CAR_Public/110303.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, March 3, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 44

                             Headlines

ALLSTATE CORP: March 14 Hearing Set for Katrina Lawsuits
ALLSTATE CORP: Final Hearing on Contractor Settlement Set May 6
ALLSTATE CORP: Appeal in Workers' Wage Suit Remains Pending
ALLSTATE CORP: Continues to Defend Suits Over Agency Program
C.R. BARD: Re-Hearing on St. Francis Appeal Still Pending

C.R. BARD: To Join Settlement Talks on Rhode Island Class Suits
C.R. BARD: To Defend "Filter Product" Class Suit in California
CADENCE DESIGN: Settles Securities Litigation for $38 Million
CLASSMATES.COM: Judge Tosses Proposed Class Action Settlement
DISH DBS: Appeal From Channel Bundling Suit Dismissal Pending

DISH DBS: Wins Final Approval of Retailers Group Settlement
EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Court Certifies Class Action Pending in Calif.
EURONET WORLDWIDE: Subsidiary Still Faces Class Action Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Settles RSL Comms Class Suit for $6.75-Mil.
HANOVER INSURANCE: Remains a Defendant in "Durand" Suit

HANOVER INSURANCE: Oral Arguments on Appeal Set for March 14
HUGOTON ROYALTY: XTO Continues to Defend Certified Class Suit
HUGOTON ROYALTY: XTO Continues Defense in "Roderick" Lawsuit
IMAX CORP: Appointment of Lead Plaintiff in NY Suit Still Pending
IMAX CORP: Awaits Ontario Court's Ruling on Motion to Appeal

IMPAX LABORATORIES: Discovery in Budeprion XL Suit Still Ongoing
ITRON INC: April 25 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
KEYCORP: Awaits Ruling on Appeal and Cross-Appeal in "Taylor" Suit
KEYCORP: Continues to Defend "Metyk" Suit in Ohio
KEYCORP: Subsidiary Continues to Defend ERISA Suit

KEYCORP: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation Still Stayed
LEHMAN BROTHERS: DRL Investor Mulls Class Action Over Losses
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Class Action Summary Judgment Motions for Review
MASSACHUSETTS: Judge Allows Foster Care Lawsuit to Proceed
METLIFE INC: Stuy Class Action Costs Greater Than Expected

PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Motion for Class Certification Still Pending
RELIABLE STAFFING: Sued Over Non-Payment of Proper Wages
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Continues to Oppose Park West Suit
SCHWEITZER-MAUDUIT: Securities Suit in Georgia Still Pending
SOLUTIA INC: Still Faces Contamination Case in Illinois

SOLUTIA INC: Awaits Decision on Petition for Writ of Certiorari
SOUTHEAST TEXAS TEA PARTY: Sued for Defrauding Donors
SUNRISE SENIOR: Continues to Defend "Purnell" Suit in California
TERREMARK WORLDWIDE: Reaches Accord on Suits Over Verizon Merger
TOYOTA MOTOR: Worried Over Trade Secrets in Acceleration Suit

TULANE UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Improperly Cleaned Endoscopes
UNIT CORP: Appeal From Certification Order Remains Pending
VALERO ENERGY: Multi-District Litigation Still Pending in Kansas
VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Proctor Plaintiffs May Amend Complaint
WELLS FARGO: Class Action Over ATM Fee Notification Dropped

