Under the settlement, the insurers will pay the full
amount of settlement share allocated to the Company, and the
Company will bear no financial liability.  The Company, as well as
the officer and director defendants, who were previously dismissed
from the action pursuant to a stipulation, will receive complete
dismissals from the case.  A group of objectors appealed the
Court's October 5, 2009 order to the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals.  The Plaintiffs have filed motions to dismiss the appeals
and those motions are still pending.  If for any reason the
settlement does not become effective and litigation resumes, the
Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to plaintiffs'
claims and intends to defend the action vigorously.

Geeknet -- http://geek.net/-- is the online network for the
global geek community. The Company's sites include SourceForge,
Slashdot, ThinkGeek, and freshmeat.  Geeknet, SourceForge,
Slashdot, ThinkGeek, and freshmeat are trademarks of Geeknet, Inc.


GOLFSMITH INTERNATIONAL: Awaits Court OK of "O'Flynn" Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Golfsmith International Holdings, Inc., is awaiting court approval
of its settlement of a putative class action lawsuit pending in
the California Superior Court in Orange County, according to the
Company's Feb. 23, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2011.

On October 23, 2009, David O'Flynn, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated plaintiffs, filed a class action lawsuit
in the California Superior Court in Orange County against
Golfsmith asserting denial of meal and rest breaks, failure to
timely pay final wages or commissions and failure to provide
itemized employee wage statements in violation of the California
Labor Code.  During the fourth quarter of 2010, Golfsmith reached
an agreement to settle the O'Flynn claim, subject to court
approval.  The Company's provision for estimated losses on this
legal action of $0.2 million, net of insurance, has been recorded
in accrued expenses and other current liabilities as of January 1,
2011.

Golfsmith International Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.golfsmith.com/-- is a 40-year-old specialty retailer
of golf and tennis equipment, apparel and accessories.  The
company operates as an integrated multi-channel retailer, offering
its guests the convenience of shopping in more than 70 stores
across the United States, through its Internet site and from its
assortment of catalogs.  Golfsmith offers an extensive product
selection that features premier branded merchandise, as well as
its proprietary products, clubmaking components and pre-owned
clubs.


GOLFSMITH INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Leo" Suit in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Golfsmith International Holdings, Inc., is defending itself from a
class action lawsuit filed against the Company in the California
Superior Court of San Diego County, according to the Company's
Feb. 23, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2011.

On June 3, 2010, Ed Leo, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated plaintiffs, filed a class action lawsuit
against the Company in the California Superior Court of San Diego
County in connection with a Women's Night promotional event held
by the Company on March 25, 2010.  The plaintiff's claim is based
on alleged violations of the Unruh Act, California legislation
which has been interpreted to prohibit promotional activities that
discriminate on the basis of certain protected classes.  While the
plaintiffs in this action have alleged that the Company engaged in
conduct that was discriminatory and actionable, the Company
disputes these claims and intends to vigorously contest the
lawsuit.

Golfsmith International Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.golfsmith.com/-- is a 40-year-old specialty retailer
of golf and tennis equipment, apparel and accessories.  The
company operates as an integrated multi-channel retailer, offering
its guests the convenience of shopping in more than 70 stores
across the United States, through its Internet site and from its
assortment of catalogs.  Golfsmith offers an extensive product
selection that features premier branded merchandise, as well as
its proprietary products, clubmaking components and pre-owned
clubs.


HOME DELIVERY: Sued in Massachusetts for Misclassifying Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Home Delivery America and Sears Logistics Services misclassify
full-time furniture and appliance delivery and installation
workers as independent contractors to duck labor laws.

A copy of the Complaint in Anderson, et al. v.
HomeDeliveryAmerica.com, Inc., dba Home Delivery America, et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-_____ (D. Mass.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/25/SearsCA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Ian Russell, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          100 Cambridge Street, 20th Floor
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: (617) 994 5800
          E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
                  sliss@llrlaw.com
                  irussell@llrlaw.com


HOMESTORE.COM: Jury Awards Damages to CalSTRS, Investors
--------------------------------------------------------
The California State Teachers' Retirement System on Feb. 25
disclosed that a Los Angeles jury awarded and other investors a
multi-million dollar securities fraud judgment against the former
CEO of Homestore.com.

"CalSTRS takes seriously our responsibility to make sure that the
securities laws are followed and that our members can obtain
redress from fraudulent activity, which is what Mr. Wolff did."

The jury found Stuart H. Wolff, the former chief executive officer
and chairman of the board of Homestore, liable for damages due to
his actions while heading the company.  The judgment, handed down
on Feb. 24, awarded damages based on its per-share loss.  The
exact amount of damages is being calculated.  CalSTRS brought the
class action suit seeking damages against the online real estate
company after being named lead plaintiff in March 2002.

"CalSTRS and other investors rely on chief executives of public
companies to provide full and accurate information about their
companies," said CalSTRS Chief Executive Officer Jack Ehnes.
"CalSTRS is pledged to safeguard the financial security of
California's public school educators and can only do this if it
has confidence in the integrity of the financial performance of
the companies in which it invests."

The jury found that in 2001, Mr. Wolff directly participated in
and was responsible for the actions of other senior executives who
engaged in a fraudulent scheme where Homestore created a circular
flow of money, known as "purchased revenues" in which money flowed
from Homestore to outside firms and back to Homestore.  This
created the illusion that the company was successful and growing.
After the fraud was uncovered, Homestore was forced to restate
more than $120 million in revenues.

"When CEOs misrepresent the true facts, they must be held
accountable to the public and especially to retired public
employees," said CalSTRS General Counsel Brian Bartow.  "CalSTRS
takes seriously our responsibility to make sure that the
securities laws are followed and that our members can obtain
redress from fraudulent activity, which is what Mr. Wolff did."

The securities fraud case, one of the few brought to trial, was
heard in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles before the Hon. Ronald
S.W. Lew.  The CalSTRS trial team was headed by Nancy L. Fineman
of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy.  Mr. Wolff was represented by
Howard M. Privette of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP.

CalSTRS had previously settled with other Homestore executives and
with the company's auditor, Price Waterhouse Coopers.

The California State Teachers' Retirement System, with a portfolio
valued at $147.6 billion, is the second largest public pension
fund in the United States.  It administers retirement, disability
and survivor benefits for California's 852,000 public school
educators and their families from the state's 1,600 school
districts, county offices of education and community college
districts.

Contacts: Ricardo Duran
          CalSTRS
          Telephone: 916-414-1425
          E-mail: Newsroom@calstrs.com
          Web site: http://www.CalSTRS.com/

                - or -

          Nancy L. Fineman, Esq.
          Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP
          Telephone: 650-697-6000
          E-mail: nfineman@cpmlegal.com


HOWARD INDUSTRIES: Faces Discrimination Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Maggie Wade, writing for WLBT, reports that more legal problems
for Howard Industries.  A Jackson attorney has filed a class
action discrimination lawsuit against the Laurel, Mississippi
company.

Lisa Ross is representing four African American women.  The
lawsuit charges Non-Latino applicants for employment were
intentionally and routinely refused jobs due to their race.  The
facility was raided in August, 2008 by federal agents.

Six hundred illegal immigrants were arrested.  The lawsuit says
the four women, who had been applying for jobs for years, were
hired after the raid.  As reported on Feb. 24, Howard Industries
has been fined and paid $2.5 million dollars.

The company pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy in
connection with the raid, which was the largest workplace raid on
illegal immigrants in the nation.


HUGHES COMMS: Being Sold to EchoStar for Too Little, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors of Hughes
Communications are selling the company too cheaply through an
unfair process to EchoStar for $60.70 a share, or $2 billion, "to
allow majority shareholder Apollo Global Management . . . to
liquidate its 57% share in the company at a massive profit,"
shareholders say in a class action.

A copy of the Complaint in Gottlieb Family Foundation v. Hughes
Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 344070 (Md. Cir. Ct.,
Montgomery Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/25/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          1101 30th Street, NW, Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (301) 455-4208


INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Appeal on Dismissal of Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a second amended complaint filed
against Insight Enterprises Inc. in Arizona remains pending,
according to the Company's February 23, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2010.

Beginning in March 2009, three purported class action lawsuits
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
against the Company and certain of its current and former
directors and officers on behalf of purchasers of its securities
during the period April 22, 2004 to February 6, 2009.  The second
amended complaint (the only remaining complaint then on file) of
the lead plaintiff was dismissed with prejudice in November 2010,
and another purported class member plaintiff has appealed the
order of dismissal with prejudice to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

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


INTERNAP NETWORK: Awaits Ruling on Dismissal of Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Internap Network Services Corporation continues to await a ruling
on its motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in the class
action entitled Catherine Anastasio and Stephen Anastasio v.
Internap Network Services Corp. and James P. DeBlasio, Civil
Action No. 1:08-CV-3462-JOF, according to the Company's
February 24, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On November 12, 2008, a putative securities fraud class action
lawsuit was filed against Internapus and its former chief
executive officer in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, captioned Catherine Anastasio and
Stephen Anastasio v. Internap Network Services Corp. and James P.
DeBlasio, Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-3462-JOF.  The complaint
alleges that the Company and the individual defendant violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
individual defendant also violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act as a "control person" of Internap.  Plaintiffs purport to
bring these claims on behalf of a class of the Company's investors
who purchased Internap Network common stock between March 28, 2007
and March 18, 2008.  Plaintiffs allege generally that, during the
putative class period, the Company made misleading statements and
omitted material information regarding (a) integration of
VitalStream Holdings, Inc., which the Company acquired in February
2007, (b) customer issues and related credits due to services
outages, and (c) the Company's previously reported 2007 revenue
that the Company subsequently reduced in 2008 as announced on
March 18, 2008.  Plaintiffs assert that the Company and the
individual defendant made these misstatements and omissions to
keep the Company's stock price high.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages and other relief.

On August 12, 2009, the Court granted plaintiffs leave to file an
Amended Class Action Complaint.  The Amended Complaint added a
claim for violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act based on
alleged misrepresentations in the Company's proxy statement in
connection with its acquisition of VitalStream.  The Amended
Complaint also added its former chief financial officer as a
defendant and lengthened the putative class period.

On September 11, 2009, the Company and the individual defendants
filed motions to dismiss.  On November 6, 2009, plaintiffs filed a
Corrected Amended Class Action Complaint.  On December 7, 2009,
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Class
Action Complaint to add allegations regarding, inter alia, an
alleged failure to conduct due diligence in connection with the
VitalStream acquisition and additional statements from purported
confidential witnesses.

On September 15, 2010, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss and denied the individual defendants' motion to dismiss.
The Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims under Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act.  With respect to plaintiffs' claims under Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act, the Court held that the Amended
Complaint failed to satisfy the pleading requirements of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, but allowed plaintiffs'
one final opportunity to amend the complaint.  On October 26,
2010, plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Class Action Complaint.
On December 10, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss that
complaint, which is currently pending before the Court.


JANUS CAPITAL: Supreme Court Ruling on Appeal Expected Mid-2011
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court is expected to render a decision by mid-2011 in
the consolidated timing lawsuit filed by First Derivative Traders,
on behalf of a putative class of shareholders, according to Janus
Capital Group, Inc.'s February 24, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

Following the market timing investigations by the New York
Attorney General and the SEC in 2003, JCG and certain affiliates
were named as defendants in a consolidated lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court in Baltimore, Maryland (Case No. MDL No. 1586, 04-
MD-15863). Five amended complaints were originally filed in these
coordinated proceedings, two of which still remain including (i)
claims by a putative class of JCG shareholders asserting claims on
behalf of the shareholders (First Derivative Traders, et al. v.
Janus Capital Group Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, District of
Maryland, MDL 1586, formerly referred to as Wiggins, et al. v.
Janus Capital Group Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, District of
Maryland, Case No. 04-CV-00818); and (ii) derivative claims by
investors in certain Janus funds ostensibly on behalf of such
funds (Steinberg et al. v. Janus Capital Management, LLC et al.,
U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, Case No. 04-CV-00518).

In the First Derivative Traders matter, the U.S. District Court
entered an order dismissing all claims. Plaintiffs, however,
appealed that dismissal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit. In May 2009, the Fourth Circuit reversed the
order of dismissal and remanded the case back to the U.S. District
Court for further proceedings. In June 2010, the U.S. Supreme
Court agreed to review the Fourth Circuit's decision and a hearing
was held in December 2010. A decision is expected by mid-2011.

Janus Capital Group Inc. -- http://www.janus.com/-- provides
investment management, administration, distribution and related
services to individual and institutional investors through mutual
funds, separate accounts and sub-advised relationships in both
domestic and international markets.  JCG provides investment
advisory services through its primary subsidiaries, Janus Capital
Management LLC, INTECH Investment Management LLC and Perkins
Investment Management LLC.


JANUS CAPITAL: Awaits Appellate Court Ruling in "Steinberg" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Janus Capital Group Inc. is awaiting a ruling by an appellate
court in the "Steinberg" market timing lawsuit, according to the
Company's February 24, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

Following the market timing investigations by the New York
Attorney General and the SEC in 2003, JCG and certain affiliates
were named as defendants in a consolidated lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court in Baltimore, Maryland (Case No. MDL No. 1586, 04-
MD-15863). Five amended complaints were originally filed in these
coordinated proceedings, two of which still remain including (i)
claims by a putative class of JCG shareholders asserting claims on
behalf of the shareholders (First Derivative Traders, et al. v.
Janus Capital Group Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, District of
Maryland, MDL 1586, formerly referred to as Wiggins, et al. v.
Janus Capital Group Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, District of
Maryland, Case No. 04-CV-00818); and (ii) derivative claims by
investors in certain Janus funds ostensibly on behalf of such
funds (Steinberg et al. v. Janus Capital Management, LLC et al.,
U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, Case No. 04-CV-00518).

On January 20, 2010, the U.S. District Court entered orders
dismissing the remaining claims asserted against JCG and its
affiliates by fund investors in the Steinberg matter; however,
plaintiffs appealed the decision in February 2010. JCG expects a
decision from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2011.

Janus Capital Group Inc. -- http://www.janus.com/-- provides
investment management, administration, distribution and related
services to individual and institutional investors through mutual
funds, separate accounts and sub-advised relationships in both
domestic and international markets.  JCG provides investment
advisory services through its primary subsidiaries, Janus Capital
Management LLC, INTECH Investment Management LLC and Perkins
Investment Management LLC.


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Suits Over RehabCare Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kindred Healthcare Inc. has been named a defendant in two class
action lawsuits in relation to planned acquisition of RehabCare
Group, Inc., according to the Company's February 23, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company entered into an agreement and plan of merger on
February 7, 2011, with RehabCare Group, Inc., providing for the
acquisition of RehabCare by Kindred.  The Merger Agreement
provides that RehabCare will be merged with and into Kindred, with
Kindred surviving the Merger.

On February 10, 2011, a purported class action complaint relating
to the RehabCare acquisition was filed in the Circuit Court of St.
Louis County, Missouri, against RehabCare and certain of its
directors and officers, as well as Kindred, by Arthur I. Murray,
Jr., individually and on behalf of all of the Company's
stockholders, excluding the defendants and their affiliates.  The
complaint alleges, among other allegations, that the consideration
that RehabCare's stockholders will receive in connection with the
proposed transaction is inadequate and that the individual
RehabCare defendants breached their fiduciary duties to
stockholders in approving the Merger Agreement.  The complaint
further alleges that the individual RehabCare defendants were
aided and abetted in such breaches by RehabCare and Kindred.  The
complaint seeks various forms of relief, including injunctive
relief that would, if granted, prevent the RehabCare acquisition
from being consummated in accordance with the agreed-upon terms.
The case is styled Arthur I. Murray, Jr. v. RehabCare Group, Inc.,
et al. (No. I.I.S.L. ? CC00566, Circuit Court, St. Louis Co., MO).

Another purported class action complaint, styled Norfolk County
Retirement System v. Harry E. Rich, et al. (C.A. No. 6197
(Delaware (Wilmington) Court of Chancery) and filed on February
15, 2011, asserts substantially identical claims and seeks similar
relief against RehabCare, certain of its directors and officers
and Kindred, on behalf of all of Kindred's stockholders, excluding
the defendants and their affiliates.

Kindred believes that the complaints are without merit and intend
to defend them vigorously.


LABRANCHE & CO: D&Os Face 2nd Suit Over Sale to Cowen
-----------------------------------------------------
Jerry Borowka, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Michael LaBranche, et al., Case No. 650508/2011 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., New York Cty., February 24, 2011), accuses the Board of
Directors of LaBranche & Co. Inc. of breaching its fiduciary
duties arising out of their attempt to sell the Company to Cowen
Group, Inc. via an unfair process and for an unfair price.

On Feb. 17, 2011, Cowen and LaBranche announced a definitive
agreement under which Cowen, through its wholly owned subsidiary,
Louisiana Merger Sub, Inc., will acquire all of the outstanding
shares of LaBranche in an all-stock transaction, pursuant to which
LaBranche shareholders will receive 0.9980 of a share of Cowen
common stock for each outstanding share of LaBranche common stock,
in a transaction valued at approximately $192.8 million.

Michael LaBranche is the Company's Chairman of the Board, Chief
Executive Officer and President.  LaBranche is the parent of
LaBranche Structure Holdings, whose subsidiaries are market makers
in options, exchange-traded funds and futures on various exchanges
domestically and internationally.

Cowen is a financial services firm providing alternative
investment management, investment banking, research, and sales and
trading services through its business units, Ramius and Cowen and
Company.

Based on the $4.72 closing price of Cowen common stock the day
prior to the announcement of the proposed transaction, the deal
values LaBranche at $4.71 per share.  Mr. Borowka says this is a
premium of just 16% based on the closing price of LaBranche stock
the day prior to the announcement of the proposed transaction, and
represents a negative premium to the $5.20 price LaBranche stock
traded at as recently as May 2010, and the over $6.00 price
LaBranche stock traded at in April 2010.

Further, Mr. Borowka says that defendants also agreed to certain
onerous and preclusive deal protection devices designed to make
the proposed transaction a "fait accompli and ensure that no
competing offers will emerge for the Company."  These include: i)
a "no solicitation" provision barring the Company soliciting
interest from other potential acquirers; ii) a matching rights
provision; and iii) a termination fee of $6.25 million payable to
Cowen by LaBranche if the Company decides to pursue the competing
offer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Jenkelowitz, Esq.
          Joseph Levi, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          30 Broadway Street, !5th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500


LIFE PARTNERS: April 4 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, representing investors of Life
Partners Holdings, Inc., disclosed that an April 4, 2011, deadline
to move to be a lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit filed
on behalf of all purchasers of the securities of Life Partners
Holdings, Inc. between May 29, 2007 and January 20, 2011,
inclusive has been set.  The shareholder lawsuit is pending in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

The Complaint charges Life Partners and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Life Partners, through its subsidiary, Life Partners, Inc.,
operates in the secondary market for life insurance generally
known as "life settlements."  The Complaint alleges that
defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that, among
other things: (1) the Company routinely used life expectancy data
that produced inaccurately short life expectancy reports, which
were subsequently used to sell life settlement policies to
investors; (2) the Company concealed the historical rate at which
insured individuals had lived past the life expectancy data
previously provided to life settlement investors, such that the
Company's investors were unable to assess the accuracy or
reliability of such data; (3) as a result, the Company's financial
statements were false and misleading at all relevant times; and
(4), as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about
its financial performance and future business prospects were
lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

On Jan. 20, 2011, The Wall Street Journal reported the Securities
and Exchange Commission was investigating Life Partners' business
practices related to how it estimated life expectancies of insured
individuals whose life insurance-policy rights the Company was
selling.  Later that day, the Company confirmed the SEC was
investigating its operating subsidiary, Life Partners, Inc.  As a
result of this news, shares of Life Partners declined by $2.58
per share, more than 17%, to close on January 20, 2011, at $12.46
per share, on unusually high volume.