* Colorado Supreme Court Set to Hear 4 Class Actions This Week


                             *********

ALLSTATE CORP: March 14 Hearing Set for Katrina Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------
The Louisiana Supreme Court will hear on March 14, 2011, oral
arguments on an appeal in class action lawsuits filed against
insurance companies in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina,
according to The Allstate Corporation's February 24, 2011 Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company is vigorously defending a number of matters in various
stages of development filed in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina,
including individual lawsuits and a statewide putative class
action in Louisiana.  The Louisiana Attorney General filed a
putative class action lawsuit in state court against Allstate and
other insurers on behalf of Road Home fund recipients alleging
that the insurers have failed to pay all damages owed under their
policies. The insurers removed the matter to federal court. The
district court denied plaintiffs' motion to remand the matter to
state court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
affirmed that ruling. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss and
the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the claims involving a
Road Home subrogation agreement. In March 2009, the district court
denied the State's request that its claims be remanded to state
court. As for the defendant insurers' motion, the judge granted it
in part and denied it in part. Dismissal of all of the extra-
contractual claims, including the bad faith and breach of
fiduciary duty claims, was granted. Dismissal also was granted of
all claims based on the Valued Policy Law and all flood loss
claims based on the levee breaches finding that the insurers flood
exclusions precluded coverage. The remaining claims are for breach
of contract and for declaratory relief on the alleged underpayment
of claims by the insurers. The judge did not dismiss the class
action allegations. The defendants also had moved to dismiss the
complaint on grounds that the State had no standing to bring the
lawsuit as an assignee of insureds because of anti-assignment
language in the insurers' policies. The judge denied the
defendants' motion for reconsideration on the assignment issue but
found the matter was ripe for consideration by the federal
appellate court. The defendants have filed a petition for
permission to appeal to the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit has
accepted review. After the Fifth Circuit accepted review,
plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court,
asserting that the class claims on which federal jurisdiction was
premised have now effectively been dismissed as a result of a
ruling in a related case. The Fifth Circuit has denied the motion
for remand, without prejudice to plaintiffs' right to refile the
motion for remand after the Fifth Circuit disposes of the pending
appeal. On July 28, 2010, the Fifth Circuit issued an order
stating that since there is no controlling Louisiana Supreme Court
precedent on the issue of whether an insurance policy's anti-
assignment clause prohibits post-loss assignments, the Fifth
Circuit is certifying that issue to the Louisiana Supreme Court.
The issue has been briefed to the Louisiana Supreme Court. That
court will hold oral argument on the appeal on March 14, 2011.

The Allstate Corporation, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
personal property and casualty insurance business, as well as in
the life insurance, retirement, and investment products business
in the United States and Canada. The Company is based in based in
Northbrook, Ill.


ALLSTATE CORP: Final Hearing on Contractor Settlement Set May 6
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing for the final approval of a settlement of class action
lawsuits filed against The Allstate Corporation alleging improper
payments to general contractors is set for May 6, 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.

There are one nationwide and several statewide class action
lawsuits pending against Allstate alleging that it failed to
properly pay general contractors overhead and profit on many
homeowner structural loss claims. Most of these lawsuits contain
counts for breach of contract, as well as one or more counts
asserting other theories of liability such as bad faith, fraud,
unjust enrichment, or unfair claims practices. General contractors
overhead and profit is an amount that is added to payments on
claims where the services of a general contractor are reasonably
likely to be required. To a large degree, these lawsuits mirror
similar lawsuits filed against other carriers in the industry,
some of which have settled. These lawsuits are pending in various
state and federal courts, and they are in different stages of
development. The Company has reached an agreement to settle on a
48-state basis the nationwide class action. This settlement
received preliminary approval from the court on December 6, 2010,
and the case was certified as a class for settlement purposes
only. The settlement was accrued as a prior year reserve re-
estimate in property-liability insurance claims and claims expense
in 2010. No other classes have been certified against Allstate on
this issue. The hearing for final approval of the settlement is
scheduled for May 6, 2011.

The Allstate Corporation, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
personal property and casualty insurance business, as well as in
the life insurance, retirement, and investment products business
in the United States and Canada. The Company is based in based in
Northbrook, Ill.


ALLSTATE CORP: Appeal in Workers' Wage Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in a class action lawsuit involving worker
classification issues remains pending, according to The Allstate
Corporation's February 24, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

Allstate has been vigorously defending a lawsuit in regards to
certain claims employees involving worker classification issues.
This lawsuit is a certified class action challenging a state wage
and hour law. In this case, plaintiffs sought monetary relief,
such as penalties and liquidated damages, and non-monetary relief,
such as injunctive relief. In December 2009, the liability phase
of the case was tried, and, on July 6, 2010, the court issued its
decision finding in favor of Allstate on all claims. The
plaintiffs are appealing the decision.

The Allstate Corporation, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
personal property and casualty insurance business, as well as in
the life insurance, retirement, and investment products business
in the United States and Canada. The Company is based in based in
Northbrook, Ill.


ALLSTATE CORP: Continues to Defend Suits Over Agency Program
------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation continues to defend itself against
lawsuits relating to the Company's agency program reorganization
announced in 1999, 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.

The Company continues to face a lawsuit filed in 2001 by the U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging retaliation under
federal civil rights laws and a class action filed in 2001 by
former employee agents alleging retaliation and age discrimination
under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, breach of contract
and ERISA violations.  In 2004, in the consolidated EEOC I and
Romero I litigation, the trial court issued a memorandum and order
that, among other things, certified classes of agents, including a
mandatory class of agents who had signed a release, for purposes
of effecting the court's declaratory judgment that the release is
voidable at the option of the release signer. The court also
ordered that an agent who voids the release must return to
Allstate "any and all benefits received by the [agent] in exchange
for signing the release." The court also stated that, "on the
undisputed facts of record, there is no basis for claims of age
discrimination." The EEOC and plaintiffs asked the court to
clarify and/or reconsider its memorandum and order and in January
2007, the judge denied their request. In June 2007, the court
granted the Company's motions for summary judgment. Following
plaintiffs' filing of a notice of appeal, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an order in December 2007
stating that the notice of appeal was not taken from a final order
within the meaning of the federal law and thus not appealable at
this time. In March 2008, the Third Circuit decided that the
appeal should not summarily be dismissed and that the question of
whether the matter is appealable at this time will be addressed by
the Third Circuit along with the merits of the appeal. In July
2009, the Third Circuit vacated the decision which granted the
Company's summary judgment motions, remanded the cases to the
trial court for additional discovery, and directed that the cases
be reassigned to another trial court judge.

A putative nationwide class action has also been filed by former
employee agents alleging various violations of ERISA, including a
worker classification issue. These plaintiffs are challenging
certain amendments to the Agents Pension Plan and are seeking to
have exclusive agent independent contractors treated as employees
for benefit purposes. This matter was dismissed with prejudice by
the trial court, was the subject of further proceedings on appeal,
and was reversed and remanded to the trial court in 2005. In June
2007, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the case.
Following plaintiffs' filing of a notice of appeal, the Third
Circuit issued an order in December 2007 stating that the notice
of appeal was not taken from a final order within the meaning of
the federal law and thus not appealable at this time. In March
2008, the Third Circuit decided that the appeal should not
summarily be dismissed and that the question of whether the matter
is appealable at this time will be addressed by the Third Circuit
along with the merits of the appeal. In July 2009, the Third
Circuit vacated the decision which granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the case, remanded the case to the trial court for
additional discovery, and directed that the case be reassigned to
another trial court judge.

In January 2010, the cases were assigned to a new judge for
further proceedings in the trial court.

The Allstate Corporation, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
personal property and casualty insurance business, as well as in
the life insurance, retirement, and investment products business
in the United States and Canada. The Company is based in based in
Northbrook, Ill.


C.R. BARD: Re-Hearing on St. Francis Appeal Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
A re-hearing on St. Francis Medical Center's appeal from the
dismissal of a putative class action filed against C. R. Bard,
Inc., remains pending, according to the Company's February 25,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On February 21, 2007, Southeast Missouri Hospital filed a putative
class action complaint on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated against the company and another manufacturer,
Tyco International, Inc., which was subsequently dismissed from
the action.  The complaint was later amended to add St. Francis
Medical Center as an additional named plaintiff. The action was
re-named as St. Francis Medical Center, et al. v. C. R. Bard,
Inc., et al. when the court denied Southeast's motion to serve as
a class representative and dismissed Southeast from the lawsuit.
In September 2008, the court granted St. Francis's motion for
class certification and determined the measurement period for any
potential damages.  St. Francis alleges that the company conspired
to exclude competitors from the urological catheter market and
that the company sought to maintain market share by engaging in
conduct in violation of state and federal antitrust laws.  St.
Francis seeks injunctive relief and presented an expert report
that calculates damages of up to approximately $320 million, a
figure that the company believes is unsupported by the facts.  The
company's expert report establishes that, even assuming a
determination adverse to the company, the plaintiffs suffered no
damages.  In September 2009, the District Court granted the
company's summary judgment motion and dismissed with prejudice all
counts in this action.  St. Francis appealed the Court's decision
to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.  In August 2010, the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the
District Court. In October 2010, the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals granted St. Francis's request for a re-hearing of its
appeal.  The re-hearing is pending.