No class has yet been certified in the action.  Until a class is
certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain
one.  If you purchased Life Partners securities between
May 29, 2007 and January 20, 2011, you have certain rights and
have until April 4, 2011, to move for lead plaintiff status.  To
be a member of the class you need not take any action at this
time, and you may retain counsel of your choice.  If you wish to
discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Telephone: (215) 638-4847
          Toll-Free: (888) 638-4847
          E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Continues to Defend California Workers' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself in a
putative class action filed by former employees in California, the
Company said in its February 23, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

On September 3, 2009, a former store manager and a current
assistant store manager at the time filed a putative class action
suit against Lumber Liquidators, Inc., in the Superior Court of
California in and for the County of Alameda. The Plaintiffs allege
that with regard to certain groups of current and former employees
in LLI's California stores, LLI violated California law by failing
to calculate and pay overtime wages properly, provide meal breaks,
compensate for unused vacation time, reimburse for certain
expenses and maintain required employment records. The Plaintiffs
also claim that LLI did not calculate and pay overtime wages
properly for certain of LLI's non-exempt employees, both in and
out of California, in violation of federal law. In their suit, the
Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, certain statutory penalties,
costs, attorney's fees and injunctive relief. LLI removed the case
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. No class has been certified with regard to any of the
alleged causes of action. LLI is vigorously defending the claims
in this suit including class certification. While there is a
reasonable possibility that a material loss may be incurred, THE
Company cannot estimate the loss or range of loss, if any, to it
at this time.

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.lumberliquidators.com/-- is the largest specialty
retailer of hardwood flooring in the United States.  With more
than 195 stores and 340 varieties of flooring, including solid and
engineered hardwood, bamboo, cork and laminate, and featuring
premier brands such as Bellawood (which features a 50-year
warranty), Dream Home, Schon, Virginia Mill Works, and Morning
Star, Lumber Liquidators has one of the most extensive selections
of prefinished and unfinished hardwood flooring in the industry.
Its hardwood line is made up of more than 25 domestic and exotic
wood species in both prefinished and unfinished brands of various
lengths and widths.  Flooring experts in every store provide
consumers with useful product information and answers to all of
their flooring questions.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Continues to Defend FLSA Suit in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself in a
putative class action filed by a former employee in Florida,
according to the Company's February 23, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2010.

On or about September 7, 2010, a former store manager filed an
action against LLI in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida. In the complaint, the former store
manager alleges that LLI breached an alleged contract for the
payment of a commission and violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
by failing to pay him for overtime hours worked.  In addition, he
asserts a purported collective action on behalf of similarly
situated LLI employees alleging that LLI denied them overtime
wages in violation of the FLSA. No class has been certified with
regard to the purported collective action. LLI intends to defend
the claims in this suit vigorously including collective action
certification. While there is a reasonable possibility that a
material loss may be incurred, the Company cannot estimate the
loss or range of loss, if any, to it at this time.

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.lumberliquidators.com/-- is the largest specialty
retailer of hardwood flooring in the United States.  With more
than 195 stores and 340 varieties of flooring, including solid and
engineered hardwood, bamboo, cork and laminate, and featuring
premier brands such as Bellawood (which features a 50-year
warranty), Dream Home, Schon, Virginia Mill Works, and Morning
Star, Lumber Liquidators has one of the most extensive selections
of prefinished and unfinished hardwood flooring in the industry.
Its hardwood line is made up of more than 25 domestic and exotic
wood species in both prefinished and unfinished brands of various
lengths and widths.  Flooring experts in every store provide
consumers with useful product information and answers to all of
their flooring questions.


MASTERCARD INC: Awaits Outcome of Appeals in Consumer Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard Incorporated is awaiting the outcome of appeals filed
by plaintiffs in New Mexico and California consumer suits,
according to the Company's February 24, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2010.

Individual or multiple complaints have been brought in nineteen
different states and the District of Columbia alleging state
unfair competition, consumer protection and common law claims
against MasterCard International (and Visa) on behalf of putative
classes of consumers.  The claims in these actions largely mirror
the allegations made in the U.S. merchant lawsuit and assert that
merchants, faced with excessive merchant discount fees, have
passed these overcharges to consumers in the form of higher prices
on goods and services sold.  The Company has been successful in
dismissing cases in seventeen of the jurisdictions as courts have
granted MasterCard's motions to dismiss for failure to state a
claim or plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their complaints.
However, there are outstanding cases in New Mexico and California.

On June 9, 2010, the court issued an order granting the Company's
motion to dismiss the complaint in the New Mexico action.  The
plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal of that decision.

With respect to the California state actions, in September 2009,
the parties to the California state court actions executed a
settlement agreement which required a payment by the Company of
$6 million, subject to approval by the California state court.  On
August 23, 2010, the court executed an order granting final
approval of the settlement, subsequent to which the Company made
the payment required by the settlement agreement.  The plaintiff
from the Attridge action and three other objectors have filed a
notice that they intend to appeal the settlement approval order.


MASTERCARD INC: Continues to Defend Interchange Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard Incorporated remains a defendant in several class
action lawsuits arising from interchange fees in connection with
purchase transactions initiated with the payment system's cards,
according to the Company's February 24, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2010.

In June 2005, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by a
group of merchants in the U.S. District Court of Connecticut
against MasterCard International Incorporated, Visa U.S.A., Inc.,
Visa International Service Association and a number of member
banks alleging, among other things, that the Company's and Visa's
purported setting of interchange fees violates Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, which prohibits contracts, combinations and
conspiracies that unreasonably restrain trade.  In addition, the
complaint alleges that the Company's and Visa's purported tying
and bundling of transaction fees also constitutes a violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The suit seeks treble damages in an
unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.  Since
the filing of this complaint, there have been approximately fifty
similar complaints (the majority of which are styled as class
actions, although a few complaints are on behalf of individual
plaintiffs) filed on behalf of merchants against the Company and
Visa (and in some cases, certain member banks) in federal courts
in California, New York, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New Jersey,
Ohio, Kentucky and Connecticut.  In October 2005, the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order transferring
these cases to Judge Gleeson of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York for coordination of pre-trial
proceedings in MDL No. 1720.  In April 2006, the group of
purported class plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action
Complaint.  Taken together, the claims in the First Amended Class
Action Complaint and in the complaints brought on the behalf of
the individual merchants are generally brought under both Section
1 of the Sherman Act and Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which
prohibits monopolization and attempts or conspiracies to
monopolize a particular industry.  Specifically, the complaints
contain some or all of the following claims: (1) that the
Company's and Visa's setting of interchange fees violates Section
1 of the Sherman Act; (2) that the Company and Visa have enacted
and enforced various rules, including the no surcharge rule and
purported anti-steering rules, in violation of Section 1 or 2 of
the Sherman Act; (3) that the Company's and Visa's purported
bundling of the acceptance of premium credit cards to standard
credit cards constitutes an unlawful tying arrangement; and (4)
that the Company and Visa have unlawfully tied and bundled
transaction fees.  In addition to the claims brought under federal
antitrust law, some of these complaints contain certain unfair
competition law claims under state law based upon the same conduct
described above.  These interchange-related litigations seek
treble damages, as well as attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.
In June 2006, the Company answered the complaint and moved to
dismiss or, alternatively, moved to strike the pre-2004 damage
claims that were contained in the First Amended Class Action
Complaint and moved to dismiss the Section 2 claims that were
brought in the individual merchant complaints.  In January 2008,
the district court dismissed the plaintiffs' pre-2004 damage
claims.  In May 2008, the court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss the Section 2 monopolization claims.  Fact discovery has
been proceeding and was generally completed by November 2008.
Briefs have been submitted on plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  The court heard oral argument on the plaintiffs'
class certification motion in November 2009.  The parties are
awaiting a decision on the motion.

In January 2009, the class plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated
Class Action Complaint.  The allegations and claims in this
complaint generally mirror those in the first amended class action
complaint described above although plaintiffs have added
additional claims brought under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman
Act against the Company, Visa and a number of banks alleging,
among other things, that the networks and banks have continued to
fix interchange fees following each network's initial public
offering.  In March 2009, the Company and the other defendants in
the action filed a motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated Class
Action Complaint in its entirety, or alternatively, to narrow the
claims in the complaint.  The parties have fully briefed the
motion and the court heard oral argument on the motion in November
2009.  The parties are awaiting decisions on the motions.

In July 2006, the group of purported class plaintiffs filed a
supplemental complaint alleging that the Company's initial public
offering of its Class A Common Stock in May 2006 and certain
purported agreements entered into between the Company and its
member financial institutions in connection with the IPO: (1)
violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act because their effect
allegedly may be to substantially lessen competition, (2) violate
Section 1 of the Sherman Act because they allegedly constitute an
unlawful combination in restraint of trade and (3) constitute a
fraudulent conveyance because the member banks are allegedly
attempting to release without adequate consideration from the
member banks the Company's right to assess the member banks for
the Company's litigation liabilities in these interchange-related
litigations and in other antitrust litigations pending against it.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and an order reversing and
unwinding the IPO.  In September 2006, the Company moved to
dismiss all of the claims contained in the supplemental complaint.
In November 2008, the district court granted the Company's motion
to dismiss the plaintiffs' supplemental complaint in its entirety
with leave to file an amended complaint. In January 2009, the
class plaintiffs replied their complaint directed at the Company's
IPO by filing a First Amended Supplemental Class Action Complaint.
The causes of action in the complaint generally mirror those in
the plaintiffs' original IPO-related complaint although the
plaintiffs have attempted to expand their factual allegations
based upon discovery that has been garnered in the case.  The
class plaintiffs seek treble damages and injunctive relief
including, but not limited to, an order reversing and unwinding
the IPO.  In March 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
First Amended Supplemental Class Action Complaint in its entirety.
The parties have fully briefed the motion to dismiss and the court
heard oral argument on the motion in November 2009.  The parties
are awaiting a decision on the motion.  In July 2009, the class
plaintiffs and individual plaintiffs served confidential expert
reports detailing the plaintiffs' theories of liability and
alleging damages in the tens of billions of dollars.  The
defendants served their expert reports in December 2009 countering
the plaintiffs' assertions of liability and damages.  In February
2011, both the defendants and the plaintiffs served a number of
dispositive motions seeking summary judgment on all or portions of
the claims in the complaints.  Briefing on these motions is
scheduled to be completed in June 2011.  No trial date has been
scheduled, however, the court has asked the parties to consider a
trial date of September 12, 2012.  The parties have also entered
into court-recommended mediation and anticipate scheduling a
number of mediation sessions in the coming months.  It is not
possible to predict whether the mediation will be successful or
not.

On February 7, 2011, the Company and MasterCard International
Incorporated entered into each of: (1) an omnibus judgment sharing
and settlement sharing agreement with Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A. Inc.
and Visa International Service Association and a number of member
banks; and (2) a MasterCard settlement and judgment sharing
agreement with a number of member banks.  The agreements provide
for the apportionment of certain costs and liabilities which the
Company, the Visa parties and the member banks may incur, jointly
and/or severally, in the event of an adverse judgment or
settlement of one or all of the cases in the interchange merchant
litigations.  Among a number of scenarios addressed by the
agreements, in the event of a global settlement involving the Visa
parties, the member banks and the Company, the Company would pay
12% of the monetary portion of the settlement.  In the event of a
settlement involving only MasterCard and the member banks with
respect to their issuance of MasterCard cards, MasterCard would
pay 36% of the monetary portion of such settlement.


MONTEREY FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Talent Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims
Monterey Financial Services, Be. LLC and Dynamic Showcases took
"illegal fees from thousands of California families," in violation
of the state's Advance-Fee Talent Services Act, in Superior Court.


NICOR GAS: Continues to Defend Five Shareholder Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Northern Illinois Gas Company, doing business as NICOR Gas
Company, continues to defend itself from five putative
shareholders class action lawsuits, according to the Company's
February 24, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

Nicor, its board of directors, AGL Resources, one or both of AGL
Resources' acquisition subsidiaries and, in one instance, Nicor's
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, have been
named as defendants in five putative class action lawsuits brought
by purported Nicor shareholders challenging Nicor's proposed
merger with AGL Resources.  The shareholder actions variously
allege, among other things, that the Nicor board of directors
breached its fiduciary duties to Nicor and its shareholders by (i)
approving the sale of Nicor to AGL Resources at an inadequate
purchase price (and thus failing to maximize value to Nicor
shareholders); (ii) conducting an inadequate sale process by
agreeing to preclusive deal protection provisions in the Merger
Agreement; and (iii) failing to disclose material information
regarding the proposed merger to Nicor shareholders.  The
complaints also allege that AGL Resources and Nicor aided and
abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  The shareholder
actions seek, among other things, declaratory and injunctive
relief, including orders enjoining the defendants from
consummating the proposed merger and, in certain circumstances,
damages.  No assurances can be given as to the outcome of these
lawsuits, including the costs associated with defending these
lawsuits or any other liabilities or costs the parties may incur
in connection with the litigation or settlement of these lawsuits.
Furthermore, one of the conditions to closing the merger is that
there are no injunctions issued by any court preventing the
completion of the transactions.  No assurance can be given that
these lawsuits will not result in such an injunction being issued
which could prevent or delay the closing of the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement.

Northern Illinois Gas Company provides natural gas storage and
transmission-related services to marketers and other gas
distribution companies. The Company is based in Naperville, Ill.


NYSE EURONEXT: D&Os Face 2nd Suit Over Sale to Deutsche Borse
-------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey Carpenters Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Jan-Michiel Hessels, et al., Case No.
650506/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., February 24, 2011),
accuses NYSE Euronext's Board Chairman and the other members of
the Company's Board of Directors of breaching their fiduciary
duties to the Company's public shareholders in connection with the
contemplated sale of NYSE to Deutsche Borse AG, which was publicly
announced on Feb. 15, 2011.

The Plaintiff says the proposed acquisition is the result of an
unfair process, results in the denial to shareholders of important
information regarding the value of their shares of NYSE stock, and
does not provide for adequate value for NYSE shareholders.

Pursuant to the terms of the agreement between NYSE and DB, NYSE
shareholders will receive 0.47 shares of the post-acquisition
Company, resulting in NYSE's shareholders owning approximately 40%
of the combined company.  The remaining 60% of the combined
company will be held by DB, giving DB shareholders a controlling
stake.  The aggregate value of the transaction is approximately
$10 billion, valuing each NYSE share at about $39 on the day
of the announcement of the proposed acquisition.  DB
representatives will reportedly have the majority of the seats on
the new entity's board, with seven to be designated by NYSE,
including current Chief Executive Officer Duncan Niederauer, who
will remain in that lucrative position.

According to the Complaint, the proposed acquisition of NYSE
provides for no meaningful premium to NYSE's public shareholders,
even though the consummation of the proposed acquisition will
result in a loss of control over the Company and its prospects.
Based on NYSE's opening stock prices for February 8, 2011, the day
before news of the proposed acquisition leaked to the
press, and DB's stock price for the same date, the equivalent
compensation NYSE shareholders will receive is approximately
$36.86, which represents a mere 9% premium.

Further, NYSE's Board and executive management will be handsomely
rewarded for agreeing to sell control of the Company to DB.  For
example, upon consummation of the proposed acquisition, Michael
Geltzeiler, NYSE's Chief Financial Officer and Roland Bellegarde,
NYSE's Group Executive Vice President & Head of European Execution
will receive $8.7 million and $3.8 million respectively.  In
addition, many NYSE board members have been promised generous
employment contracts as a result of their support of the proposed
acquisition.

The Complaint cites a CNBC article on February 18, 2011, which
pointed out that a joint hostile bid is unlikely based on the
$340 million break-up fee and "force the vote" provisions in the
Merger Agreement.

The Plaintiff explains that he Merger Agreement also contains
certain preclusive devices designed to "chill" any competing
offers coming forward, including: i) a no shop provision; ii) a
matching rights provision; iii) a "force the vote" provision,
which provides that even if the NYSE Board changes its
recommendation on the proposed acquisition or determines that it
will make no recommendation, it must still submit the Merger
Agreement to the shareholders to vote on the proposed acquisition;
and iv) a substantial termination fee of 250 million Euros or the
equivalent of US$340 million.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Herman Cahn, Esq.
          Anita Kartalopoulos, Esq.
          Benjamin Y. Kaufman, Esq.
          Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
          Jessica J. Sleater, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
          E-mail: hcahn@milberg.com
                  akartalopoulos@milberg.com
                  bkaufman@milberg.com
                  arado@milberg.com
                  jsleater@milberg.com

               - and -

          Albert G. Kroll, Esq.
          KROLL HEINEMAN, LLC
          Metro Corporate Campus I
          99 Wood Avenue South, Suite 307
          Iselin, NJ 08830
          Telephone: (732) 491-2100
          E-mail: akroll@krollfirm.com


OILSANDS QUEST: Scott+Scott LLP Files Class Action in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
On Feb. 24, 2011, Scott+Scott LLP filed a class action complaint
against Oilsands Quest Inc. and certain of the Company's officers
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The action for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
is brought on behalf of those purchasing the common stock and
other publicly-traded securities of Oilsands Quest between August
14, 2006 and July 14, 2009, inclusive, including Oilsands Quest's
"Exchangeable Shares" offered as consideration for the minority
interest in OQI Sask on Aug. 14, 2006; Oilsands Quest's "units"
first publicly offered on Dec. 5, 2007 at $5.00 per unit; Oilsands
Quest common stock shares publicly offered on Dec. 5, 2007 on a
flow-through basis at $6.11 ($6.17 CDN) per share; and Oilsands
Quest's "units" first publicly offered on May 1, 2009 at $0.85 per
unit.

If you purchased Oilsands Quest common stock or other Oilsands
Quest securities during the Class Period and wish to serve as a
lead plaintiff in the action, you must move the Court no later
than 60 days from Feb. 24, 2011.  Any member of the investor class
may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of
its choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.  If you wish to discuss this action or have questions
concerning this notice or your rights, please contact:

          Scott+Scott LLP
          Telephone: (800) 404-7770
                     (860) 537-5537
          E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com
          Web site: http://www.scott-scott.com

for more information.  There is no cost or fee to you.

The complaint filed in the action charges that, during the Class
Period, Oilsands Quest and certain of its officers and directors
overstated the value of the Company's assets by more than $136
million in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Practices.

As alleged in the complaint, on Aug. 14, 2006, Oilsands Quest
acquired the minority interest in its operating subsidiary, OQI
Sask, that the Company did not already own.  The Complaint alleges
that Oilsands Quest's Class Period financial reports and
statements issued thereafter were false and misleading in that:
(a) defendants failed to properly account for Oilsands Quest's
acquisition of the minority interest of OQI Sask in August 2006,
materially overstating the value of OQI Sask throughout the Class
Period; (b) Oilsands Quest's financial statements overstated the
value of the Company's interest in OQI Sask and were presented in
violation of GAAP throughout the Class Period; and (c) contrary to
defendants' Class Period assurances, the Company's internal
controls were inadequate to prevent it from improperly inflating
the value of its assets.

On July 14, 2009, the Company issued a release disclosing that the
Company's FY 2007, FY 2008 and Q-1, Q-2 and Q-3 2009 financial
reports should no longer be relied upon, that its previously
issued financial reports would be restated, and that Oilsands
Quest's internal controls were deficient throughout the Class
Period. Meanwhile, the complaint alleges, as a result of
defendants' false statements, Oilsands Quest's stock price traded
at artificially inflated levels during the Class Period, trading
as high as $6.75 per share on June 23, 2008, but that as the truth
seeped into the market, the Company's shares were hammered by
massive sales, sending them down 87% from their Class Period high.

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States.  The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals and other entities worldwide.


ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Remain Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from an order approving a settlement of the class action
lawsuits arising from ON Semiconductor Corporation's initial
public offering remain pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, according to the Company's February 24, 2011
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2010.

During the period July 5, 2001 through July 27, 2001, the Company
was named as a defendant in three shareholder class action
lawsuits that were filed in federal court in New York City against
the Company and certain of its former officers, current and former
directors and the underwriters of its initial public offering. The
lawsuits allege violations of the federal securities laws and have
been docketed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York as: Abrams v. ON Semiconductor Corp., et al., C.A. No
01-CV-6114; Breuer v. ON Semiconductor Corp., et al., C.A. No. 01-
CV-6287; and Cohen v. ON Semiconductor Corp., et al., C.A. No. 01-
CV-6942. On April 19, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a single
consolidated amended complaint that supersedes the individual
complaints originally filed. The amended complaint alleges, among
other things, that the underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering improperly required their customers to pay the
underwriters' excessive commissions and to agree to buy additional
shares of the Company's common stock in the aftermarket as
conditions of receiving shares in the Company's initial public
offering. The amended complaint further alleges that these
supposed practices of the underwriters should have been disclosed
in the Company's initial public offering prospectus and
registration statement. The amended complaint alleges violations
of both the registration and antifraud provisions of the federal
securities laws and seeks unspecified damages. The Company
understands that various other plaintiffs have filed substantially
similar class action cases against approximately 300 other
publicly-traded companies and their public offering underwriters
in New York City, which have all been transferred, along with the
case against the Company, to a single federal district court judge
for purposes of coordinated case management. The Company believes
that the claims against it are without merit and has defended, and
intends to continue to defend, the litigation vigorously. The
litigation process is inherently uncertain, however, and the
Company cannot guarantee that the outcome of these claims will be
favorable for the Company.