The Company intends to defend this matter vigorously.  If,
however, St. Francis is ultimately successful, any damages awarded
under the federal antitrust laws will be subject to statutory
trebling and St. Francis's attorneys would be entitled to an award
of reasonable fees and costs.  At this time, it is not possible to
assess the likelihood of an adverse outcome or determine an
estimate, or a range of estimates, of potential damages.  The
Company cannot give any assurances that this matter will not have
a material adverse effect on the company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.


C.R. BARD: To Join Settlement Talks on Rhode Island Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
C.R. Bard, Inc. expects to participate in court-mandated
settlement conferences beginning in March 2011 with respect to
certain lawsuits pending in the Superior Court of the State of
Rhode Island, according to the Company's February 25, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2010.

As of February 17, 2011, approximately 1,840 federal and 1,625
state lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 3,580
plaintiffs, as well as two putative class actions in the United
States and four putative class actions in various Canadian
provinces, have been filed or asserted against the company with
respect to its Composix(R) Kugel(R) and certain other hernia
repair implant products.  One of the U.S. class action lawsuits
consolidates ten previously-filed U.S. class action lawsuits.  The
putative class actions, none of which has been certified, seek (i)
medical monitoring, (ii) compensatory damages, (iii) punitive
damages, (iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation and/or
(v) attorneys' fees.  Approximately 1,600 of the state lawsuits,
involving individual claims by a substantially equivalent number
of plaintiffs, are pending in the Superior Court of the State of
Rhode Island, with the remainder in various other jurisdictions.
The Hernia Product Claims also generally seek damages for personal
injury resulting from use of the products. The company voluntarily
recalled certain sizes and lots of the Composix(R) Kugel(R)
products beginning in December 2005.

On June 22, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred Composix(R) Kugel(R) lawsuits pending in federal
courts nationwide into one Multidistrict Litigation for
coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the United States District
Court for the District of Rhode Island.  The MDL court
subsequently determined to include other hernia repair products of
the company in the MDL proceeding.  The first MDL trial was
completed in April 2010 and resulted in a judgment for the company
based on the jury's finding that the company was not liable for
the plaintiff's damages.  The second MDL trial was completed in
August 2010 and resulted in a judgment for the plaintiffs of $1.5
million.  The company expects additional trials of Hernia Product
Claims to take place over the next 12 months.

While the Company intends to vigorously defend the Hernia Product
Claims, it expects to participate in court-mandated settlement
conferences beginning in March 2011 with respect to certain
lawsuits pending in the Superior Court of the State of Rhode
Island and, where appropriate, may enter into settlement
arrangements with respect to certain of these or other claims.
The company cannot give any assurances that the resolution of the
Hernia Product Claims will not have a material adverse effect on
the company's business, results of operations, financial condition
and/or liquidity.


C.R. BARD: To Defend "Filter Product" Class Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
C.R. Bard, Inc. continues to defend a putative class action in
California state court arising from the use of the Company's vena
cava filter products, according to the Company's February 25,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

As of February 17, 2011, product liability lawsuits involving
individual claims by approximately 30 plaintiffs have been filed
or asserted against the company in various federal and state
jurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with the use
of the Company's vena cava filter products.  In addition, a
putative class action lawsuit has been filed against the Company
in California state court on behalf of plaintiffs who are alleged
to have no present injury.  The putative class action, which has
not been certified, seeks: (i) medical monitoring; (ii) punitive
damages; (iii) a judicial finding of defect and causation; and/or
(iv) attorneys' fees.

While the company intends to vigorously defend the Filter Product
Claims, it cannot give any assurances that the resolution of these
claims will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, results of operations, financial condition and/or
liquidity.