On July 15, 2002, together with the other issuer defendants, the
Company filed a collective motion to dismiss the consolidated,
amended complaints against the issuers on various legal grounds
common to all or most of the issuer defendants. The underwriters
also filed separate motions to dismiss the claims against them. In
addition, the parties have stipulated to the voluntary dismissal
without prejudice of the Company's individual former officers and
current and former directors who were named as defendants in the
Company's litigation, and they are no longer parties to the
litigation. On February 19, 2003, the District Court issued its
ruling on the motions to dismiss filed by the underwriter and
issuer defendants. In that ruling, the District Court granted in
part and denied in part those motions. As to the claims brought
against the Company under the antifraud provisions of the
securities laws, the District Court dismissed all of these claims
with prejudice, and refused to allow plaintiffs the opportunity to
re-plead these claims. As to the claims brought under the
registration provisions of the securities laws, which do not
require that intent to defraud be pleaded, the District Court
denied the motion to dismiss these claims as to the Company and as
to substantially all of the other issuer defendants as well. The
District Court also denied the underwriter defendants' motion to
dismiss in all respects.

In June 2003, upon the determination of a special independent
committee of the Company's Board of Directors, the Company elected
to participate in a proposed settlement with the plaintiffs in
this litigation. Had it been approved by the District Court, this
proposed settlement would have resulted in the dismissal, with
prejudice, of all claims in the litigation against the Company and
against any of the other issuer defendants who elected to
participate in the proposed settlement, together with the current
or former officers and directors of participating issuers who were
named as individual defendants. This proposed issuer settlement
was conditioned on, among other things, a ruling by the District
Court that the claims against the Company and against the other
issuers who had agreed to the settlement would be certified for
class action treatment for purposes of the proposed settlement,
such that all investors included in the proposed classes in these
cases would be bound by the terms of the settlement unless an
investor opted to be excluded from the settlement in a timely and
appropriate fashion.

On December 5, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit issued a decision in In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation that six purported class action lawsuits
containing allegations substantially similar to those asserted
against the Company could not be certified as class actions due,
in part, to the Court of Appeals' determination that individual
issues of reliance and knowledge would predominate over issues
common to the proposed classes. On January 8, 2007, the plaintiffs
filed a petition seeking rehearing en banc of this ruling. On
April 6, 2007, the Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs'
petition for rehearing of the Court of Appeals' December 5, 2006
ruling. The Court of Appeals, however, noted that the plaintiffs
remained free to ask the District Court to certify classes
different from the ones originally proposed which might meet the
standards for class certification that the Court of Appeals
articulated in its December 5, 2006 decision. In light of the
Court of Appeals' December 5, 2006 decision regarding
certification of the plaintiffs' claims, the District Court
entered an order on June 25, 2007 terminating the proposed
settlement between the plaintiffs and the issuers, including the
Company.

On August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints in the
six focus cases. The issuer defendants and the underwriter
defendants separately moved to dismiss the claims against them in
the amended complaints in the six focus cases. On March 26, 2008,
the District Court issued an order in which it denied in
substantial part the motions to dismiss the amended complaints in
the six focus cases.

On February 25, 2009, the parties advised the District Court that
they had reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the
litigation in its entirety. A stipulation of settlement was filed
with the District Court on April 2, 2009. On June 9, 2009, the
District Court preliminarily approved the proposed global
settlement. Notice was provided to the class, and a settlement
fairness hearing, at which members of the class had an opportunity
to object to the proposed settlement, was held on September 10,
2009. On October 6, 2009, the District Court issued an order
granting final approval to the settlement. Ten appeals were filed
objecting to the definition of the settlement class and fairness
of the settlement, five of which have been dismissed with
prejudice. Two appeal briefs have been filed by the remaining
objector groups, and those appeals remain pending. The settlement
calls for a total payment of $586 million from all defendants,
including underwriters, of which $100 million is allocated to the
approximately 300 issuer defendants. Under the settlement, the
Company's insurers are to pay the full amount of settlement share
allocated to the Company, and the Company would bear no financial
liability. The Company, as well as the officer and director
defendants (current and former) who were previously dismissed from
the action pursuant to tolling agreements, are to receive complete
dismissals from the case. While the Company can make no assurances
or guarantees as to the outcome of these proceedings, based upon
its current knowledge, it believes that the final result of this
action will have no material effect on its consolidated financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.

ON Semiconductor Corp. -- http://www.onsemi.com/-- is a premier
supplier of high performance, energy efficient, silicon solutions
for green electronics.  The company's broad portfolio of power and
signal management, logic, discrete and custom devices helps
customers effectively solve their design challenges in automotive,
communications, computing, consumer, industrial, LED lighting,
medical, military/aerospace and power applications.  ON
Semiconductor operates a world-class, value-added supply chain and
a network of manufacturing facilities, sales offices and design
centers in key markets throughout North America, Europe, and the
Asia Pacific regions.


PENN VIRGINIA: Enters Into MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Penn Virginia Resource GP, LLC, has entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle class action lawsuits relating to its
proposed merger, according to the Company's February 24, 2011 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2010.

On September 21, 2010, Penn Virginia Resource Partners, L.P.,
announced that it had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
by and among the Partnership, PVR GP, PVG, PVG GP, and PVR Radnor,
LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Partnership, pursuant to
which PVG and PVG GP will be merged into Merger Sub, with Merger
Sub as the surviving entity. Merger Sub will subsequently be
merged into its general partner, PVR GP, with PVR GP being the
surviving entity.

Kevin Epoch, Sanjay Israni and Anita Scheifele, purported Penn
Virginia GP Holdings, L.P., unitholders filed various putative
class action complaints, subsequently amended, against Penn
Virginia Resource Partners, L.P., the Company, PVG, PVG GP, LLC,
and certain of the Company's directors and officers in the Court
of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania under the
captions Epoch v. Penn Virginia GP Holdings, L.P., et al. and
Scheifele v. Shea, et al. relating to the Merger Agreement and the
related Merger transactions.

On February 1, 2011, the parties to the Epoch and Scheifele
actions entered into the Memorandum of Understanding to settle the
litigation in its entirety.  The MOU provides that the parties
will seek dismissal with prejudice of the litigation and a release
of the Defendants from all present and future claims asserted in
the litigation in exchange for a supplemental disclosure to the
Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus.  The MOU is subject to a number
of conditions, including, without limitation, completion of
certain discovery by the plaintiffs, the drafting and execution of
a formal Stipulation of Settlement, the consummation of the merger
and court approval of the proposed settlement.  The Company said
there is no assurance that these conditions will be satisfied.


PHILIP MORRIS: Illinois Court Reinstates Tobacco Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Edvard Petterson, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that the
tobacco case that led to a $10 billion verdict against cigarette
maker Altria Group Inc.'s Philip Morris unit in a class-action
lawsuit has been reinstated by an Illinois appellate court, a law
firm said.

The Fifth District Appellate Court of Illinois on Feb. 24 sent the
case back to trial court in Madison County, Illinois, for further
proceedings, according to a press release sent by Korein Tillery,
the law firm that brought the class-action suit.

"The Appellate Court ruling came only on the issue of the
timeliness of Korein Tillery's appeal of the dismissal of the case
by the trial court in 2006 when it acted under specific
instructions by the Illinois Supreme Court," according to the
statement.

Illinois's top court, in its December 2005 ruling, found that
state law didn't permit the suit because the Federal Trade
Commission authorized cigarette makers to market their products as
"light" or "low-tar."  Madison County Judge Nicholas Byron found
in March of 2003 that Philip Morris, a unit of Richmond, Virginia-
based Altria, misled Illinois smokers about the risks of light
cigarettes and awarded $10.1 billion in damages.

The case is Price v. Philip Morris Inc., 96236, Supreme Court of
Illinois.


PHITEN: Faces Class Action for Misleading Advertising
-----------------------------------------------------
A Phiten class action lawsuit has been filed, alleging that the
company made misleading statements about its necklaces and
bracelets.  According to advertisements, Phiten bracelets and
necklaces improve the users' balance of energy, which can
alleviate discomfort, counteract fatigue and speed recovery.
However, according to the Phiten class action complaint, the
company's marketing and advertising materials concerning the
Phiten necklaces and bracelets were misleading.  If you purchased
a Phiten necklace or bracelet, you may be able to recover the cost
of your Phiten accessory due to these allegations.  Simply visit
http://www.classaction.org/phiten-necklaces-and-bracelets.html/
and complete the free case evaluation form to find out if you may
be able to join the Phiten class action.

According to the Phiten class action complaint, Phiten made
numerous misleading statements about Phiten necklaces and
bracelets on its Web site.  The class action complaint also claims
that that the company's Web site displayed pictures of prominent
athletes wearing Phiten accessories and displayed many
testimonials from customers.  According to the Phiten class action
complaint, the manner in which the Phiten accessories are
advertised is misleading to the average consumer.

If you have purchased a Phiten necklace or bracelet, you may be
able to participate in a Phiten class action lawsuit to recover
financial compensation.  A Phiten class action lawsuit would allow
a large number of consumers the chance to collectively bring a
claim in court.  To find out if you can participate in a Phiten
class action lawsuit, visit Class Action.org today for a free case
evaluation.

Class Action.org is dedicated to protecting consumers and
investors in class actions and complex litigation throughout the
United States.  Class Action.org keeps consumers informed about
product alerts, recalls, and emerging litigation and helps them
take action against the manufacturers of defective products,
drugs, and medical devices.  Information about consumer fraud
issues and environmental hazards is also available on the site.
Visit http://www.classaction.org/today for a no cost, no
obligation case evaluation and information about your consumer
rights.


QWEST COMMS: Judge Approves Shareholder Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Vuong, writing for The Denver Post, reports that a federal
judge in Denver has approved a class-action settlement that will
dismiss shareholder lawsuits filed against Qwest and proposed
merger partner CenturyLink, a Qwest spokeswoman said on Feb. 25.

The judge "indicated that he'll issue the order [this] week and
it'll become effective March 17," said spokeswoman Diane Reberger.

After Qwest and CenturyLink announced plans for a $22 billion
merger in April, 17 shareholder suits were filed against the
companies.  In general, the lawsuits allege that the merger
doesn't adequately compensate Qwest investors.

The cases were consolidated and assigned to U.S District Judge
Wiley Daniel.

Under terms of the settlement, Qwest and CenturyLink agreed to
provide additional disclosures about the merger, which was
included in a regulatory filing in July.  The companies also
agreed to cover attorney fees.

The merger is expected to close by April 1.


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Regions Financial Corporation remains a defendant in two
securities class action lawsuits in New York and Alabama,
according to the Company's February 24, 2011 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

In April 2009, the Company, Regions Financing Trust III and
certain of the Company's current and former directors, were named
in a purported class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of the
purchasers of trust preferred securities offered by the Trust.
The complaint alleges that defendants made statements in the
Company's registration statement, prospectus and year-end filings
which were materially false and misleading.  On May 10, 2010, the
trial court dismissed all claims against all defendants in this
case.  However, the plaintiffs have appealed the decision.

In October 2010, a separate purported class-action lawsuit was
filed by the Company's stockholders in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama against Regions and certain
former officers of Regions.  The lawsuit alleges violations of the
federal securities laws based on alleged actions similar to those
that were the basis for the suit filed by purchasers of the trust
preferred securities, including allegations that statements that
were materially false and misleading were included in filings made
with the SEC. Plaintiffs in these cases have requested equitable
relief and unspecified monetary damages.

These class-action lawsuits are still early in their development
and no classes have been certified.  Unless and until a class is
certified, the scope of the class and claims remains unknown.
There are numerous factors that result in a greater degree of
complexity in class-action lawsuits as compared to other types of
litigation.  Due to the many intricacies involved in class-action
lawsuits at the early stages of these matters, obtaining clarity
on a reasonable estimate is difficult which may call into question
its reliability.

At this stage of the lawsuits, and in view of the inherent
inability to predict the outcome of litigation, particularly where
there are many claimants, the Company cannot determine the
probability of a material adverse result or reasonably estimate a
range of potential exposures, if any.  Although it is not possible
to predict the ultimate resolution or financial liability with
respect to these matters, management is currently of the opinion
that the outcome of these matters will not have a material effect
on the Company's business, consolidated financial position,
results of operations or cash flows.


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Class Suits Over Overdraft Fees Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Regions Financial Corporation remains a defendant in purported
class action lawsuits filed by customers who challenged the manner
in which non-sufficient funds and overdraft fees were charged,
according to the Company's February 24, 2011 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

In September 2009, the Company was named as a defendant in a
purported class-action lawsuit filed by customers of Regions Bank
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
challenging the manner in which non-sufficient funds and overdraft
fees were charged and the policies related to posting order.  The
case was transferred to multidistrict litigation in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and in May
2010 an order to compel arbitration was denied.  In July 2010, a
separate class-action was filed in the Circuit Court of Greene
County Missouri, making a claim under Missouri's consumer
protection statute.  The case has been removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri.  Plaintiffs
in these cases have requested equitable relief and unspecified
monetary damages.  These class-action lawsuits are still early in
their development and no classes have been certified.  Unless and
until a class is certified, the scope of the class and claims
remains unknown.  There are numerous factors that result in a
greater degree of complexity in class-action lawsuits as compared
to other types of litigation.  Due to the many intricacies
involved in class-action lawsuits at the early stages of these
matters, obtaining clarity on a reasonable estimate is difficult
which may call into question its reliability.

At this stage of the lawsuits, and in view of the inherent
inability to predict the outcome of litigation, particularly where
there are many claimants, the Company cannot determine the
probability of a material adverse result or reasonably estimate a
range of potential exposures, if any.  However, in light of the
inherent uncertainties involved in these matters, it is reasonably
possible that an adverse outcome in any of these matters could be
material to the Company's business, consolidated financial
position, results of operations, or cash flows for any particular
reporting period.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Continues to Defend "Scott" Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company continues to defend the matter Scott
v. American Tobacco Co., according to Reynolds American Inc.'s
Feb. 23, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On November 5, 1998, in Scott v. American Tobacco Co., a case
filed in District Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, the trial
court certified a medical monitoring or smoking cessation class of
Louisiana residents who were smokers on or before May 24, 1996, in
an action brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers,
including RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc.,
seeking to recover an unspecified amount of compensatory and
punitive damages.  On July 28, 2003, the jury returned a verdict
in favor of the defendants on the plaintiffs' claim for medical
monitoring and found that cigarettes were not defectively
designed.  However, the jury also made certain findings against
the defendants on claims relating to fraud, conspiracy, marketing
to minors and smoking cessation. Notwithstanding these findings,
this portion of the trial did not determine liability as to any
class member or class representative.  What primarily remained in
the case was a class-wide claim that the defendants pay for a
program to help people stop smoking.

On May 21, 2004, the jury returned a verdict in the amount of $591
million on the class' claim for a smoking cessation program.  In
September 2004, the defendants posted a $50 million bond, pursuant
to legislation that limits the amount of the bond to $50 million
collectively for MSA signatories, and noticed their appeal.  RJR
Tobacco posted $25 million (the portions for RJR Tobacco and B&W)
towards the bond.  In February 2007, the Louisiana Court of
Appeals upheld the class certification and found the defendants
responsible for funding smoking cessation for eligible class
members.  The appellate court also ruled, however, that the
defendants were not liable for any post-1988 claims, rejected the
award of prejudgment interest, struck eight of the 12 components
of the smoking cessation program and remanded the case for further
proceedings.  In particular, the appellate court ruled that no
class member, who began smoking after September 1, 1988, could
receive any relief, and that only those smokers, whose claims
accrued on or before September 1, 1988, would be eligible for the
smoking cessation program.  The plaintiffs have expressly
represented to the trial court that none of their claims accrued
before 1988, and that the class claims did not accrue until around
1996, when the case was filed.  The defendants' application for
writ of certiorari with the Louisiana Supreme Court was denied in
January 2008.  The defendants' petition for writ of certiorari
with the U.S. Supreme Court was denied in June 2008.  In July
2008, the trial court entered an amended judgment in the case,
finding that the defendants are jointly and severally liable for
funding the cost of a court-supervised smoking cessation program
and ordered the defendants to deposit approximately $263 million
together with interest from June 30, 2004, into a trust for the
funding of the program.  The court also stated that it would
favorably consider a motion to return to defendants a portion of
unused funds at the close of each program year in the event the
monies allocated for the preceding program year were not fully
expended because of a reduction in class size or underutilization
by the remaining plaintiffs.

In December 2008, the trial court judge signed an order granting
the defendants an appeal from the amended judgment.  In April
2010, the court of appeals amended but largely affirmed the trial
court's July 2008 judgment and ordered the defendants to deposit
with the court $242 million with judicial interest from July 21,
2008, until paid.  The defendants' motion for rehearing was
denied.  In September 2010, the defendants' application for writ
of certiorari or review and their emergency motion to stay
execution of judgment with the Louisiana Supreme Court was denied.
On September 24, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the
defendant's motion to stay the judgment pending applicants' timely
filing, and the Court's disposition, of a petition for writ of
certiorari.  The defendants filed a petition for writ of
certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court on December 2, 2010.  The
plaintiffs' response was filed on February 2, 2011.

Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is
the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; American
Snuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; and
Niconovum AB.  R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largest
U.S. tobacco company.  The company's brands include five of the 10
best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall,
Winston, Doral and Kool.  American Snuff Company, LLC is the
nation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobacco
products.  Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and Levi
Garrett.  American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a variety
of tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, including
Winchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your-
own tobacco.  Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufactures
Natural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobacco
products, and manages and markets other super-premium brands.
Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapy
products in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Trial in "Brown" Action Set for May 6
--------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the matter Brown v. American Tobacco Co. is set for
May 6, 2011, according to Reynolds American Inc.'s Feb. 23, 2011
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On April 11, 2001, in Brown v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a case
filed in June 1997 in Superior Court, San Diego County,
California, the court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion for
certification of a class composed of residents of California who
smoked at least one of the defendants' cigarettes from June 10,
1993 through April 23, 2001, and who were exposed to the
defendants' marketing and advertising activities in California.
The action was brought against the major U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson
Holdings, Inc., seeking to recover restitution, disgorgement of
profits and other equitable relief under California Business and
Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. and Section 17500 et seq.
Certification was granted as to the plaintiffs' claims that the
defendants violated Section 17200 of the California Business and
Professions Code pertaining to unfair competition.  The court,
however, refused to certify the class under the California Legal
Remedies Act and on the plaintiffs' common law claims.  In March
2005, the court granted the defendants' motion to decertify the
class, and in September 2006, the California Court of Appeal
affirmed the order decertifying the class.  In November 2006, the
plaintiffs' petition for review with the California Supreme Court
was granted, and in May 2009, the court reversed the decision of
the trial court, and the California Court of Appeal that
decertified the class and remanded the case to the trial court for
further proceedings.  In March 2010, the trial court found that
the plaintiffs' "lights" claims were not preempted by the Federal
Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act and denied the defendants'
second motion for summary judgment.  The plaintiffs filed a tenth
amended complaint in September 2010.  RJR Tobacco and B&W filed
their answers to the complaint, and discovery is underway.  A
hearing on the defendants' motion to decertify the class was
scheduled for February 23, 2011.  Trial is currently scheduled for
May 6, 2011.

Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is
the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; American
Snuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; and
Niconovum AB.  R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largest
U.S. tobacco company.  The company's brands include five of the 10
best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall,
Winston, Doral and Kool.  American Snuff Company, LLC is the
nation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobacco
products.  Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and Levi
Garrett.  American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a variety
of tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, including
Winchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your-
own tobacco.  Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufactures
Natural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobacco
products, and manages and markets other super-premium brands.
Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapy
products in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Appeal of "Sateriale" Suit Dismissal Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' appeal of a court ruling dismissing the class action
complaint captioned Sateriale v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. is
pending, according to Reynolds American Inc.'s Feb. 23, 2011 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

In Sateriale v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a class action filed
in November 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, the plaintiffs brought the case on behalf
of all persons who tried unsuccessfully to redeem Camel Cash
certificates from 1991 through March 31, 2007, or who held Camel
Cash certificates as of March 31, 2007.  The plaintiffs allege
that in response to the defendants' action to discontinue
redemption of Camel Cash as of March 31, 2007, customers, like the
plaintiffs, attempted to exchange their Camel Cash for merchandise
and that the defendants, however, did not have any merchandise to
exchange for Camel Cash.  The plaintiffs allege unfair business
practices, deceptive practices, breach of contract and promissory
estoppel.  The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, actual damages,
costs and expenses.  In January 2010, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss, which prompted the plaintiffs to file an
amended complaint in February 2010.  The class definition changed
to a class consisting of all persons who reside in the U.S. and
tried unsuccessfully to redeem Camel Cash certificates, from
October 1, 2006 (six months before the defendant ended the Camel
Cash program) or who held Camel Cash certificates as of March 31,
2007.  The plaintiffs also brought the class on behalf of a
proposed California subclass, consisting of all California
residents meeting the same criteria.  In May 2010, RJR Tobacco's
motion to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction
over subject matter and, alternatively, for failure to state a
claim was granted with leave to amend.  The plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint.  In July 2010, RJR Tobacco's motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint was granted with leave to
amend.  The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, and RJR
Tobacco filed a motion to dismiss it in September 2010.  In
December 2010, the court granted RJR Tobacco's motion to dismiss
with prejudice.  Final judgment was entered by the court and the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in January 2011.

Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is
the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; American
Snuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; and
Niconovum AB.  R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largest
U.S. tobacco company.  The company's brands include five of the 10
best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall,
Winston, Doral and Kool.  American Snuff Company, LLC is the
nation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobacco
products.  Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and Levi
Garrett.  American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a variety
of tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, including
Winchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your-
own tobacco.  Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufactures
Natural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobacco
products, and manages and markets other super-premium brands.
Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapy
products in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Appeal in "Seminal Lights" Case Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs from the dismissal of their petition
for relief from judgment in a seminal "lights" class-action case
is still pending, according to Reynolds American Inc.'s Feb. 23,
2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

"Lights" class-action cases are pending against RJR Tobacco or
Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., in Illinois (3), Missouri (2),
Minnesota (2), New Mexico (1) and Arizona (1).  The classes in
these cases generally seek to recover $50,000 to $75,000 per class
member for compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and other
forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and costs from RJR Tobacco
and/or B&W.  In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or
B&W made false and misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were
lower in tar and nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less
mutagenic than other cigarettes.  The cases typically are filed
pursuant to state consumer protection and related statutes.

Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the
Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court.  In
that "lights" class-action case pending against Altria Group, Inc.
and Philip Morris USA, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that these
claims are not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and
Advertising Act or by the Federal Trade Commission's, referred to
as FTC, historic regulation of the industry.  Since this decision
in December 2008, a number of the stayed cases have become active
again.

The seminal "lights" class-action case involves RJR Tobacco's
competitor, Philip Morris, Inc.  Trial began in Price v. Philip
Morris, Inc. in January 2003.  In March 2003, the trial judge
entered judgment against Philip Morris in the amount of $7.1
billion in compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitive damages
to the State of Illinois.  Based on Illinois law, the bond
required to stay execution of the judgment was set initially at
$12 billion.  Philip Morris pursued various avenues of relief from
the $12 billion bond requirement.  In December 2005, the Illinois
Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision and sent the
case back to the trial court with instructions to dismiss the
case.  In December 2006, the defendant's motion to dismiss and for
entry of final judgment was granted, and the case was dismissed
with prejudice the same day.  In December 2008, the plaintiffs
filed a petition for relief from judgment, stating that the U.S.
Supreme Court's decision in Good v. Altria Group, Inc. rejected
the basis for the reversal.  The trial court granted the
defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' petition for relief
from judgment in February 2009.  In March 2009, the plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth
Judicial District, requesting a reversal of the February 2009
order and remand to the circuit court.  Oral argument occurred in
February 2010.  A decision is pending.

Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is
the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; American
Snuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; and
Niconovum AB.  R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largest
U.S. tobacco company.  The company's brands include five of the 10
best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall,
Winston, Doral and Kool.  American Snuff Company, LLC is the
nation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobacco
products.  Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and Levi
Garrett.  American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a variety
of tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, including
Winchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your-
own tobacco.  Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufactures
Natural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobacco
products, and manages and markets other super-premium brands.
Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapy
products in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Turner" Suit Still Pending in Illinois Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. -- a unit of Reynolds American, Inc.
-- continues to face a lawsuit entitled "Turner v. R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co.", according to Reynolds American's Feb. 23, 2011 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

"Lights" class-action cases are pending against RJR Tobacco or
Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., in Illinois (3), Missouri (2),
Minnesota (2), New Mexico (1) and Arizona (1).  The classes in
these cases generally seek to recover $50,000 to $75,000 per class
member for compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and other
forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and costs from RJR Tobacco
and/or B&W.  In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or
B&W made false and misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were
lower in tar and nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less
mutagenic than other cigarettes.  The cases typically are filed
pursuant to state consumer protection and related statutes.

Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the
Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court.  In
that "lights" class-action case pending against Altria Group, Inc.
and Philip Morris USA, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that these
claims are not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and
Advertising Act or by the Federal Trade Commission's, referred to
as FTC, historic regulation of the industry.  Since this decision
in December 2008, a number of the stayed cases have become active
again.

In Turner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in February
2000 in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, a judge certified
a class in November 2001.  In June 2003, RJR Tobacco filed a
motion to stay the case pending Philip Morris' appeal of the Price
v. Philip Morris Inc. case, which the judge denied in July 2003.
In October 2003, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals
denied RJR Tobacco's emergency stay/supremacy order request.  In
November 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court granted RJR Tobacco's
motion for a stay pending the court's final appeal decision in
Price.  On October 11, 2007, the Illinois Fifth District Court of
Appeals dismissed RJR Tobacco's appeal of the court's denial of
its emergency stay/supremacy order request and remanded the case
to the circuit court.  There is currently no activity in the case.

Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is
the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; American
Snuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; and
Niconovum AB.  R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largest
U.S. tobacco company.  The company's brands include five of the 10
best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall,
Winston, Doral and Kool.  American Snuff Company, LLC is the
nation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobacco
products.  Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and Levi
Garrett.  American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a variety
of tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, including
Winchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your-
own tobacco.  Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufactures
Natural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobacco
products, and manages and markets other super-premium brands.
Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapy
products in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Howard" Action Still Pending in Madison County
------------------------------------------------------------------
The matter Howard v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., remains
pending in the Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, according
to Reynolds American's Feb. 23, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

"Lights" class-action cases are pending against RJR Tobacco or
Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. in Illinois, (3), Missouri (2),
Minnesota (2), New Mexico (1) and Arizona (1).  The classes in
these cases generally seek to recover $50,000 to $75,000 per class
member for compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and other
forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and costs from RJR Tobacco
and/or B&W.  In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or
B&W made false and misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were
lower in tar and nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less
mutagenic than other cigarettes.  The cases typically are filed
pursuant to state consumer protection and related statutes.

Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the
Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court.  In
that "lights" class-action case pending against Altria Group, Inc.
and Philip Morris USA, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that these
claims are not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and
Advertising Act or by the Federal Trade Commission's, referred to
as FTC, historic regulation of the industry.  Since this decision
in December 2008, a number of the stayed cases have become active
again.

In Howard v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., a case filed in
February 2000 in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, a judge
certified a class in December 2001.  In June 2003, the trial judge
issued an order staying all proceedings pending resolution of the
Price v. Philip Morris, Inc. case.  The plaintiffs appealed this
stay order to the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals, which
affirmed the Circuit Court's stay order in August 2005.  There is
currently no activity in the case.

Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is
the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; American
Snuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; and
Niconovum AB.  R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largest
U.S. tobacco company.  The company's brands include five of the 10
best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall,
Winston, Doral and Kool.  American Snuff Company, LLC is the
nation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobacco
products.  Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and Levi
Garrett.  American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a variety
of tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, including
Winchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your-
own tobacco.  Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufactures
Natural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobacco
products, and manages and markets other super-premium brands.
Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapy
products in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Collora" Case Still Pending in Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Collora v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. remains
pending in Missouri, according to Reynolds American Inc.'s
Feb. 23, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

"Lights" class-action cases are pending against RJR Tobacco or
Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. in Illinois, (3), Missouri (2),
Minnesota (2), New Mexico (1) and Arizona (1).  The classes in
these cases generally seek to recover $50,000 to $75,000 per class
member for compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and other
forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and costs from RJR Tobacco
and/or B&W.  In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or
B&W made false and misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were
lower in tar and nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less
mutagenic than other cigarettes.  The cases typically are filed
pursuant to state consumer protection and related statutes.

Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the
Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court.  In
that "lights" class-action case pending against Altria Group, Inc.
and Philip Morris USA, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that these
claims are not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and
Advertising Act or by the Federal Trade Commission's, referred to
as FTC, historic regulation of the industry.  Since this decision
in December 2008, a number of the stayed cases have become active
again.

In Collora v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in May 2000
in Circuit Court, St. Louis County, Missouri, a judge in St. Louis
certified a class in December 2003.  In April 2007, the court
granted the plaintiffs' motion to reassign Collora and the
following cases to a single general division: Craft v. Philip
Morris Companies, Inc. and Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corp.  In April 2008, the court stayed the case pending U.S.
Supreme Court review in Good v. Altria Group, Inc.  A nominal
trial date of January 10, 2011 was scheduled, but it did not
proceed at that time.

No further updates were reported in Reynolds American's latest SEC
filing.

Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is
the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; American
Snuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; and
Niconovum AB.  R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largest
U.S. tobacco company.  The company's brands include five of the 10
best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall,
Winston, Doral and Kool.  American Snuff Company, LLC is the
nation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobacco
products.  Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and Levi
Garrett.  American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a variety
of tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, including
Winchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your-
own tobacco.  Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufactures
Natural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobacco
products, and manages and markets other super-premium brands.
Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapy
products in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Black" Case Still Pending in Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
remains pending in Missouri, according to Reynolds American Inc.'s
Feb. 23, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

"Lights" class-action cases are pending against RJR Tobacco or
Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. in Illinois, (3), Missouri (2),
Minnesota (2), New Mexico (1) and Arizona (1).  The classes in
these cases generally seek to recover $50,000 to $75,000 per class
member for compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and other
forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and costs from RJR Tobacco
and/or B&W.  In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or
B&W made false and misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were
lower in tar and nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less
mutagenic than other cigarettes.  The cases typically are filed
pursuant to state consumer protection and related statutes.

Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the
Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court.  In
that "lights" class-action case pending against Altria Group, Inc.
and Philip Morris USA, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that these
claims are not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and
Advertising Act or by the Federal Trade Commission's, referred to
as FTC, historic regulation of the industry.  Since this decision
in December 2008, a number of the stayed cases have become active
again.

In Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., a case filed in
November 2000 in Circuit Court, City of St. Louis, Missouri, B&W
removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri.  The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand,
which was granted in March 2006.  In April 2008, the court stayed
the case pending U.S. Supreme Court review in Good v. Altria
Group, Inc.  A nominal trial date of January 10, 2011, was
scheduled, but it did not proceed at that time.

No further updates were reported in Reynolds American's latest SEC
filing.

Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is
the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; American
Snuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; and
Niconovum AB.  R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largest
U.S. tobacco company.  The company's brands include five of the 10
best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall,
Winston, Doral and Kool.  American Snuff Company, LLC is the
nation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobacco
products.  Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and Levi
Garrett.  American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a variety
of tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, including
Winchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your-
own tobacco.  Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufactures
Natural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobacco
products, and manages and markets other super-premium brands.
Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapy
products in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Dahl" Action in Minnesota Remains Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
The matter Dahl v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota remains stayed,
according to Reynolds American Inc.'s Feb. 23, 2011 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

"Lights" class-action cases are pending against RJR Tobacco or
Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. in Illinois, (3), Missouri (2),
Minnesota (2), New Mexico (1) and Arizona (1).  The classes in
these cases generally seek to recover $50,000 to $75,000 per class
member for compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and other
forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and costs from RJR Tobacco
and/or B&W.  In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or
B&W made false and misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were
lower in tar and nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less
mutagenic than other cigarettes.  The cases typically are filed
pursuant to state consumer protection and related statutes.

Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the
Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court.  In
that "lights" class-action case pending against Altria Group, Inc.
and Philip Morris USA, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that these
claims are not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and
Advertising Act or by the Federal Trade Commission's, referred to
as FTC, historic regulation of the industry.  Since this decision
in December 2008, a number of the stayed cases have become active
again.

In Dahl v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in April 2003,
and pending in District Court, Hennepin County, Minnesota, a judge
dismissed the case in May 2005, ruling the "lights" claims are
preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act.
In July 2005, the plaintiffs appealed to the Minnesota Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Judicial District.  During the pendency of
the appeal, RJR Tobacco removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota.  In February 2007, the Eighth
Circuit remanded the case to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, which
in December 2007, reversed the judgment and remanded the case to
the District Court.  In January 2009, the Minnesota Supreme Court
issued an order vacating the February 2008 order that granted RJR
Tobacco's petition for review.  In July 2009, the plaintiffs in
this case and in Thompson v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. filed a
motion to consolidate for discovery and trial.  In October 2009,
the court companioned the two cases and reserved its ruling on the
motion to consolidate, which it said will be reevaluated as
discovery progresses.  In February 2010, a stipulation and order
was entered to stay proceedings in this case, and in Thompson
until completion of all appellate review in Curtis v. Altria
Group, Inc.

No updates were reported in Reynolds American's latest SEC filing.

Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is
the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; American
Snuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; and
Niconovum AB.  R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largest
U.S. tobacco company.  The company's brands include five of the 10
best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall,
Winston, Doral and Kool.  American Snuff Company, LLC is the
nation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobacco
products.  Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and Levi
Garrett.  American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a variety
of tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, including
Winchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your-
own tobacco.  Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufactures
Natural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobacco
products, and manages and markets other super-premium brands.
Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapy
products in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Thompson" Suit Likely to Remain Active in 2011
------------------------------------------------------------------
The matter Thompson v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., is likely to
remain active through 2011, according to Reynolds American Inc.'s
Feb. 23, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

"Lights" class-action cases are pending against RJR Tobacco or
Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. in Illinois, (3), Missouri (2),
Minnesota (2), New Mexico (1) and Arizona (1).  The classes in
these cases generally seek to recover $50,000 to $75,000 per class
member for compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and other
forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and costs from RJR Tobacco
and/or B&W.  In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or
B&W made false and misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were
lower in tar and nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less
mutagenic than other cigarettes.  The cases typically are filed
pursuant to state consumer protection and related statutes.

Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the
Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court.  In
that "lights" class-action case pending against Altria Group, Inc.
and Philip Morris USA, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that these
claims are not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and
Advertising Act or by the Federal Trade Commission's, referred to
as FTC, historic regulation of the industry.  Since this decision
in December 2008, a number of the stayed cases have become active
again.

In Thompson v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in
February 2005 in District Court, Hennepin County, Minnesota, RJR
Tobacco removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota.  In October 2007,  the U.S. District Court
remanded the case to state district court.  In May 2009, the court
entered an agreed scheduling order that bifurcates merits and
class certification discovery.  The parties are engaged in class
certification discovery, and this case is likely to remain active
through 2011.  In July 2009, the plaintiffs in this case and in
Dahl v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. filed a motion to consolidate
for discovery and trial.  In October 2009, the court companioned
the two cases and reserved its ruling on the motion to
consolidate, which it said will be re-evaluated as discovery
progresses.

Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is
the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; American
Snuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; and
Niconovum AB.  R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largest
U.S. tobacco company.  The company's brands include five of the 10
best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall,
Winston, Doral and Kool.  American Snuff Company, LLC is the
nation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobacco
products.  Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and Levi
Garrett.  American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a variety
of tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, including
Winchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your-
own tobacco.  Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufactures
Natural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobacco
products, and manages and markets other super-premium brands.
Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapy
products in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Briefing on "Cleary" Appeal Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Briefing on the appeal filed by plaintiffs in the matter Cleary v.
Philip Morris, Inc., in connection with the dismissal of their
case is underway, according to Reynolds American Inc.'s Feb. 23,
2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

"Lights" class-action cases are pending against RJR Tobacco or
Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. in Illinois, (3), Missouri (2),
Minnesota (2), New Mexico (1) and Arizona (1).  The classes in
these cases generally seek to recover $50,000 to $75,000 per class
member for compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and other
forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and costs from RJR Tobacco
and/or B&W.  In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or
B&W made false and misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were
lower in tar and nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less
mutagenic than other cigarettes.  The cases typically are filed
pursuant to state consumer protection and related statutes.

Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the
Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court.  In
that "lights" class-action case pending against Altria Group, Inc.
and Philip Morris USA, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that these
claims are not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and
Advertising Act or by the Federal Trade Commission's, referred to
as FTC, historic regulation of the industry.  Since this decision
in December 2008, a number of the stayed cases have become active
again.

In Cleary v. Philip Morris, Inc., a case filed in June 1998, and
pending in Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois, the plaintiffs
filed their motion for class certification in December 2001, in an
action brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers,
including, RJR Tobacco and B&W.  The case was brought on behalf of
persons who have allegedly been injured by (1) the defendants'
purported conspiracy pursuant to which defendants concealed
material facts regarding the addictive nature of nicotine, (2) the
defendants' alleged acts of targeting their advertising and
marketing to minors, and (3) the defendants' claimed breach of the
public right to defendants' compliance with the laws prohibiting
the distribution of cigarettes to minors.  The plaintiffs
requested that the defendants be required to disgorge all profits
unjustly received through their sale of cigarettes to plaintiffs
and the class, which in no event will be greater than $75,000 per
each class member, inclusive of punitive damages, interest and
costs.  In March 2006, the court dismissed count V, public
nuisance, and count VI, unjust enrichment.  The plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint in March 2009, to add a claim of unjust
enrichment and, to include in the class, individuals who smoked
"light" cigarettes.  RJR Tobacco and B&W answered the amended
complaint in March 2009.  In July 2009, the plaintiffs filed an
additional motion for class certification.  In September 2009, the
court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the
pleadings concerning the "lights" claims as to all defendants
other than Philip Morris.  In February 2010, the court denied the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification of all three putative
classes.  However, the court ruled that the plaintiffs may
reinstate the class dealing with the conspiracy to conceal the
addictive nature of nicotine if they identify a new class
representative.  In April 2010, the court granted the plaintiffs'
motion to file a fourth amended complaint and withdraw the motion
to reinstate count I by identifying a new plaintiff.  The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' fourth
amended complaint, which was granted in June 2010.  The court
denied the plaintiffs' motion to reconsider, and in August 2010,
the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.  Briefing is underway.

Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is
the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; American
Snuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; and
Niconovum AB.  R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largest
U.S. tobacco company.  The company's brands include five of the 10
best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall,
Winston, Doral and Kool.  American Snuff Company, LLC is the
nation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobacco
products.  Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and Levi
Garrett.  American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a variety
of tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, including
Winchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your-
own tobacco.  Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufactures
Natural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobacco
products, and manages and markets other super-premium brands.
Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapy
products in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Discovery in "VanDyke" Action Still Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in the matter VanDyke v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., is
still underway, according to Reynolds American Inc.'s Feb. 23,
2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

"Lights" class-action cases are pending against RJR Tobacco or
Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. in Illinois, (3), Missouri (2),
Minnesota (2), New Mexico (1) and Arizona (1).  The classes in
these cases generally seek to recover $50,000 to $75,000 per class
member for compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and other
forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and costs from RJR Tobacco
and/or B&W.  In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or
B&W made false and misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were
lower in tar and nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less
mutagenic than other cigarettes.  The cases typically are filed
pursuant to state consumer protection and related statutes.

Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the
Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court.  In
that "lights" class-action case pending against Altria Group, Inc.
and Philip Morris USA, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that these
claims are not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and
Advertising Act or by the Federal Trade Commission's, referred to
as FTC, historic regulation of the industry.  Since this decision
in December 2008, a number of the stayed cases have become active
again.