CADENCE DESIGN: Settles Securities Litigation for $38 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
On February 11, 2011, Cadence Design Systems, Inc., agreed to
settle a consolidated securities litigation for consideration of
$38 million, 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 fiscal 2008, three complaints were filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California, or
District Court, all alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of Cadence's common stock. The first such
complaint was filed on October 29, 2008, captioned Hu v. Cadence
Design Systems, Inc., Michael J. Fister, William Porter and Kevin
S. Palatnik; the second such complaint was filed on November 4,
2008, captioned Vyas v. Cadence Design Systems, Inc., Michael J.
Fister, and Kevin S. Palatnik; and the third such complaint was
filed on November 21, 2008, captioned Collins v. Cadence Design
Systems, Inc., Michael J. Fister, John B. Shoven, Kevin S.
Palatnik and William Porter. 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 December 10,
2008, or the Alleged Class Period. 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 periods.
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 September 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
October 13, 2009. The amended complaint filed on October 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 October 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 mediation. On
February 11, 2011, the parties to the litigation agreed to settle
the litigation for consideration of $38.0 million, of which
approximately $22.2 million will be paid by Cadence's insurers,
while the balance will be paid by Cadence. Cadence agreed to this
settlement without admitting any wrongdoing on the part of the
company or any of its current or former directors and executive
officers, and the settlement is subject to completion of final
settlement documentation by the parties and approval by the
District Court.

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.


CLASSMATES.COM: Judge Tosses Proposed Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullin, writing for paidContent.org, reports that United
Online recently put its Classmates.com Web site out to pasture; it
now redirects to MemoryLane.  It will be harder to get rid of an
ongoing class action lawsuit alleging the site sent out misleading
emails.  A judge has thrown out a proposed settlement that would
let the plaintiffs' attorneys walk away with more than $1 million
while most class members would have had to settle for $2 coupons.

The class was composed of more than 50 million registered users of
Classmates.com, all of whom received an email telling them that an
old friend had viewed their profile or signed a "guestbook," and
suggesting they become a paying member of Classmates.com to make
contact.  According to the plaintiffs' suit, in fact, for the
great majority no one had shown an interest in their profile.

For 3 million users who took the bait and paid between $10 and $40
to Classmates.com, the settlement would have offered a $3 cash
payment.  Users who received the email but chose not to pay the
Web site would have received a $2 coupon -- for Classmates.com, a
service they had already indicated their lack of interest in.

Those settlement terms drew close to 200 complaints, including an
objection from the Center for Class Action Fairness, a
conservative non-profit which monitors class action suits.

Because Classmates.com only had to pay members who respond to the
e-mailed notice of settlement, if the settlement had been approved
the company would have only paid out about $52,000 to satisfy all
claims, even though the settlement had been publicized as having
been worth "up to $9.5 million."  That sum would have only come
into play if 100% of eligible users had asked for their $3 checks.

The vast majority of class members responded to e-mails alerting
them of the settlement by doing nothing, but about 200 vocally
complained, and U.S. District Judge Richard Jones, who is
overseeing the case, took notice.  "Class members mocked the $2
coupon, dismissed the $3 payment as paltry, and, almost uniformly,
decried a settlement that provided them with little benefit while
making more than a million dollars available for class counsel's
fees," he wrote in an order issued last week.  As for the $2
coupons, Judge Jones noted that wasn't really any gift at all.
"This is the hallmark of a promotion for Classmates, not of a
benefit conferred."

The parties will now have to submit a new settlement proposal, or
continue to litigate the case.


DISH DBS: Appeal From Channel Bundling Suit Dismissal Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit filed by a
group of cable and satellite subscribers against DISH DBS
Corporation remains pending, according to the Company's
February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

During 2007, a purported class of cable and satellite subscribers
filed an antitrust action against the Company 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. The Company intends to
vigorously defend this case.  It cannot predict with any degree of
certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any
potential liability or damages.


DISH DBS: Wins Final Approval of Retailers Group Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
DISH DBS Corporation won final court approval of an agreement with
a group of retailers to settle class action lawsuits filed against
the Company, according to the Company's February 25, 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 the Company'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 cannot predict with any degree of certainty how many class
members will elect to reinstate these monthly incentive payments.
As a result, it 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; however, the
Company's payment of the settlement amount is still subject to the
satisfaction of certain conditions, including the lapse of all
applicable appeal periods.


EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Court Certifies Class Action Pending in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A California state court certified a class action lawsuit alleging
unpaid wages arising from Equity Lifestyle Properties Inc.'s
August 2008 acquisition of Privileged Access, LP, according to
Equity Lifestyle's February 24, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

On October 16, 2008, the Company was served with a class action
lawsuit in California state court filed by a single named
plaintiff. The suit alleges that, at the time of the PA
Transaction, the Company and other named defendants willfully
failed to pay former California employees of Privileged Access and
its affiliates who became employees of the Company all of the
wages they earned during their employment with PA, including
accrued vacation time. The suit also alleges that the Company
improperly "stripped" those employees of their seniority. The suit
asserts claims for alleged violation of the California Labor Code;
alleged violation of the California Business & Professions Code
and for alleged unfair business practices; alleged breach of
contract; alleged breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing; and for alleged unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks,
among other relief, compensatory and statutory damages;
restitution; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; attorney's
fees, expenses and costs; penalties; and exemplary and punitive
damages. The complaint does not specify a dollar amount sought. On
December 18, 2008, the Company filed a demurrer seeking dismissal
of the complaint in its entirety without leave to amend.  On
May 14, 2009, the Court granted the Company's demurrer and
dismissed the complaint, in part without leave to amend and in
part with leave to amend. On June 2, 2009, the plaintiff filed an
amended complaint. On July 6, 2009, the Company filed a demurrer
seeking dismissal of the amended complaint in its entirety without
leave to amend. On October 20, 2009, the Court granted the
Company's demurrer and dismissed the amended complaint, in part
without leave to amend and in part with leave to amend. On
November 9, 2009, the plaintiff filed a third amended complaint.
On December 11, 2009, the Company filed a demurrer seeking
dismissal of the third amended complaint in its entirety without
leave to amend. On February 23, 2010, the court dismissed without
leave to amend the claim for breach of the duty of good faith and
fair dealings, and otherwise denied the Company's demurrer.
Discovery is proceeding.  On February 15, 2011, the Court granted
plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Company will
vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc. --
http://www.equitylifestyle.com/-- is an integrated owner and
operator of lifestyle-oriented properties.  The company leases
individual developed areas (sites) with access to utilities for
placement of factory built homes, cottages, cabins or
recreational vehicles (RVs).  As of Dec. 31, 2008, the company
owned or had an ownership interest in a portfolio of 309
Properties located throughout the United States and Canada
consisting of 112,074 residential sites.  These Properties are
located in 28 states and British Columbia.  In August 2008, the
company announced the acquisition of substantially all of the
assets and certain liabilities of Privileged Access, LP.  The
company's Properties are designed for several home options of
various sizes and designs that are produced off-site, installed
and set on designated sites (Site Set) within the Properties.
These homes can range from 400 to over 2,000 square feet.


EURONET WORLDWIDE: Subsidiary Still Faces Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Euronet Worldwide Inc. continues to defend itself
from a class action lawsuit filed by a former employee, according
to the Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

During 2010, Continental Exchange Solutions Inc. was served with a
class action lawsuit filed by a former employee for alleged wage
and hour violations related to overtime and meal and rest period
requirements under California law.  California law regarding an
employer's obligations to provide lunch and rest periods is under
review by the California Supreme Court.  The proceeding is in the
preliminary stages and the Company intends to vigorously defend
the lawsuit.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Settles RSL Comms Class Suit for $6.75-Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that Goldman
Sachs and Morgan Stanley have settled a class action lawsuit for
$6.75 million, recently filed federal court documents show.

Although a preliminary settlement was reached last September, U.S.
District Judge Shira Scheindlin disclosed the amount of the award
on Feb. 23, in a decision granting the Law Offices of Curtis V.
Trinko one-third of the settlement money.

The lead plaintiffs of the suit, Lawrence Fogarazzo, Carolyn
Fogarazzo, Donald Engel and Stephen Hopkins, accused the banks of
preparing misleading analysts' reports about stock for RSL
Communications.

Represented by Mr. Trinko, they first filed the class action suit
against Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs & Co. and Morgan Stanley &
Co. on July 15, 2003.

In 2005, Judge Scheindlin approved certification for a class of
plaintiffs who bought or otherwise acquired common stock in RSL
between April 30, 1999, and Dec. 29, 2000.

After the plaintiffs fought motions of dismissal, underwent
extensive discovery and took several depositions, a preliminary
settlement was reached on Sept. 27, 2010.  A settlement hearing
was held on Jan. 31, 2011.

In addition to taking home one-third of the settlement, expenses
awarded by Judge Scheindlin will give Mr. Trinko more than $2.4
million in total.