In VanDyke v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in August
2009 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico
against RJR Tobacco and the Company, the plaintiffs brought the
case on behalf of all New Mexico residents who from July 1, 2004,
to the date of judgment, purchased, not for resale, the
defendants' cigarettes labeled as "lights" or "ultra-lights."  The
plaintiffs allege fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranties of merchantability and of
fitness for a particular purpose, violations of the New Mexico
Unfair Practices Act, unjust enrichment, negligence and gross
negligence.  The plaintiffs seek a variety of damages, including
actual, compensatory and consequential damages to the plaintiff
and the class but not damages for personal injury or health-care
claims.  Discovery is underway.

No updates were reported in Reynolds American's latest SEC filing.

Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is
the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; American
Snuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; and
Niconovum AB.  R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largest
U.S. tobacco company.  The company's brands include five of the 10
best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall,
Winston, Doral and Kool.  American Snuff Company, LLC is the
nation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobacco
products.  Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and Levi
Garrett.  American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a variety
of tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, including
Winchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your-
own tobacco.  Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufactures
Natural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobacco
products, and manages and markets other super-premium brands.
Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapy
products in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Shaffer" Suit Discovery Still Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in the matter Shaffer v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., is
still underway, according to Reynolds American Inc.'s Feb. 23,
2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

"Lights" class-action cases are pending against RJR Tobacco or
Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. in Illinois, (3), Missouri (2),
Minnesota (2), New Mexico (1) and Arizona (1).  The classes in
these cases generally seek to recover $50,000 to $75,000 per class
member for compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and other
forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and costs from RJR Tobacco
and/or B&W.  In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or
B&W made false and misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were
lower in tar and nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less
mutagenic than other cigarettes.  The cases typically are filed
pursuant to state consumer protection and related statutes.

Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the
Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court.  In
that "lights" class-action case pending against Altria Group, Inc.
and Philip Morris USA, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that these
claims are not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and
Advertising Act or by the Federal Trade Commission's, referred to
as FTC, historic regulation of the industry.  Since this decision
in December 2008, a number of the stayed cases have become active
again.

In Shaffer v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in October
2009 in the Superior Court of Pima County, Arizona against RJR
Tobacco, RAI and other defendants, the plaintiffs brought the case
on behalf of all persons residing in Arizona who purchased, not
for resale, defendants' cigarettes labeled as "light" or "ultra-
light" from the date of the defendants' first sales of the
cigarettes in Arizona to the date of judgment.  The plaintiffs
allege consumer fraud, concealment, nondisclosure, negligent
misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.  The plaintiffs seek a
variety of damages, including compensatory, restitutionary and
punitive damages.  In November 2009, the defendants removed the
case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, and
RJR Tobacco and RAI filed their answers to the complaint.
Discovery is underway.

No updates were reported in Reynolds American's latest SEC filing.

Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is
the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; American
Snuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; and
Niconovum AB.  R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largest
U.S. tobacco company.  The company's brands include five of the 10
best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall,
Winston, Doral and Kool.  American Snuff Company, LLC is the
nation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobacco
products.  Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and Levi
Garrett.  American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a variety
of tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, including
Winchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your-
own tobacco.  Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufactures
Natural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobacco
products, and manages and markets other super-premium brands.
Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapy
products in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Young" Action in Louisiana Still Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The matter Young v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., remains stayed,
according to Reynolds American Inc.'s Feb. 23, 2011 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

In Young v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a case filed in November
1997 in Circuit Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, the plaintiffs
brought an environmental tobacco smoke class action against U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., and parent companies of U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including RJR, on behalf of all residents of
Louisiana who, though not themselves cigarette smokers, have been
exposed to secondhand smoke from cigarettes which were
manufactured by the defendants, and who allegedly suffered injury
as a result of that exposure.  The plaintiffs seek to recover an
unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages.  In
October 2004, the trial court stayed this case pending the outcome
of the appeal in Scott v. American Tobacco Co., Inc.

No updates were reported in Reynolds American's latest SEC filing.

Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is
the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; American
Snuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; and
Niconovum AB.  R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largest
U.S. tobacco company.  The company's brands include five of the 10
best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall,
Winston, Doral and Kool.  American Snuff Company, LLC is the
nation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobacco
products.  Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and Levi
Garrett.  American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a variety
of tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, including
Winchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your-
own tobacco.  Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufactures
Natural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobacco
products, and manages and markets other super-premium brands.
Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapy
products in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Parsons" Suit in West Virginia Still Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The matter Parsons v. A C & S, Inc., filed in the Circuit Court,
Ohio County, West Virginia, remains stayed, according to Reynolds
American Inc.'s Feb. 23, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

In Parsons v. A C & S, Inc., a case filed in February 1998 in
Circuit Court, Ohio County, West Virginia, the plaintiff sued
asbestos manufacturers, U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including
RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., and parent
companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, seeking
to recover $1 million in compensatory and punitive damages
individually and an unspecified amount for the class in both
compensatory and punitive damages. The class was brought on behalf
of persons who allegedly have personal injury claims arising from
their exposure to respirable asbestos fibers and cigarette smoke.
The plaintiffs allege that Mrs. Parsons' use of tobacco products
and exposure to asbestos products caused her to develop lung
cancer and to become addicted to tobacco.  In December 2000, three
defendants, Nitral Liquidators, Inc., Desseaux Corporation of
North America and Armstrong World Industries filed bankruptcy
petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Delaware, In re Armstrong World Industries, Inc.  Pursuant to
section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, Parsons is automatically
stayed with respect to all defendants.

No updates were reported in Reynolds American's latest SEC filing.

Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is
the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; American
Snuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; and
Niconovum AB.  R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largest
U.S. tobacco company.  The company's brands include five of the 10
best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall,
Winston, Doral and Kool.  American Snuff Company, LLC is the
nation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobacco
products.  Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and Levi
Garrett.  American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a variety
of tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, including
Winchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your-
own tobacco.  Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufactures
Natural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobacco
products, and manages and markets other super-premium brands.
Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapy
products in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Jones" Suit Remains Pending in Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------
The matter Jones v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., remains pending in
the Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri, according to Reynolds
American Inc.'s Feb. 23, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

In Jones v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a case filed in December
1998 in Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri, the defendants
removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri in February 1999.  The action was brought
against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR
Tobacco and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., and parent
companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, by
tobacco product users and purchasers on behalf of all similarly
situated Missouri consumers. The plaintiffs allege that their use
of the defendants' tobacco products has caused them to become
addicted to nicotine.  The plaintiffs seek to recover an
unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages.  The case
was remanded to the Circuit Court in February 1999.  There has
been limited activity in this case.

Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is
the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; American
Snuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; and
Niconovum AB.  R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largest
U.S. tobacco company.  The company's brands include five of the 10
best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall,
Winston, Doral and Kool.  American Snuff Company, LLC is the
nation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobacco
products.  Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and Levi
Garrett.  American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a variety
of tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, including
Winchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your-
own tobacco.  Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufactures
Natural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobacco
products, and manages and markets other super-premium brands.
Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapy
products in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Romo" Plaintiffs Seek Voluntary Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the matter Romo v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., have
sought voluntary dismissal of their class action lawsuit,
according to Reynolds American Inc.'s Feb. 23, 2011 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

In Romo v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., a case filed in November 2010
in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands against RJR Tobacco
and other defendants, the plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of
all residents of the U.S. Virgin Islands who smoke cigarettes
distributed and sold in the Virgin Islands.  The plaintiffs
alleged unjust enrichment, unfair and deceptive trade practices
and consumer fraud.  The plaintiffs sought a variety of damages,
including compensatory and punitive damages.  On January 4, 2011,
the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without
prejudice as to all defendants.

Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is
the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; American
Snuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; and
Niconovum AB.  R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largest
U.S. tobacco company.  The company's brands include five of the 10
best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall,
Winston, Doral and Kool.  American Snuff Company, LLC is the
nation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobacco
products.  Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and Levi
Garrett.  American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a variety
of tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, including
Winchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your-
own tobacco.  Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufactures
Natural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobacco
products, and manages and markets other super-premium brands.
Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapy
products in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: JTI Assumes Defense of Canadian Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
Six putative Canadian class actions were filed against various
Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co. and one of its affiliates, in courts in the
provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, and
Saskatchewan.  Only the action pending in Saskatchewan is being
taken forward at this stage:
  
   * In Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
     filed in July 2009 in the Court of Queen's Bench for
     Saskatchewan against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-
     related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its
     affiliates, the plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all
     individuals who were alive on July 10, 2009, and who have
     suffered, or who currently suffer, from chronic obstructive
     pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart disease or cancer, after
     having smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes designed,
     manufactured, imported, marketed or distributed by the
     defendants.

   * In Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
     filed in June 2009, in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta
     against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
     including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the
     plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all individuals,
     including their estates, dependents and family members, who
     purchased or smoked cigarettes designed, manufactured,
     marketed or distributed by the defendants.

   * In Kunka v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
     filed in 2009 in the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba
     against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
     including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the
     plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all individuals,
     including their estates, and their dependents and family
     members, who purchased or smoked cigarettes manufactured by
     the defendants.

   * In Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
     filed in June 2009 in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
     against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
     including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the
     plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all individuals,
     including their estates, dependents and family members, who
     purchased or smoked cigarettes designed, manufactured,
     marketed or distributed by the defendants for the period of
     January 1, 1954, to the expiry of the opt out period as set
     by the court.

   * In Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, a case filed
     in June 2010 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against
     Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including
     RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiffs brought
     the case on behalf of all individuals, including their
     estates, who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who have
     suffered, or who currently suffer from chronic respiratory
     diseases, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes
     designed, manufactured, imported, marketed, or distributed by
     the defendants.

   * In McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, a case filed
     in June 2010 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against
     Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including
     RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiffs brought
     the case on behalf of all individuals, including their
     estates, who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who have
     suffered, or who currently suffer from heart disease, after
     having smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes designed,
     manufactured, imported, marketed, or distributed by the
     defendants.

In each of these six cases, the plaintiffs allege fraud,
fraudulent concealment, breach of warranty, breach of warranty of
merchantability and of fitness for a particular purpose, failure
to warn, design defects, negligence, breach of a "special duty" to
children and adolescents, conspiracy, concert of action, unjust
enrichment, market share liability, joint liability, and
violations of various trade practices and competition statutes.
The plaintiffs seek compensatory and aggravated damages; punitive
or exemplary damages; the right to waive the torts described above
and claim disgorgement of the amount of revenues or profits the
defendants received from the sale of tobacco products to putative
class members; interest pursuant to the Pre-judgment Interest Act
and other similar legislation; and other relief the court deems
just.

Pursuant to the terms of the 1999 sale of RJR Tobacco's
international tobacco business, RJR Tobacco has tendered the
defense of these six actions to Japan Tobacco Inc.  Subject to a
reservation of rights, JTI has assumed the defense of RJR Tobacco
and its current or former affiliates in these actions, according
to Reynolds American Inc.'s Feb. 23, 2011 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2010.

Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is
the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; American
Snuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; and
Niconovum AB.  R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largest
U.S. tobacco company.  The company's brands include five of the 10
best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall,
Winston, Doral and Kool.  American Snuff Company, LLC is the
nation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobacco
products.  Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and Levi
Garrett.  American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a variety
of tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, including
Winchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your-
own tobacco.  Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufactures
Natural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobacco
products, and manages and markets other super-premium brands.
Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapy
products in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name.


ROME BANCORP: Settles Merger-Related Shareholder Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Rome Bancorp, Inc., has settled lawsuits filed by stockholders
resulting from the Company's merger with Berkshire Hills Bancorp,
according to the Company's February 23, 2011, Form 8-K filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.

On February 23, 2011, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation and to allow stockholders to
vote on the proposals required in connection with the merger at
the scheduled meeting, Rome Bancorp entered into a  memorandum of
understanding with plaintiffs' counsel and other named defendants
regarding the settlement of two putative class action lawsuits
filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of the
Bronx and the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
Oneida on behalf of Rome Bancorp's  stockholders following the
public announcement of the execution of the Agreement and Plan of
Merger, dated October 12, 2010 by and among Berkshire Hills
Bancorp, Inc. and Rome Bancorp.

On October 18, 2010, Stephen Bushansky filed a stockholder class
action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of the Bronx, on October 27, 2010, James and Liliana
DiCastro filed a stockholder class action lawsuit in the Chancery
Court of the State of Delaware, and on November 15, 2010, and
Samuel S. Rapasodi filed a stockholder class action lawsuit in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Oneida, each
against Rome Bancorp, Berkshire Hills, and the directors of Rome
Bancorp.  The lawsuit filed in Delaware was subsequently withdrawn
voluntarily.  The active lawsuits purport to be brought on behalf
of all of Rome Bancorp's  public stockholders and allege that the
directors of Rome Bancorp breached their fiduciary duties to Rome
Bancorp's stockholders by failing to take steps necessary to
obtain a fair and adequate price for Rome Bancorp's common stock
and that Berkshire Hills knowingly aided and abetted Rome Bancorp
directors' breach of fiduciary duty.  The lawsuits seek to enjoin
the proposed merger from proceeding and seek unspecified
compensatory or rescissory damages on behalf of Rome Bancorp's
stockholders.  On December 7 and December 20, 2010, plaintiffs in
the Rapasodi and Bushansky actions filed amended complaints
repeating their claims regarding the adequacy of the merger price
and adding allegations that the disclosures to be provided to Rome
Bancorp's stockholders, as set forth in the preliminary S-4
Registration Statement filed with the SEC on November 23, 2010,
fail to provide required material information necessary for Rome
Bancorp's stockholders to make a fully informed decision
concerning the merger.

Under the terms of the memorandum negotiated by Rome Bancorp, Rome
Bancorp, the other named defendants and the plaintiffs have agreed
to settle the two lawsuits subject to court approval.  If the
court approves the settlement contemplated in the memorandum, the
lawsuits will be dismissed with prejudice.  Pursuant to the terms
of the memorandum, Rome Bancorp has agreed to make available
additional information to its stockholders.  In return, the
plaintiffs have agreed to the dismissal of the lawsuits and to
withdraw all motions filed in connection with the lawsuits.  In
connection with the settlement, plaintiffs intend to seek an award
of attorneys' fees and expenses not to exceed $395,000, subject to
court approval.  Rome Bancorp and its insurance carrier have
agreed to pay the legal fees and expenses of plaintiffs' counsel,
in an amount not to exceed $395,000 and ultimately to be
determined by the court.  This payment will not affect the amount
of merger consideration to be paid in the merger.  If the
settlement is finally approved by the court, it is anticipated
that it will resolve and release all claims in all actions that
were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the
proposed merger, the Merger Agreement, and any disclosure made in
connection therewith (but excluding claims for appraisal under
Section 262 of the Delaware General Corporation Law).  There can
be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve the
settlement even if the parties were to enter into a stipulation.
In that event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the
memorandum of understanding may be terminated.  The details of the
settlement will be set forth in a notice to be sent to Rome
Bancorp's stockholders prior to a hearing before the court to
consider both the settlement and plaintiffs' fee application.

The settlement will not affect the merger consideration to be paid
to stockholders of Rome Bancorp in connection with the proposed
merger between Rome Bancorp and Berkshire Hills or the timing of
the special meeting of stockholders of Rome Bancorp scheduled for
March 9, 2011, in Rome, New York to vote upon a proposal to adopt
the Merger Agreement.  Rome Bancorp and the other defendants deny
all of the allegations in the lawsuits and believe the disclosures
are appropriate under the law.  Nevertheless, Rome Bancorp and the
other defendants have agreed to settle the putative class action
litigation in order to avoid costly litigation and reduce the risk
of any delay to the closing of the merger.

Rome Bancorp and the other defendants have vigorously denied, and
continue to vigorously deny, that they have committed or aided and
abetted in the commission of any violation of law or engaged in
any of the wrongful acts that were or could have been alleged in
the lawsuits, and expressly maintain that, to the extent
applicable, they diligently and scrupulously complied with their
fiduciary and other legal burdens and are entering into the
contemplated settlement solely to eliminate the burden and expense
of further litigation, to put the claims that were or could have
been asserted to rest, and to avoid any possible delay in the
consummation of the merger.  The Company says nothing in its Form
8-K, the Memorandum of Understanding or any stipulation of
settlement will be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or
materiality under applicable laws of any of the disclosures set
forth.


SANDISK CORP: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Ritz Camera Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sandisk Corporation continues to await a ruling on its motion to
dismiss a monopoly class action complaint commenced by Ritz Camera
& Image, LLC against it, according to the Company's February 23,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended January 2, 2011.

On June 25, 2010, Ritz Camera filed a complaint in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
alleging that the Company violated federal antitrust law by
conspiring to monopolize and monopolizing the market for flash
memory products.  The lawsuit, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk
Corporation, Inc. and Eliyahou Harari, Case No. 5:10-cv-02787-HRL,
purports to be on behalf of purchasers of flash memory products
sold by the Company and joint ventures controlled by the Company
from June 25, 2006 through the present.  The Complaint alleges
that the Company created and maintained a monopoly by fraudulently
obtaining patents and using them to restrain competition and by
allegedly converting other patents for its competitive use.  On
October 1, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss Ritz's
claims.  The court stayed discovery pending a ruling on the motion
and set a further case management conference for February 11,
2011.

At the February 11, 2011 hearing, the Court said it would issue a
ruling on the Company's motion to dismiss by February 18, 2011;
however, the Court has not yet issued its ruling as of
February 23.


SECURITIES AMERICA: Court Temporarily Halts Arbitration Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dow Jones Newswires reports that regulators in two states are
angered by a suggestion to halt their proceedings against
Securities America while a federal judge considers a proposed
class-action settlement.

Lawyers for the lead plaintiffs in a class-action suit against
Securities America suggested that a Dallas federal court stop
Massachusetts and Montana regulators from continuing, at least
temporarily, certain state proceedings involving the brokerage's
sales of private placements, according to court documents.
Securities America, a unit of Ameriprise Financial Inc. (AMP),
can't afford to pay the more than $300 million in investor claims,
they say.  Investors, they say, should share equally in a $21
million settlement fund.

"It's an end-run on the process," William Galvin, secretary of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, told Dow Jones Newswires on
Wednesday.  "It's clearly an attempt to thwart investors from
recouping their losses," said Mr. Galvin, whose office charged
Securities America in 2010 with improper sales of notes issued by
Medical Capital Holdings.  Mr. Galvin will oppose the request, he
said.

In August, Montana securities regulators filed a cease and desist
order against Securities America.  The office of the state auditor
for the Commissioner of Securities and Insurance in Montana
alleged that Securities America and some of its executives
"withheld material information regarding the heightened risks" of
private placements it sold that were issued by Medical Capital.

"We are adamantly opposed to the request," said Jesse Laslovich,
the regulator's chief legal counsel.  His office intends to work
with Massachusetts to try to block a possible restraining order by
the federal court, he said.

A group of Securities America investors filed the class action in
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas during
2009.  They want to establish a general fund for reimbursing
losses suffered by investors who purchased two private-placement
offerings by Provident Royalties LLC and Medical Capital Holdings
Inc.  A flood of securities arbitration cases against Securities
America allege the firm didn't conduct adequate due diligence of
the offerings.  The Securities and Exchange Commission brought
civil fraud charges against the two issuers in July, 2009.

Judge W. Royal Furgeson Jr. ordered a temporary halt to three
securities arbitration cases pending against Securities America.
In December, a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration
panel ordered Securities America to pay an investor more than $1.2
million in damages related to Medical Capital losses.  A
Securities America spokeswoman confirmed at the time that it was
the first among dozens of arbitration claims about its sales of
Medical Capital notes to proceed to a hearing.

That setback has made the possibility of a $21 million class-
action settlement fund more appealing to Securities America,
Galvin alleged. "In class-action suits, investors get very little
to show for successful litigation," he said. Securities firms
typically "wail" about class-action settlements, he said, but in
this case, it's a "port in the storm," he said.

Class-action plaintiffs don't want to halt all types of state
proceedings against Securities America, just those with a
"restitutionary" purpose, said Daniel C. Girard, a San Francisco-
based class-action lawyer for the plaintiffs.  States, in
restitutionary cases, typically try to recover lost investments
made by its citizens, he said.

That argument could shut down Mr. Galvin's efforts.  "We're trying
to make investors whole.  Our objective is the rescission of
contracts," he said.  Sixty-five Massachusetts investors lost
money through Securities America's private-placement sales, he
said.  Montana regulators count seven investors.

Mr. Girard said the proposed settlement is about fairness.
"Citizens of other states have just as much a right to be
compensated with a share in the proceeds of any judgments as the
citizens of Massachusetts and Montana," he said.

The legal proceedings are likely to drag on, said Ryan K.
Bakhtiari, a lawyer whose client's Finra arbitration was halted.
"It's going to be a long road for the investors," he said.

A Securities America spokeswoman declined comment.


SEI INVESTMENTS: Subsidiary Still Faces Class Action Over ETFs
--------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of SEI Investments Company continues to defend itself
from a consolidated class action complaint filed in connection
with leveraged exchange traded funds, according to the Company's
February 24, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

SEI Investments Distribution Co. (SIDCO), has been named as a
defendant in certain putative class action complaints related to
leveraged exchange traded funds (ETFs) advised by ProShares
Advisors, LLC, which is a client of the Company.  As of
February 24, 2011, the Complaints have been filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York and in
the United States District Court for the District of Maryland,
although the three complaints filed in the District of Maryland
have been voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs.  Two of them
were subsequently re-filed in the Southern District of New York.
Two of the complaints filed in the Southern District of New York
have been voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs.  The first
complaint was filed on August 5, 2009.

The Complaints are purportedly made on behalf of all persons that
purchased or otherwise acquired shares in various ProShares ETFs
pursuant or traceable to allegedly false and misleading
registration statements, prospectuses and statements of additional
information.  The Complaints name as defendants ProShares
Advisors, LLC; ProShares Trust, ProShares Trust II; SIDCO, and
various officers and trustees to ProShares Advisors, LLC;
ProShares Trust and ProShares Trust II.  The Complaints allege
that SIDCO was the distributor and principal underwriter for the
various ProShares ETFs that were distributed to authorized
participants and ultimately shareholders.  The Complaints allege
that the registration statements for the ProShares ETFs were
materially false and misleading because they supposedly failed
adequately to describe the nature and risks of the investments.
The Complaints allege that SIDCO is liable for these purportedly
material misstatements and omissions under Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933.  The Complaints seek unspecified
compensatory and other damages, reasonable costs and other relief.
The Complaints were consolidated, and an Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint (Amended Complaint) was filed on
September 24, 2010, which asserted the same claims and added a few
individuals who alleged served as "Attorney-in-fact" as
defendants. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended
Complaint on November 15, 2010. On December 15, 2010, lead
plaintiff informed the Court and defendants that he intends to
file a second amended consolidated complaint.  While the outcome
of this litigation is uncertain given its early phase, the Company
believes that it has valid defenses to plaintiffs' claims and
intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously.


SEI INVESTMENTS: Class Action Suits in Louisiana Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
SEI Investments Company continues to defend itself from putative
class action lawsuits in Louisiana, according to the Company's
February 24, 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 named in five lawsuits that were filed in the
19th Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge,
State of Louisiana.  One of the five actions purports to set forth
claims on behalf of a class and also names SEI Private Trust
Company (SPTC) as a defendant. Two of the other actions also name
SPTC as a defendant.  All five actions name various defendants in
addition to the Company, and, in all five actions, the plaintiffs
purport to bring a cause of action against the Company under the
Louisiana Securities Act.  The putative class action originally
included a claim against the Company for an alleged violation of
the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act.  Two of the other five
actions include claims for violations of the Louisiana
Racketeering Act and possibly conspiracy.  In addition, another
group of plaintiffs have filed a lawsuit in the 23rd Judicial
District Court for the Parish of Ascension, State of Louisiana,
against the Company and other defendants asserting claims of
negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty,
violations of the uniform fiduciaries law, negligent
misrepresentation, detrimental reliance, violations of the
Louisiana Securities Act and Louisiana Racketeering Act and
conspiracy.

The underlying allegations in all the actions are purportedly
related to the role of SPTC in providing back-office services to
Stanford Trust Company.  The petitions in the lawsuits allege that
the Company and SPTC aided and abetted or otherwise participated
in the sale of "certificates of deposit" issued by Stanford
International Bank.  Two of the five actions filed in East Baton
Rouge have been removed to federal court, and plaintiffs' motions
to remand are pending.  These two cases have been transferred by
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas.  The case filed
in Ascension was also removed to federal court and transferred by
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the Northern
District of Texas.  The schedule for responding to that complaint
has not yet been established.  The Company and SPTC filed
exceptions in the putative class action pending in East Baton
Rouge, which the Court granted in part and dismissed the claims
under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act and denied in part
as to the other exceptions.  The Company and SPTC filed an answer
to the East Baton Rouge putative class action, and plaintiffs
filed a motion for class certification. Class discovery has
commenced, and a hearing on the motion for class certification is
scheduled for March 2011.  The response of the Company and SPTC to
the petitions filed in the two non-class action cases remaining in
East Baton Rouge is due in February 2011.  While the outcome of
this litigation is uncertain given its early phase, the Company
and SPTC believe that they have valid defenses to plaintiffs'
claims and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously.


SMART BALANCE: Court to Rule on Class Certification This Month
--------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on a class certification request in a lawsuit filed
against Smart Balance, Inc., is scheduled for March, according to
the Company's February 24, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

On February 8, 2010 a lawsuit was filed against the Company in the
Federal District Court for the Central District in California in
Santa Ana, California.  The complaint alleges, among other things,
violations of California's unfair competition law, false
advertising, and consumer remedies act and seeks to identify all
similarly situated plaintiffs and certify them in a class action.
This suit relates to the Company's Nucoa(R) stick margarine
products, which represented less than 1% of sales in 2010.  The
Company is in the process of vigorously defending itself against
this suit.  A ruling on plaintiff's class certification motion is
expected in March.

No matter what the outcome, the Company does not expect that the
resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on
its business.


SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Reaches Tentative Pact in "Galura" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sonic Automotive, Inc., relates in its February 24, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, that it has reached a
tentative settlement with plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit
related to the sale of a certain antitheft product.

Sonic Automotive is a defendant in the matter of Galura, et al. v.
Sonic Automotive, Inc., a private civil action filed in the
Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida.  Under the action,
originally filed on December 30, 2002, the plaintiffs allege that
the Company and its Florida dealerships sold an anti-theft
protection product in a deceptive or otherwise illegal manner, and
further sought representation on behalf of any customer of any of
the Company's Florida dealerships who purchased the anti-theft
protection product since December 30, 1998.  The plaintiffs are
seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief on behalf of this
class of customers.  In June 2005, the court granted the
plaintiffs' motion for certification of the requested class of
customers, but the court has made no finding to date regarding
actual liability in the lawsuit.  The Company subsequently filed a
notice of appeal of the court's class certification ruling with
the Florida Court of Appeals.  In April 2007, the Florida Court of
Appeals affirmed a portion of the trial court's class
certification, and overruled a portion of the trial court's class
certification.  In November 2009, the Florida trial court granted
summary judgment in the Company's favor against Plaintiff Enrique
Galura, and his claim has been dismissed.  Marisa Hazelton's claim
is still pending.  The Company currently intends to continue its
vigorous appeal and defense of the lawsuit and to assert available
defenses.  However, an adverse resolution of the lawsuit could
result in the payment of significant costs and damages, which
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's future
results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

At a mediation held February 4, 2011, Sonic Automotive reached an
agreement in principle with the plaintiffs to settle the class
action lawsuit.  The agreement in principle remains conditioned
upon execution of a definitive settlement agreement and subsequent
approval by the Florida state court.  The Company says that in the
event a definitive settlement of the lawsuit is finalized upon
terms and conditions consistent with the agreement in principle,
such a settlement would not have a material adverse affect on its
future results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

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


SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sonic Automotive, Inc., continues to defend a consolidated class
action lawsuit alleging deceptive selling practices.

Several private civil actions have been filed against Sonic
Automotive and several of its dealership subsidiaries that purport
to represent classes of customers as potential plaintiffs and made
allegations that certain products sold in the finance and
insurance departments were done so in a deceptive or otherwise
illegal manner.  One of those private civil actions was filed on
November 15, 2004 in South Carolina state court, York County Court
of Common Pleas, against Sonic Automotive and 10 of its South
Carolina subsidiaries.  The plaintiffs in that lawsuit were Misty
J. Owens, James B. Wright, Vincent J. Astey and Joseph Lee
Williams, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly
situated, with plaintiffs seeking monetary damages and injunctive
relief on behalf of the purported class.  The group of plaintiffs'
attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the South Carolina
lawsuit also filed another private civil class action lawsuit
against Sonic Automotive and 3 of its subsidiaries on February 14,
2005 in state court in North Carolina, Lincoln County Superior
Court, which similarly sought certification of a multi-state class
of plaintiffs and alleged that certain products sold in the
finance and insurance departments were done so in a deceptive or
otherwise illegal manner.  The plaintiffs in the North Carolina
lawsuit were Robert Price, Carolyn Price, Marcus Cappeletti and
Kathy Cappeletti, on behalf of themselves and all other persons
similarly situated, with plaintiffs seeking monetary damages and
injunctive relief on behalf of the purported class. The South
Carolina state court action and the North Carolina state court
action have since been consolidated into a single proceeding in
private arbitration before the American Arbitration Association.
On November 12, 2008, claimants in the consolidated arbitration
filed a Motion for Class Certification as a national class action
including all of the states in which Sonic Automotive operates
dealerships.  Claimants are seeking monetary damages and
injunctive relief on behalf of this class of customers.  The
parties have briefed and argued the issue of class certification.

On July 19, 2010, the Arbitrator issued a Partial Final Award on
Class Certification, certifying a class which includes all
customers who, on or after November 15, 2000, purchased or leased
from a Sonic dealership a vehicle with the Etch product as part of
the transaction, but not including customers who purchased or
leased such vehicles from a Sonic dealership in Florida.  The
Partial Final Award on Class Certification is not a final decision
on the merits of the action.  The merits of Claimants' assertions
and potential damages will still have to be proven through the
remainder of the arbitration.  The Arbitrator stayed the
Arbitration for 30 days to allow either party to petition a court
of competent jurisdiction to confirm or vacate the award.  Sonic
will seek review of the class certification ruling by a court of
competent jurisdiction and will continue to press its argument
that the action is not suitable for a class-based arbitration.  On
July 22, 2010, the plaintiffs in this consolidated arbitration
filed a Motion to Confirm the Arbitrator's Partial Final Award on
Class Certification in state court in North Carolina, Lincoln
County Superior Court.  On August 17, 2010, Sonic filed to remove
the North Carolina state court action to federal court, and
simultaneously filed a Petition to Vacate the Arbitrator's Partial
Final Award on Class Certification, with both filings made in the
United Stated District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina.

No updates were reported in the Company's February 24, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company intends to continue its vigorous defense of the
arbitration and to assert all available defenses.  The Company,
however, says, an adverse resolution of the arbitration could
result in the payment of significant costs and damages, which
could have a material adverse effect on its future results of
operations, financial condition and cash flows.  Currently, the
Company is unable to estimate a range of potential loss related to
the matter.

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


SPRINT NEXTEL: Kansas Securities Class Suit Deemed Closed
---------------------------------------------------------
A 2003 securities class action suit asserted against Sprint Nextel
Corporation is now deemed closed, according to the Company's
February 24, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

In December 2010, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas granted summary judgment in favor of Sprint and certain
other defendants in a class action lawsuit filed in 2003, which
alleged that the Company's 2001 and 2002 proxy statements were
false and misleading in violation of federal securities laws to
the extent they described new employment agreements with certain
senior executives without disclosing that, according to the
allegations, replacement of those executives was inevitable.  No
appeal was taken from that decision, and the case is now closed.


STEEL DYNAMICS: Discovery Ongoing in Antitrust Class Complaints
---------------------------------------------------------------
Antitrust class action suits commenced by steel product purchasers
against Steel Dynamics Inc. are undergoing discovery process,
according to the Company's February 23, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2010.

On September 17, 2008, Steel Dynamics and eight other steel
manufacturing companies were served with a class action antitrust
complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois in Chicago by Standard Iron Works of
Scranton, Pennsylvania, alleging violations of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act.  The Complaint alleges that the defendants conspired
to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price at which steel
products were sold in the United States, starting in 2005, by
artificially restricting the supply of such steel products.  Seven
additional lawsuits, each of them materially similar to the
original, have also been filed in the same federal court, each of
them likewise seeking similar class certification.  All but one of
the Complaints purport to be brought on behalf of a class
consisting of all direct purchasers of steel products between
January 1, 2005 and the present.  The other Complaint purports to
be brought on behalf of a class consisting of all indirect
purchasers of steel products within the same time period.  In
addition, on December 28, 2010, Steel Dynamics and the other co-
defendants were served with a substantially similar complaint in
the Circuit Court of Cocke County, Tennessee, purporting to be on
behalf of indirect purchasers of steel products in Tennessee.  The
case has been removed to federal court. All Complaints seek treble
damages and costs, including reasonable attorney fees, pre- and
post-judgment interest and injunctive relief.  On January 2, 2009,
Steel Dynamics and the other defendants filed a Joint Motion to
Dismiss all of the direct purchaser lawsuits.  On June 12, 2009,
however, the Court denied the Motion.  The parties are currently
conducting discovery.

Although the Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit
and it are aggressively defending those actions, it cannot
presently predict the outcome of the litigation or make any
judgment with respect to its potential exposure, if any.


SUPERMEDIA INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
SuperMedia Inc. remains a defendant in a consolidated class action
lawsuit in Texas over allegations of securities laws violations,
according to the Company's February 24, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2010.

On April 30, 2009, May 21, 2009, and June 5, 2009, three separate
putative class action securities lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, against certain of the Company's current and former
officers.  The suits were filed by Jan Buettgen, John Heffner, and
Alan Goldberg as three separate named plaintiffs on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock between August 10, 2007
and March 31, 2009, inclusive.  On May 22, 2009, a putative class
action securities lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Arkansas against two of the Company's
current officers.  The suit was filed by Wade L. Jones on behalf
of purchasers of the Company's bonds between March 27, 2008 and
March 30, 2009, inclusive.  On August 18, 2009, the Wade Jones
case from Arkansas federal district court was transferred to be
consolidated with the cases filed in Texas.  The complaints are
virtually identical and generally allege that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's financial performance and
condition.  Specifically, the complaints allege violations by the
defendants of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 under
the Exchange Act and Section 20 of the Exchange Act.  The
plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory damages and
reimbursement for litigation expenses.  A class has not been
certified.  Since the filing of the complaints, all four cases
have been consolidated into one court in the Northern District and
a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiffs' attorney have been selected.
On April 12, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
entire Buettgen complaint.  On August 11, 2010, in a one line
order without an opinion, the Court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss.  Subsequently, the Court entered a scheduling order
setting out a timetable for proceedings to consider class
certification and administratively closing the case.  The
plaintiffs have filed their class certification motion and the
Company filed its opposition on January 14, 2011.

The Company believes plaintiff's claims are without merit and
plans to honor its indemnification obligations and vigorously
defend the lawsuits on the defendants' behalf.


SUPERMEDIA INC: Class Certification in ERISA Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
SuperMedia Inc. is awaiting a court ruling on plaintiffs' request
for class certification against it and Verizon Communications
Inc., according to the Company's February 24, 2011 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

On November 25, 2009, three former Bell Atlantic retirees brought
a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division, against both the Verizon
employee benefits committee and pension plans and the Company
employee benefits committee and pension plans.  All three named
plaintiffs are receiving the single life monthly annuity pension
benefits.  All complain that Verizon transferred them against
their will from the Verizon pension plans to the Company pension
plans at or near the Company's spin-off from Verizon.  The
complaint alleges that both the Verizon and Company defendants
failed to provide requested plan documents, which would entitle
the plaintiffs to statutory penalties under ERISA; that both the
Verizon and Company defendants breached their fiduciary duty for
refusal to disclose pension plan information; and other class
action counts aimed solely at the Verizon defendants.  The
plaintiffs seek class action status, statutory penalties, damages
and a reversal of the employee transfers.  The Company defendants
filed their motion to dismiss the entire complaint on March 10,
2010.  On October 18, 2010, the Court ruled on the pending motion
dismissing all the claims against the Company pension plans and
all of the claims against the Company's EBC relating to the
production of documents and statutory penalties for failure to
produce same.  The only claims remaining against the Company are
procedural ERISA claims against the Company's EBC.  On November 1,
2010, the Company's EBC filed its answer to the complaint.  On
November 4, 2010, the Company's EBC filed a motion to dismiss one
of the two remaining procedural ERISA claims against the EBC.  The
plaintiffs have moved for class certification against the Verizon
defendants.


SUPERMEDIA INC: Awaits Ruling on Dismissal of Former Employee Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
SuperMedia Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss a class action lawsuit filed a former employee, according
to the Company's February 24, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

On December 10, 2009, a former employee with a history of
litigation against the Company filed a class action lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, against certain of the Company's current and former
officers, directors and members of the Company's Employee Benefits
Committee.  The complaint attempts to recover alleged losses to
the various savings plans that were allegedly caused by the breach
of fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA of the defendants in
administrating the plans from November 17, 2006 to March 31, 2009.
The complaint alleges that: (i) the defendants wrongfully allowed
all the plans to invest in Idearc common stock, (ii) the
defendants made material misrepresentations regarding the
Company's financial performance and condition, (iii) the
defendants had divided loyalties, (iv) the defendants mismanaged
the plan assets, and (v) certain defendants breached their duty to
monitor and inform the EBC of required disclosures.  The
plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory damages and
reimbursement for litigation expenses.  At this time, a class has
not been certified.  The plaintiffs have filed a consolidated
complaint.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the entire
complaint on June 22, 2010.  The briefing on the motion is
complete and the Company awaits the order of the Court.

The Company believes plaintiff's claims are without merit and
plans to honor its indemnification obligations and vigorously
defend the lawsuit on the defendants' behalf.


SYCAMORE NETWORKS: Appeals in IPO Suit Settlement Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the settlement of the class action lawsuit relating
to Sycamore Networks, Inc.'s March 14, 2000, initial public
offering remains pending with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, according to the Company's February 24, 2011 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended January 29, 2011.

Beginning on July 2, 2001, several purported class action
complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company and several of
its officers and directors and the underwriters for the Company's
initial public offering on October 21, 1999. Some of the
complaints also include the underwriters for the Company's follow-
on offering on March 14, 2000. An amended complaint, which is the
operative complaint, was filed on April 19, 2002 on behalf of
persons who purchased the Company's common stock between October
21, 1999 and December 6, 2000. The amended complaint alleges
claims against the Company, several of the Individual Defendants
and the underwriters for violations under Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, primarily based on the
assertion that the Company's lead underwriters, the Company and
several of the Individual Defendants made material false and
misleading statements in the Company's Registration Statements and
Prospectuses filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or
the SEC, in October 1999 and March 2000 because of the failure to
disclose (a) the alleged solicitation and receipt of excessive and
undisclosed commissions by the underwriters in connection with the
allocation of shares of common stock to certain investors in the
Company's public offerings and (b) that certain of the
underwriters allegedly had entered into agreements with investors
whereby underwriters agreed to allocate the public offering shares
in exchange for which the investors agreed to make additional
purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. It
also alleges claims against the Company, the Individual Defendants
and the underwriters under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, primarily based on
the assertion that the Company's lead underwriters, the Company
and the Individual Defendants defrauded investors by participating
in a fraudulent scheme and by making materially false and
misleading statements and omissions of material fact during the
period in question. The amended complaint seeks damages in an
unspecified amount.

The action against the Company is being coordinated with
approximately three hundred other nearly identical actions filed
against other companies. Due to the large number of nearly
identical actions, the court has ordered the parties to select up
to twenty "test" cases. The Company's case has been selected as
one such test case. As a result, among other things, the Company
will be subject to broader discovery obligations and expenses in
the litigation than non-test case issuer defendants.

On October 9, 2002, the court dismissed the Individual Defendants
from the case without prejudice. This dismissal disposed of the
Section 15 and Section 20(a) claims without prejudice, because
these claims were asserted only against the Individual Defendants.
On October 13, 2004, the court denied the certification of a class
in the action against the Company with respect to the Section 11
claims alleging that the defendants made material false and
misleading statements in the Company's Registration Statement and
Prospectuses. The certification was denied because no class
representative purchased shares between the date of the IPO and
January 19, 2000 (the date unregistered shares entered the
market), and thereafter suffered a loss on the sale of those
shares. The court certified a class in the action against the
Company with respect to the Section 10(b) claims alleging that the
Company and the Individual Defendants defrauded investors by
participating in a fraudulent scheme and by making materially
false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact
during the period in question. On December 5, 2006, the Second
Circuit vacated the district court's class certification decision.
On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit panel denied a petition for
rehearing filed by the plaintiffs, but noted that the plaintiffs
could ask the district court to certify a more narrow class than
the one that was rejected.