"Class counsel diligently litigated plaintiffs' claims against
defendants Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs throughout the seven
and one-half years of active litigation," Judge Scheindlin wrote.

A copy of the Complaint in Fogarazzo, et al. v. Lehman Brothers,
Inc., et al., Case No. 03-cv-05194 (S.D.N.Y.), is available at
http://is.gd/2MAv1x

The Plaintiffs were represented by:

          Curtis V. Trinko, Esq.
          Wai K. Chan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS V. TRINKO, LLP
          16 West 46th Street New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 490-9550
          E-mail: ctrinko@trinko.com
                  kchan@trinko.com

Goldman Sachs was represented by:

          Gandolfo V. DiBlasi, Esq.
          Stephanie G. Wheeler, Esq.
          David E. Swarts, Esq.
          SULLIVAN AND CROMWELL LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 558-4000
          E-mail: diblasig@sullcrom.com
                  wheelers@sullcrom.com
                  swartsd@sullcrom.com

Morgan Stanley was represented by:

          Peter D. Doyle, Esq.
          Peter A. Bellacosa, Esq.
          Lisa V. LeCointe, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          601 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446-4800
          E-mail: peter.doyle@kirkland.com
                  peter.bellacosa@kirkland.com
                  lisa.lecointe@kirkland.com

Lehman Brothers was represented by:

          Sarah L. Cave, Esq.
          HUGHES HUBBARD & REED LLP
          One Battery Park Plaza
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 837-6000
          E-mail: cave@hugheshubbard.com


HANOVER INSURANCE: Remains a Defendant in "Durand" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action lawsuit filed by Jennifer A. Durand
against The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., remains pending in
Kentucky, according to the Company's February 25, 2011 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

On March 12, 2007, a putative class action suit captioned Jennifer
A. Durand v. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., The Allmerica
Financial Cash Balance Pension Plan was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.  The named
Plaintiff, a former employee who received a lump sum distribution
from our Cash Balance Plan at or about the time of her
termination, claims that she and others similarly situated did not
receive the appropriate lump sum distribution because in computing
the lump sum, the Company understated the accrued benefit in the
calculation.  The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss on the basis
that the Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies,
which motion was granted without prejudice in a decision dated
November 7, 2007.  This decision was reversed by an order dated
March 24, 2009 issued by the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit, and the case was remanded to the district
court.

The plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on December 11, 2009.  In
response, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss on January 30,
2010. In addition to the pending calculation of the lump sum
distribution claim, the Amended Complaint includes: (a) a claim
that the Plan failed to calculate participants' account balances
properly because interest credits were based solely upon the
performance of each participant's selection from among various
hypothetical investment options rather than crediting the greater
of that performance or the 30 year Treasury rate; (b) a claim that
the 2004 Plan amendment, which changed interest crediting for all
participants from the performance of participant's investment
selections to the 30 year Treasury rate, reduced benefits in
violation of ERISA for participants who had account balances as of
the amendment date by not continuing to provide them performance-
based interest crediting on those balances; and (c) claims for
breach of fiduciary duty and ERISA notice requirements for not
properly informing participants of the various interest crediting
and lump sum distribution matters of which plaintiffs complain.

In the Company's judgment, the outcome is not expected to be
material to the Company's financial position, although it could
have a material effect on the results of operations for a
particular quarter or annual period and on the funding of the
Plan.


HANOVER INSURANCE: Oral Arguments on Appeal Set for March 14
------------------------------------------------------------
The Louisiana Supreme Court will hear oral arguments with respect
to an anti-assignment issue in The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc.'s
appeal in a putative class action lawsuit, according to the
Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

In August 2007, the State of Louisiana filed a putative class
action in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans,
State of Louisiana, entitled State of Louisiana, individually and
on behalf of State of Louisiana, Division of Administration,
Office of Community Development ex rel The Honorable Charles C.
Foti, Jr., The Attorney General For the State of Louisiana,
individually and as a class action on behalf of all recipients of
funds as well as all eligible and/or future recipients of funds
through The Road Home Program v. AAA Insurance, et al., No. 07-
8970.  The complaint named as defendants over 200 foreign and
domestic insurance carriers, including the Company, and asserts a
right to benefit payments from insurers on behalf of current and
former Louisiana citizens who have applied for and received or
will receive funds through Louisiana's "Road Home" program.  The
case was thereafter removed to the Federal District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana.