On August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class
Action complaint against the Company. The Company and the
underwriters filed separate motions to dismiss the amended
complaint on November 14, 2007. On March 26, 2008, the Court
denied the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claims but
dismissed certain Section 11 claims against the Company. On June
5, 2008, the Court dismissed the remaining Section 11 claims
against the Company in response to a motion for partial
reconsideration.

The parties in the approximately 300 coordinated cases, including
the Company's case, reached a settlement. The insurers for the
issuer defendants in the coordinated cases will make the
settlement payment on behalf of the issuers, including the
Company. On October 5, 2009, the Court granted final approval of
the settlement. Two appeals by objectors to the settlement are
proceeding before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The
plaintiffs have moved to dismiss both appeals.

Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company
cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of the matter. If
the settlement does not survive appeal, the litigation continues,
and the Company is found liable, the Company is unable to estimate
or predict the potential damages that might be awarded, whether
such damages would be greater than the Company's insurance
coverage, and whether such damages would have a material impact on
the Company's results of operations or financial condition in any
future period.

Sycamore Networks, Inc., engages in developing and marketing
intelligent bandwidth management solutions for fixed line and
mobile network operators worldwide. The Company is based in
Chelmsford, Mass.


TALECRIS BIO: Awaits Final Court OK of Merger-Related Suits Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Talecris Biotherapeutics Holdings Corp. is awaiting final court
approval of a settlement agreement resolving the purported class
actions relating to the Company's proposed merger with Grifols,
S.A., and Grifols Inc., according to the Company's February 23,
2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

Four purported class action lawsuits have been filed by the
Company's stockholders challenging the proposed merger transaction
with Grifols, S.A., and Grifols Inc.  Two of the lawsuits were
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and have
been consolidated under the caption In re Talecris Biotherapeutics
Holdings Shareholder Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 5614-VCL. The
other two lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State
of North Carolina and are captioned Rubin v. Charpie, et al., No.
10 CV 004507 (North Carolina Superior Court, Durham County), and
Kovary v. Talecris Biotherapeutics Holdings Corp., et al., No. 10
CV 011638 (North Carolina Superior Court, Wake County). The
lawsuits name as defendants Talecris, the members of the Talecris
Board of Directors, Grifols, S.A. and its subsidiary, Grifols
Inc., and, in the Delaware consolidated action, Talecris Holdings
and Stream Merger Sub, Inc. The two North Carolina actions have
been stayed.

All of the lawsuits allege that the individual defendants (and, in
the consolidated Delaware action, Talecris Holdings) breached
their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders in connection
with the proposed transaction with Grifols, and that Grifols (and,
in one of the North Carolina cases, Talecris, and in the Delaware
action, Grifols Inc.) aided and abetted those breaches. The
Delaware complaint alleges, among other things, that the
consideration offered to Talecris stockholders pursuant to the
proposed transaction is inadequate; that the Company's board of
directors failed to take steps to maximize stockholder value; that
the Company's IPO and debt refinancing in 2009 were intended to
facilitate a sale of Talecris; that Cerberus and Talecris Holdings
arranged the proposed merger for the benefit of Cerberus, without
regard to the interests of other stockholders; that the voting
agreements impermissibly lock up the transaction; and that the
merger agreement contains terms, including a termination fee, that
favor Grifols and deter alternative bids. The Delaware complaint
further alleges that the preliminary Form F-4 filed on August 10,
2010 contains material misstatements and/or omissions, including
with respect to the availability of appraisal rights in the
merger; the purpose and effects of the Virginia reincorporation
merger; the antitrust risks of the proposed transaction; the
financial advisors' analyses regarding the Grifols' non-voting
stock to be issued in connection with the transaction; and the
fees to be paid to Morgan Stanley by the Company and Grifols in
connection with the proposed transaction. The Delaware complaint
also alleges that the Company's stockholders are entitled to
appraisal rights in connection with the transaction pursuant to
Section 262 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, and that the
transaction violates the Delaware General Corporation Law by
failing to provide such rights. The Delaware action seeks
equitable and injunctive relief, including a determination that
the stockholders have appraisal rights in connection with the
merger, and damages.

On October 29, 2010, the parties to the Delaware litigation
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding reflecting an agreement
in principle to settle that litigation. The MOU provides, among
other things, for the provision of appraisal rights in accordance
with DGCL 262 in connection with the transaction as described at
pages 135-137 of the MOU; for an increase in the merger
consideration by an additional 500,000 shares of Grifols non-
voting shares to holders of the Company's common stock other than
the Company's specified affiliated stockholders as described at
pages 144-145 of the MOU; and for certain additional disclosures
provided herein. The MOU also provides for a dismissal of the
action with prejudice and a release of claims. On January 21,
2011, the parties executed a formal Stipulation of Settlement
documenting the agreement set forth in the MOU, and on January 25,
2011, the Delaware court entered an order preliminarily approving
the settlement.  The settlement remains subject, among other
things, to notice to the class, final court approval and
consummation of the transaction.

One of the conditions to the completion of the transaction is that
no temporary restraining order, or preliminary or permanent
injunction, or other judgment or order issued by a court or other
governmental entity that prohibits or prevents the completion of
the Talecris-Grifols merger shall be in effect. A preliminary
injunction could delay or jeopardize the completion of the
transaction, and an adverse judgment granting permanent injunctive
relief could indefinitely enjoin completion of the transaction. An
adverse judgment for monetary damages could have a material
adverse effect on the operations of the combined company after the
transaction.

Talecris Biotherapeutics, Inc., is a leading global manufacturer
of plasma-derived, protein-based products for individuals
suffering from life-threatening diseases.  Talecris began
operations on April 1, 2005, when the US assets of Bayer AG's
worldwide plasma derived products business were acquired by
financial sponsors, Cerberus Capital Management and Ampersand
Ventures.


TONGXIN INT'L: March 4 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
----------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A., which has filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of all investors who purchased Tongxin
International Ltd. securities during the period between May 15,
2009 and December 14, 2010, inclusive, reminds investors that the
deadline to serve as lead plaintiff is Friday, March 4, 2011.  If
you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, please contact Saxena White
as soon as possible for more information.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results.  Specifically,
defendants improperly accounted for Tongxin's related-party
transactions.  As a result of defendants' false statements,
Tongxin's stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period, reaching a high of $12.07 per share on October 20,
2009.

On June 30, 2010, Tongxin announced that it would delay filing its
Form 20-F for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2009.  On
Oct. 12, 2010, Tongxin announced that NASDAQ would delist the
Company's stock due to its failure to timely file its Form 20-F
and acknowledged that a report issued by KPMG, the forensic
accountants hired by the Company's Audit Committee, concluded that
the documentary support for certain of its related-party
transactions was contradictory, insufficient and lacking in
substantive detail and accuracy, thus calling into question the
validity of the transactions.  On Nov. 20, 2010, Tongxin announced
that the Company's CEO and CFO were being removed from their
positions with the Company and lowered its revenue guidance for
fiscal year 2010 from its prior outlook of $160 million to a range
of $110 million.  Then, on Dec. 13, 2010, Tongxin announced that
it had filed a civil suit against its former CFO. On this news,
Tongxin's stock declined to close at $1.35 per share on
Dec. 14, 2010.

You may obtain a copy of the complaint and join the class action
at http://www.saxenawhite.com/

If you purchased Tongxin stock between May 15, 2009 and Dec. 14,
2010, you may contact:

          Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
          Greg Stone, Esq.
          E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
                  gstone@saxenawhite.com
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 394-3399
          Web site: http://www.saxenawhite.com/

to discuss your rights and interests.

If you purchased Tongxin shares during the Class Period and wish
to apply to be the lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on your
behalf must be filed with the Court no later than March 4, 2011.
You may contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights regarding
the appointment of lead plaintiff and your interest in the class
action.  Please note that you may also retain counsel of your
choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class
member.

Saxena White P.A., which has offices in Boca Raton, Boston and
Montana, specializes in prosecuting securities fraud and complex
class actions on behalf of institutions and individuals.
Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous securities fraud
class actions nationwide, the firm has recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars on behalf of injured investors and is active
in major litigation pending in federal and state courts throughout
the United States.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls Additional 2.17 Million U.S. Vehicles
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Wall Street Journal reports that Toyota Motor Corp. agreed to
recall an additional 2.17 million U.S. vehicles due to floor-mat
problems.  The report relates that regulators said the action ends
a U.S. probe of the issue.

The recall of certain vehicles dating back to the 2003 model year
is aimed at addressing flaws that could lead to a floor mat
interfering with the accelerator pedal, according to The Wall
Street Journal.  The report relates that the recall expands on
already-known floor-mat issues by adding new models and new causes
to pedal interference, while effectively closing the case on the
issue one year after the auto maker faced a skewering from U.S.
legislators that led to a 10-month government investigation
conducted in part by the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration.

"We amended the recall based on our continued constructive
dialogue" with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
The Wall Street Journal quotes John Hanson, a Toyota spokesman, as
saying.  "While our actions up to now have led to a substantial
reduction in reports of acceleration concerns, we mutually agreed
that Toyota would take these additional steps to help ensure that
acceleration concerns are further reduced," he added.

The Wall Street Journal recounts that a California state trooper
and three of his passengers were killed in Aug. 2009 in an
accident in which a slipping floor mat is believed to have
entrapped the accelerator pedal, sending their Lexus speeding out
of control.

The report says that the accident led to a recall of 3.5 million
vehicles in the U.S. to fix the floor-mat problems.  Later,  The
Wall Street Journal relates, Toyota recalled millions of vehicles
for sticking accelerator pedals. Globally, more than eight million
vehicles had been recalled for various reasons prior to the
recall.

The Wall Street Journal discloses that the recall involves 372,000
Lexus RX 330, RX 350 and RX 400h vehicles from the 2004 through
early 2007 model years, and 397,000 Toyota Highlander and
Highlander hybrids from the 2004-2006 model years to replace the
driver's side carpet cover and its two retention clips.  The
report relates that it also includes 20,000 Lexus GS 300 and GS
350 sedans from the 2006 model year to modify the shape of the
plastic pad embedded in the driver's side carpet that could
interfere with accelerator pedal.

Toyota also modified its earlier recall to fix floor mats to
include 603,000 Toyota 4Runners from 2003-2009, 761,000 Toyota
RAV4s from 2006-2010 and 17,000 Lexus LX 570s from 2008-2011, the
report adds.


TOYOTA MOTOR: MDL Plaintiff Lawyers Investigating New Recalls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that plaintiffs' lawyers leading the multidistrict litigation
against Toyota Motor Corp. said they are investigating whether new
recalls totaling 2.17 million vehicles are truly limited to
defects associated with the gas pedals.

Toyota announced on Feb. 24 that it would recall six models for
defects that cause the vehicles to suddenly accelerate.  Of those,
nearly 1.4 million involved a single recall of 4Runner, Rav4 and
Lexus LX vehicles due to defective gas pedals.  The other two
recalls identify newly discovered defects in interior panels and
carpeting that affect the pedals in the Lexus RX and Lexus GS.

Plaintiffs' lawyers immediately expressed skepticism about what's
causing this latest problem with sudden acceleration.

"We believe there is much more to this recent recall than just
floor mats entrapping the gas pedal," said W. Daniel "Dee" Miles
-- dee_miles@beasleyallen.com -- a shareholder at Beasley, Allen,
Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles in Montgomery, Ala., who serves on
the plaintiffs' committee handling the personal injury and
wrongful death cases against Toyota in the MDL.  "The Electronic
Throttle Control System continues to be the issue in select Toyota
vehicles as related to sudden unintended acceleration.  The MDL
team of lawyers and experts continue to gather evidence from
Toyota and to test these cars to get to the real problem."

Donald Slavik, a partner at Robinson Calcagnie & Robinson in
Newport Beach, Calif., who serves on the same committee, said he
is going back to the accident cases in the MDL to see if any
involve the models that are subject to the latest recalls.  He's
also watching to see how Toyota fixes the defects.

Most of the new recalls involve defects in which floor mats become
entrapped with the accelerator pedal, causing the vehicles to
suddenly accelerate out of the driver's control.  Toyota initially
recalled 4.2 million vehicles in November 2009.  The Feb. 24
announcement expands on that recall by adding nearly 1.4 million
vehicles: the 4Runner, model years 2003 through 2009; the Lexus LX
570, years 2008 through 2011; and the RAV4, years 2006 through
2010.

As for the newly discovered defects, Toyota said it would recall
372,000 RX 330, RX 350 and RX 400h vehicles from years 2004 to
2007, and another 397,000 Highlander and Highlander HV vehicles,
model years 2004 through 2006, to repair the driver's side floor
carpet cover and two retention clips.  If the clips or floor cover
interferes with the gas pedal, it could get stuck in a depressed
position, causing sudden acceleration

The company recalled some 20,000 GS 300 and GS 350 all-wheel drive
vehicles from the 2006 and 2007 model years to change the plastic
pad in the driver's side floor carpet, which could cause the gas
pedal to become stuck.

The recalls were prompted by a U.S. National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration investigation into the scope of Toyota's
previous recalls due to defective gas pedals.

"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reviewed more
than 400,000 pages of Toyota documents to determine whether the
scope of its recalls for pedal entrapment was sufficient," said
agency Administrator David Strickland.  "As a result of the
agency's review, NHTSA asked Toyota to recall these additional
vehicles, and now that the company has done so, our investigation
is closed."

Mr. Slavik said he wants to review those documents.

"I'd like to see the documents that Toyota supposedly provided to
NHTSA -- the 400,000 documents referred to -- to see what kind of
information is in there as to whether it was actually floor mats
or other causes that are explained," he said.  "We know that in
prior recalls, many of the vehicles for which they blamed floor
mats often did not have any floor mats in them."

This month, the agency launched an investigation into complaints
that the 2006 Highlander hybrid SUV stalls unexpectedly.

The fresh recall underscores claims that Toyota knew about the gas
pedal problems but failed to report them, said Steve Berman,
managing partner of Hagens Berman Sobol & Shapiro, who is co-lead
counsel on the plaintiffs' committee for the economic damages
cases against Toyota in the MDL.  In December, Toyota agreed to
pay $32.4 million in fines for failing to promptly notify
regulators when it learned of defects involving floor mats and
steering.  Last year, Toyota agreed to a $16.4 million fine for
not notifying regulators promptly about the gas pedal defects.

"This latest recall stands in sharp contrast to Toyota's repeated
declarations that they know where the floor-mat problems existed,
and they have already acted to correct them.  This is obviously
not the case, and this sort of revelation calls into question the
veracity and credibility of the other claims the company has made
regarding this issue," he said.

STRAY CASE

In other Toyota news, plaintiffs' lawyers have asked U.S. District
Judge James Selna, who is overseeing the MDL in Santa Ana, Calif.,
to prevent a newly discovered personal injury case from going to
trial on March 28.  The case, filed in 2008, involves a man who
was injured when his 2005 Scion suddenly accelerated, causing a
collision.  According to court documents, a Toyota lawyer first
mentioned the case to a plaintiffs' lawyer involved in the MDL on
Feb. 8.

Albert Zafonte Jr., the lawyer for the plaintiff in that case,
said he was unaware of the MDL, according to court documents in
the MDL and in his own case, which is pending in federal court in
New York.  He has since asked U.S. Magistrate Judge E. Thomas
Boyle to vacate the trial date and move the case into the MDL, but
Judge Boyle refused on Feb. 18, according to court documents.

"We're supposed to know and they're supposed to share
information," said Wylie Aitken, founding partner of Aitken Aitken
Cohn in Santa Ana, who serves on the plaintiffs' liaison committee
in the MDL.  "Toyota obviously knew about it since its filing in
2008, almost two years before the MDL, yet has not given an
explanation as to why it was not disclosed and when asked about it
refused to provide any information."

Mr. Zafonte, of the Law Offices of Albert Zafonte Jr. in
Uniondale, N.Y., did not return a call for comment.  In a Feb. 14
letter to the court, he requested that his case be transferred
into the MDL since he had taken only two depositions and Toyota
had produced "less than one banker's box of documents."

In a Feb. 15 letter to Judge Boyle, Toyota's lawyer in the case,
Robert Scumaci, a partner at Gibson, McAskill & Crosby in Buffalo,
N.Y., wrote that the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation rejected a request to fold the case into the MDL on
Feb. 11.

In a court document filed on Feb. 24, Toyota's lawyer,
Lisa Gilford, a Los Angeles partner at Alston & Bird, disputed
that plaintiffs' lawyers didn't know about the New York case.  She
reiterated that the case had progressed far along by the time the
MDL was created, rendering it inappropriate for coordination.
"Now on the eve of trial, Plaintiffs are belatedly grasping for
some way to delay the trial of . . . a case that has been pending
for nearly three years," she wrote.

Judge Selna was scheduled to take up the matter during a hearing
on Feb. 25.


UMB FINANCIAL: Unit Continues to Defend Suits Re Overdraft Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
UMB Financial Corporation's principal subsidiary bank, UMB Bank,
N.A., continues to defend class suits over excessive overdraft fee
allegations, according to the Company's February 24, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

During 2010, two suits were filed against UMB Bank, N.A. in
Missouri state court.  The first suit was made by a customer
alleging that the Bank's checking account posting practices
resulted in excessive overdraft fees in violation of Missouri's
consumer protection statute and the account agreement.  The suit
seeks class-action status for Bank customers who may have been
similarly affected.  The Bank removed this action to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri.  This action
was then transferred to the multidistrict litigation in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, where similar
claims against other financial institutions are pending.  A second
suit was filed in Missouri state court by another Bank customer
alleging the substantially identical facts and also seeking class
action status.

No update was reported in the Company's latest annual report filed
with the SEC.

The Company related that at this early stage of the litigation, it
is not possible for the management of the Bank to determine the
probability of a material adverse outcome or reasonably estimate
the amount of any potential loss.


UNITE: Judge Approves $4-Mil. Cintas Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Reuben Kramer at Courthouse News Service reports that a textile
union must pay more than $4 million under the settlement of a
federal class action that claims it illegally accessed motor
vehicle records to coerce Cintas workers into unionizing.

U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell signed an order granting final
approval of the settlement on Feb. 22.

Workers from Cintas' factory in Allentown, Pa., and their families
had sued the Union of Needlestrades, Industrial and Textile
Employees in 2004 for violations of the Driver's Privacy
Protection Act.  The workers claimed that the union, which goes by
the acronym Unite, harassed them in unannounced visits to their
homes.  To find out workers' private home addresses, Unite
monitored the factory parking lot and searched motor vehicle
records for their license plate numbers.

"It was winter, it was late afternoon, it was getting dark, people
were coming to their house uninvited, unexpected," plaintiffs'
attorney, David Picker, of Philadelphia-based Spector Gadon told
Courthouse News.

The Cincinnati-based Cintas is a leader in uniform manufacturing.

As of Feb. 3, roughly 249 claim forms, which are used to determine
an individual's class eligibility, were received by the escrow
agent handling the funds, according to court records.

The $4 million settlement includes $2,500 in statutory damages for
each of the roughly 1,200 class members, plus $1 million in
attorneys' fees.  The $2,500 figure is the minimum amount of
damages for a single violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection
Act.

Mr. Picker said that any funds remaining following disbursement to
class members will be returned to Unite.

As part of the settlement, the union is permanently enjoined from
using personal information about the class members that was
obtained in violation of the act, court records show.  The judge
had granted preliminary approval in October.

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, which Mr. Picker said
was part of a joint organizing campaign with Unite, was originally
a party to the complaint, but was dismissed as a defendant in
September 2005, according to court records.

Though Unite and its attorneys could not immediately be reached
for comment, court records show that they stridently argued
against Cintas workers' 2004 complaint, calling the claims "an
echo of employer tactics a century ago."

"It would stand decades of federal labor policy on its head to
conclude that this alleged conduct -- the precise activity which
federal law expects and encourages unions to undertake -- is
somehow unlawful," according to documents filed along with Unite's
2004 motion to dismiss.

The defense claimed that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
has primary jurisdiction over regulation of union organizing, and
that the plaintiffs' claim should have been dismissed because it
encroached on that jurisdiction.

It pointed out that the NLRB plainly considers it acceptable to
gather data from license plate, calling it the "usual channel that
non-employee union organizers have attempted to use to communicate
with employees about the advantages or organization."

The union also tried to draw a distinction between legitimate use
of license plate information for organizing and use that would
constitute "coercive surveillance."

"Recording license plate numbers of nonstrikers is a form of
coercion recognized by the board" as a statutory violation,
Unite's attorneys had argued.

In 1998, NLRB attorneys "listed recording of license plates as one
of the methods that must be proven futile before a union can
request an employee list from an employer," Unite claimed.

The union added that Cintas workers were not following
congressional intent for the Driver's Privacy Protection Act,
which they say was passed "to preclude stalker-type conduct."
Unite added that the act's principal sponsor in the Senate,
Barbara Boxer, was primarily concerned with stalkers who preyed on
women by accessing local Department of Motor Vehicle records.

"There is nothing in the legislative history of the DPPA that
suggests Congress considered the impact of applying this statute
to traditional union organizing activities," the defense had
argued.

Unite had also that the plaintiffs were "entirely lacking in the
kind of specificity that allegations of criminal conduct are
required to meet," calling the plaintiffs' amended complaint
"nothing more than a fishing expedition in which plaintiffs
suspect the existence of, and hope to develop, a case of criminal
misconduct through discovery."

The defense also said the act specifies certain permitted uses of
personal information derived from motor vehicle records, including
use of such information in connection with court proceedings and
"investigation in anticipation of litigation."

Unite said there was a "welter of proceedings" between Cintas and
the union, rendering the visiting of homes "plainly lawful to the
extent it occurred in connection with any of the permitted uses."

The case was litigated for over six years, wending its way through
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the 3rd Circuit and the U.S.
Supreme Court and generating at least seven reported decisions,
according to court records.

A copy of the Order in Pichler, et al. v. Unite (Union of
Needletrades, Industrial & Textile Employees AFL-CIO), Case No.
04-cv-02841 (E.D. Pa.) is available at:

     http://is.gd/NErC9e


UNITED STATES: Cobell Settlement Media Campaign Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Lorna Thackeray, writing for The Billings Gazette, reports that a
media campaign is under way to notify American Indians in Montana
and Wyoming that they may be eligible for $1,000 or more from a
settlement in the Cobell class action lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleged that the government mismanaged billions of
dollars that individual Indians should have received in income
from their trust lands.

"We have about 20,000 people in your area we need to reach," said
Tyler Tullis, an account assistant working with Desautel and Hege
Communications of Washington, D.C.

The firm was appointed by a federal judge to get the word out to
hundreds of thousands of Indians nationwide who may be eligible
for a piece of a $1.5 billion fund set up within a settlement that
totaled $3.4 billion.

Mr. Tullis said notices are already appearing in broadcast and
print media in the area.

Most people qualified for settlement money have already received
official notice by mail.  Indians who get those formal notices
don't have to do anything to receive their award, providing a
federal judge grants final approval of the settlement agreement.
A fairness hearing is set for June 20 in U.S. District Court in
Washington, D.C., and the judge will issue an order sometime after
that.

People who do not get formal notices through the mail but believe
they are included under the terms of the settlement must file a
claim within 45 days of the judge's final ruling.  Claims can be
filed now on the settlement Web site, http://www.IndianTrust.com/
or by calling 800-961-6109, Mr. Tullis said.

Anyone who wants to opt out of the settlement and retain the right
to file a separate lawsuit against the government must do so by
April 20.  Objections to the settlement agreement will also be
accepted until that date.  The Web site provides instructions.

According to Department of Interior estimates, 33,600 people in
Montana could receive a total of about $87 million.  Most people
will get two checks adding up to about $1,800.

Settlement with Interior and the U.S. Treasury Department was
reached in 2009 and Congress approved the agreement in December
2010.

The lawsuit was brought 14 years ago by Elouise Cobell, a
Blackfeet from Browning, and three other plaintiffs from around
the country charging the government with mishandling trust
accounts.

Interior handles income from trust lands for about 500,000
individual Indians.  Income can come from agricultural leases, oil
and gas leases, coal mining and other sources.  Each tribal member
who owns interest in income-producing property has an Individual
Indian Money (IIM) account.

Ms. Cobell and other named plaintiffs charged that government
mismanagement of those accounts through multiple generations and
had deprived Indians of billions of dollars in income.

The government did not admit any of the allegations, but agreed to
settle the complex lawsuit that had dragged through federal court
since 1996.

The settlement included a $1.5 billion common fund to be
distributed to members of the class, $1.9 billion to consolidate
fractionated lands; and up to $60 million for a scholarship fund
for Indian youth.

Fractionated lands are parcels owned by several individuals who
may each own a tiny fraction of a trust property.  The Bureau of
Indian Affairs, which was responsible for trust lands at the time
the lawsuit was filed, struggled unsuccessfully to keep track of
fractionated interests that became smaller and more numerous each
time one of the property owners died.

Through successive generations, fractionation rendered many of
those property interests so small they are virtually worthless.
Hundreds of people may own an interest in just a few acres of
land.  Development of some highly fractionated properties became
nearly impossible because of the number of people involved in each
transaction.

Money in the land consolidation fund will be used to purchase
fractionated parcels from willing sellers at fair market value.
These lands would be consolidated into each tribe's land base.

As incentive for selling fractionated interests, a contribution
will be made to the scholarship fund for each interest sold.

Those eligible for compensation from the $1.5 billion common fund
fall into two classes.  The first is the "Historical Accounting
Class," made up of individual Indians who had an IIM account or
owned trust land between Oct. 25, 1994, and Sept. 30, 2009, and
whose account had at least one cash transaction during that time.

Everyone in the Historical Accounting Class will receive $1,000.
The money will be distributed shortly after the judge issues final
approval of the settlement.

It will take longer for awards from the second of the two
categories, the "Trust Administration Class."  This class includes
people who had IIM accounts between 1985 and Sept. 30, 2009, or
Indians who can establish an interest in trust land during that
time.

Minimum compensation for people in this category is $500, but it
can be a lot more depending on how much income comes into each
account.  The award will be based on the 10 highest-income years
in an IIM account.  Accounts earning up to $5,000 will get between
$800 and $1,250.  Accounts that saw between $75,000 and $750,000
in activity during the top 10 years could get awards of between
$12,000 and $125,000.

Money for the Trust Administration Class will be distributed once
it has been determined that substantially all members of the class
have been identified and after individual payments have been
calculated.

Most people with IIM accounts are members of both the Trust
Administration and Historical Accounting classes and will receive
payments from both.

The payments will not be taxed and will not be counted in
determining eligibility for social service benefits including food
stamps, SSI and Medicaid.


UNITED STATES: DOJ Balks at $223MM Legal Fee Bid in Cobell Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted at The Blog of Legal Times by
Mike Scarcella, the plaintiffs' lawyers demand for at least
$223 million in compensation for their work on a landmark Native
American class action is excessive and goes against promises the
attorneys made in a settlement contract, the U.S. Justice
Department said in court papers filed late Thursday.

The government is opposing the attorneys' demand for $223 million
in fees in Cobell v. Salazar, saying that amount is inconsistent
with controlling law.  Under the terms of the $3.4 billion
settlement, resolving claims of mismanagement of individual Indian
trust accounts, the plaintiffs' lawyers agreed to assert a fee
range of between $50 million and $99.9 million, DOJ attorneys
said.

"They touted that binding commitment repeatedly to Congress and to
class members to persuade Congress to enact legislation and to
reassure class members that settlement funds would go to class
members, not to excessive compensation of their lawyers," DOJ
Civil Division attorney Robert Kirschman Jr. said in the
government's filing.  "Even if class counsel's demand for fees
were not otherwise excessive, it should be rejected out-of-hand
for this reason."

DOJ lawyers said the plaintiffs' attorneys should be limited to a
"fair and reasonable" $50 million award.  The department's legal
team called $99.9 million "grossly excessive."  Ms. Cobell's
lawyers described the range as a "clear sailing" provision in
which neither party could appeal a fee award.

Mr. Kirschman wrote that the plaintiffs' lawyers -- who include
Washington solo practitioner Dennis Gingold and a Kilpatrick
Townsend & Stockton team in Washington and in Atlanta -- in recent
years "embroiled the court, class members and the government in a
series of wasteful diversions" that included attacks on government
officials.

The plaintiffs' lawyers have been compensated for early success in
the case through prior fee petitions, according to the Justice
Department.  DOJ noted in court papers that $8.9 million has been
paid to the plaintiffs' counsel since 1999.

"Class counsel's petition asks class members to foot the bill for
their years of fruitless digressions from the core issue in the
case," Mr. Kirschman said.

The Justice Department also argues the class attorneys are only
responsible for a portion of the $3.4 billion settlement -- $360
million.  That amount, dedicated to compensate accounting claims
that Ms. Cobell's attorneys litigated, represents the $1,000 that
about 360,000 class members will receive, DOJ lawyers said.

The remaining funds, DOJ lawyers continued, "are the result, not
of tens of millions of dollars' worth of work performed by class
counsel, but rather the government's desire to resolve the claims"
of account holders.

DOJ lawyers said Ms. Cobell's attorneys "needlessly" complicated
the case, prolonging the litigation by years.  Ms. Cobell's
lawyers' devotion to "sideshows" and "skirmishing," Justice
attorneys said, ran up costs for both sides.

Ms. Cobell's lawyers said they had a 14.75 % contingency
arrangement, and they use that percentage to justify, in part, the
demand for at least $223 million in compensation.  The Justice
Department said it has not seen a copy of the contingency
arrangement between the class attorneys and their clients.

The presiding judge, Ms. Cobell's attorneys said, has the final
authority on fees and therefore there is no minimum or maximum
amount that can be awarded.  Mr. Gingold, a lead attorney for Ms.
Cobell, was not immediately reached for comment this morning on
the DOJ's opposition to the plaintiffs' fee request.


VERISIGN INC: Continues to Defend Herbert & Bentley Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Verisign Inc. continues to defend itself against two class action
suits alleging that the Company operated an illegal lottery via
certain television programs.

On May 31, 2007, plaintiffs Karen Herbert, et al., on behalf of
themselves and a nationwide class of consumers, filed a complaint
against Verisign, m-Qube, Inc., and other defendants alleging that
defendants collectively operated an illegal lottery under the laws
of multiple states by allowing viewers of the NBC television show
"Deal or No Deal" to incur premium text message charges in order
to participate in an interactive television promotion called
"Lucky Case Game."  The lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Western Division.
On June 5, 2007, plaintiffs Cheryl Bentley, et al., on behalf of
themselves and a nationwide class of consumers, filed a complaint
against Verisign, m-Qube, Inc., and other defendants alleging that
defendants collectively operated an illegal lottery under the laws
of multiple states by allowing viewers of the NBC television show
"The Apprentice" to incur premium text message charges in order to
participate in an interactive television promotion called "Get
Rich With Trump."  The defendants' motion to dismiss the Herbert
matter was denied by the district court on December 3, 2007 and
that ruling was appealed.  On July 8, 2010, the Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction and remanded the case to the district court.  The
Bentley and Herbert cases, although not consolidated, are
proceeding on a coordinated basis before the same judge in the
district court.  Certain defendants have asserted indemnity claims
against Verisign in connection with these matters.

No further updates were reported in Verisign's February 24, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.


W ROSS: Faces Class Action Over Abuse of Disabled Students
----------------------------------------------------------
On Feb. 22, 2011, a proposed class action was commenced relating
to abuse of former students of the W. Ross MacDonald School for
the Visually Impaired and Deafblind.  W. Ross MacDonald is an
elementary and secondary provincial school located in Brantford,
Ontario.  It is administered by the Provincial Schools Branch of
the Ontario Ministry of Education.

The case involves allegations that the Ontario Crown failed to
operate or supervise W. Ross MacDonald so as to ensure the safety
and well-being of its vulnerable students, most of whom lived in
residence during the school year.  It is alleged that those caring
for the students at W. Ross MacDonald often approached them with
contempt, prejudice and indifference; they engaged in abusive
conduct, often taking advantage of the visual disabilities of
students.

The former students were children with disabilities when they
attended W. Ross MacDonald.  Most lived in residence at the school
and many were far from their families.  It is alleged the Crown
was solely responsible for their care and supervision, acting in a
quasi-parental role, but it failed in its obligations to students.

The action was commenced by Robert Seed, a former student who
attended the school from 1954 to 1965, and his counsel Koskie
Minsky LLP, a leading Canadian class action law firm.


WELLS FARGO: Hagens Berman Joins Class Action as Co-Lead Counsel
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman has joined a suit against Wells Fargo as co-lead
counsel in a case alleging that Wells Fargo extracted payments
from defaulted mortgage customers by falsely promising them the
opportunity to retain their homes through an illusory forbearance-
to-modification program.

The case, filed on April 19, 2010 in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, claimed that the
nation's fourth-largest bank duped thousands of Californians into
agreements that were designed to give the impression that the bank
was offering a trial loan-modification program to assess their
ability to make regular, reduced payments.  In fact, the lawsuit
claims that the bank never intended to modify the loan.

According to the suit, the vast majority of those who participated
in the program lost their homes to foreclosure despite following
the terms of the agreement.

The forbearance-to-modification program was offered to homeowners,
who submitted financial information to Well Fargo, in form letters
saying the bank had "good news" about their loan.  The letters
contained other language designed to convince homeowners that the
plan could save their homes from foreclosure, the suit states.

"We are representing thousands of homeowners who fell victim to
all sorts of nefarious lending practices, and this has to be one
of the worst," said Steve Berman, co-lead counsel for the
plaintiffs and managing partner of Hagens Berman.  "We intend to
show that this forbearance program is nothing more than a sham, a
way for Wells Fargo to extract revenue with no intention of
providing homeowners the opportunity to hold on to their homes."

On Jan. 3, 2011, United States District Court for the Northern
District of California Judge Joseph C. Spero ruled against Wells
Fargo in its motion to dismiss the suit.

Hagens Berman seeks certification of the lawsuit as a class
action.  Eligible class members include Californians who received
a form letter from Wells Fargo, which offered the "opportunity to
retain [their] home . . . [b]ased on the financial information
[they] provided."  The letter also came with an agreement, which
offered a modified payment plan for several months as "a trial
period showing you can make regular monthly payments."

Members of the class include Californians who signed the agreement
and made the monthly payments on time, only to have their property
foreclosed upon by Wells Fargo.

The case was originally filed on April 19, 2010, by the Law Office
of Peter Fredman and the Law Office of David Pitvorak.
Steve Berman and Tom Loeser of Hagens Berman are joining the suit
as co-lead counsel.

Hagens Berman believes the letter and agreement that Wells Fargo
sent homeowners were misleading and seeks restitution of the
payments they made as part of the agreement.  Hagens Berman also
seeks the recovery of all other funds or property lost as a result
of Wells Fargo's alleged illegal activities.

If you signed a forbearance agreement with Wells Fargo, paid your
payments on time and in full, and your home was then foreclosed,
contact Hagens Berman at WellsFargoMortgage@hbsslaw.com or call
206-623-7292 for a free consultation.

Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP ---
http://www.hbsslaw.com/-- is a national class-action and complex
litigation law firm founded in 1993.  The firm fights to protect
the legal rights of consumers, investors, employees and
whistleblowers in large, multi-state lawsuits.


WYETH: Fen-Phen Plaintiffs Lawyer Ordered to Forfeit 32% of Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Sapino Jeffreys, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that a
state district judge has ordered Houston plaintiffs lawyer
George Fleming and his firm, Fleming & Associates, to disgorge 32%
of the fees they charged 10 fen-phen clients.

The judge ordered disgorgement after a jury found Mr. Fleming and
his firm breached a fiduciary duty to the clients.

On Feb. 3, Judge Steven Kirkland of Houston's 215th District Court
granted the plaintiffs disgorgement motion and signed an order
calling for Mr. Fleming and the firm to forfeit a total of
$306,791.51 in fees.

However, on Feb. 15, Mr. Fleming and his firm filed a motion
asking Kirkland to clarify his order on the ground that the 32% of
total fees charged to the 10 clients is really 55% of the
attorneys' fees they ended up with from the 10 clients.  That's
because Mr. Fleming and his firm allegedly paid some of the fees
to referring lawyers and other sums to cover a litigation fee
related to fen-phen multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

"Defendants believe that the consequence of the Court's order is a
harsher result than the Court intended to impose," Mr. Fleming and
Fleming & Associates allege in the motion, adding that 32% of the
attorneys' fees "actually received" by the firm for the 10 clients
totals $177,392.55.

But Jeffrey Chambers, a lawyer for the plaintiffs in Sandra
Kinney, et al. v. George Fleming, et al. and a partner in Ware,
Jackson, Lee & Chambers of Houston, says the defendants' motion
seeks to "clarify something that is perfectly clear to begin with.
. . . It's in terms of payment, not in terms of what Mr. Fleming
got."

Mr. Chambers says, "The breach of fiduciary duty is the improper
charge of expenses.  If a lawyer does that, he does so in peril of
losing all or, in this case, some of his fees."

Mr. Fleming refers questions to his defense attorney Ronald
Franklin, a partner in McGuireWoods in Houston, who says that in
addition to the motion to clarify, Mr. Fleming and his firm will
appeal the court's order on "any amount of fee disgorgement."

"We believe strongly there is no conduct to justify that,"
Mr. Franklin says.

In their motion seeking disgorgement, the plaintiffs cited the
1999 Texas Supreme Court decision Burrow v. Arce, which provides
for fee forfeiture for a breach of fiduciary duty.

But in their opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for
disgorgement, the defendants argued, "When an Arce analysis is
applied to the facts presented at trial, it is obvious that all
factors weigh heavily against the forfeiture of any attorneys'
fees in this case."

Fen-Phen Cases

The disgorgement order follows the October 2010 jury verdict in
Kinney, in which both sides claimed victory.

As alleged in the plaintiffs' seventh amended petition in Kinney,
filed in December 2009, Fleming and Fleming & Associates charged
the firm's clients approximately 54% of their total recovery in a
2006 settlement with pharmaceutical company Wyeth.  The clients
alleged they sustained heart-valve injuries after taking the diet-
drug combination known as fen-phen.

The Kinney plaintiffs alleged that Fleming and his firm charged
them proportionate shares of $29 million the firm spent for
echocardiograms performed on prospective clients.  The plaintiffs
further alleged that they never agreed to pay those costs and that
Fleming and his firm did not disclose prior to the settlement that
they were shifting those costs to their clients.  To be able to
include as expenses the costs for testing thousands of prospective
clients, Fleming and his firm had a study done of echocardiogram
testing of the nonparticipants in the settlement, the plaintiffs
alleged.

The defendants denied the allegations, and Mr. Franklin said
following the verdict that the echocardiogram charges were a
litigation expense that made the settlement possible, and the
plaintiffs were told all expenses were incurred in developing
liability and damages against Wyeth.

The jury found Mr. Fleming and his firm breached their fiduciary
duty to 10 clients they represented in fen-phen litigation and
awarded the Kinney plaintiffs a total of about $86,000.

However, following the verdict, Mr. Franklin said it was a win for
Mr. Fleming and his firm, because the damages totaled a "miniscule
amount of money."  He also noted that, while all 10 plaintiffs
alleged breach of contract against Mr. Fleming and his firm, the
jury found the defendants breached their contract with only one
plaintiff.  She had alleged her contract required Mr. Fleming and
the firm to provide her with an itemized list of expenses, which
they did not provide.

"We don't believe this is a matter of fiduciary breach.  We
believe it is controlled by contract law," he says in arguing that
the verdict will not stand on appeal.

Mr. Chambers says he has more than 600 clients who also allege
Mr. Fleming and his firm charged them for improper expenses in
connection with their settlements in fen-phen litigation.
Mr. Chambers says he awaits upcoming trials on their claims, and
disgorgement of 32% of fees charged to those 600-plus clients
would equal about $10 million.

Mr. Franklin says the cases are fact-specific to every plaintiff,
and the defendants intend to try them all.  He adds, "I don't
think any amount of disgorgement is appropriate."


                             *********

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  * * *