On March 5, 2009, the court issued an Order granting in part and
denying in part a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants. The court
dismissed all claims for bad faith and breach of fiduciary duty
and all claims for flood damages under policies with flood
exclusions or asserted under Louisiana's Valued Policy Law, but
rejected the insurers' arguments that the purported assignments
from individual claimants to the state were barred by anti-
assignment provisions in the insurers' policies.  On April 30,
2009, Defendants filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which was
granted.  On July 28, 2010, the Fifth Circuit certified the anti-
assignment issue to the Louisiana Supreme Court.  Oral arguments
are scheduled to be heard by the Louisiana Supreme Court on
March 14, 2011.

The Company has established its total loss and LAE reserves on the
assumption that it will not have any liability under the "Road
Home" or similar litigation, and that the Company will otherwise
prevail in litigation as to the cause of certain large losses and
not incur extra contractual or punitive damages.


HUGOTON ROYALTY: XTO Continues to Defend Certified Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
XTO Energy Inc. continues to defend itself from a certified class
action lawsuit in Texas, according to Hugoton Royalty Trust's
February 24, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

An amended petition for a class action lawsuit, Beer, et al. v.
XTO Energy Inc., was filed in January 2006 in the District Court
of Texas County, Oklahoma by certain royalty owners of natural gas
wells in Oklahoma and Kansas. The plaintiffs allege that XTO
Energy has not properly accounted to the plaintiffs for the
royalties to which they are entitled and seek an accounting
regarding the natural gas and other products produced from their
wells and the prices paid for the natural gas and other products
produced, and for payment of the monies allegedly owed since June
2002, with a certain limited number of plaintiffs claiming monies
owed for additional time. XTO Energy removed the case to federal
district court in Oklahoma City. A hearing on the class
certification was conducted in October 2008. At the class
certification hearing, the plaintiffs sought to certify a class of
royalty owners whose wells were connected to a processing plant
owned by a subsidiary of XTO Energy in the Hugoton Field, with two
sub-classes consisting of owners in Oklahoma and Kansas.  In March
2009, the court granted the motion to certify the class.  The
plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment for only the two
named plaintiffs.  The court granted the motion in the amount of
$12,779.  A motion for summary judgment related to the remainder
of the class was denied.  Trial was scheduled for April 2010;
however, the court vacated the trial date.  At a hearing in April
2010, the court ruled that the class representatives were no
longer proper representatives and stated that it was considering
whether to dismiss class counsel or decertify the class in whole
or in part.  In a subsequent ruling in April 2010, the court
decertified the class.

In April 2010, new counsel and representative parties, Fankhouser
and Goddard, filed a motion to intervene and prosecute the Beer
class.  This motion was granted on July 13, 2010.  The new
plaintiffs and counsel filed an amended complaint asserting new
causes of action for breach of fiduciary duties and unjust
enrichment.  Following an additional class discovery period, a
class certification hearing was held on September 27, 2010.  On
December 16, 2010, the court certified the class.

XTO Energy Inc. has informed the trustee that it believes that it
has strong defenses to this lawsuit and intends to vigorously
defend its position. However, if XTO Energy ultimately makes any
settlement payments or receives a judgment against it, the trust
will bear its 80% share of such settlement or judgment related to
production from the underlying properties.  Additionally, if a
judgment or settlement increases the amount of future payments to
royalty owners, the trust would bear its proportionate share of
the increased payments through reduced net proceeds. XTO Energy
has informed the trustee that, although the amount of any
reduction in net proceeds is not presently determinable, in its
management's opinion, the amount is not currently expected to be
material to the trust's annual distributable income, financial
position or liquidity.  It could, however, result in costs
exceeding revenues on the properties underlying the Oklahoma and
Kansas net profit interests for one or more monthly distributions,
depending on the size of the judgment or settlement, if any, and
the net proceeds being paid at that time.

Hugoton Royalty Trust -- http://www.hugotontrust.com/-- is an
express trust created under the laws of Texas pursuant to the
Hugoton Royalty Trust Indenture entered into on Dec. 1, 1998
between XTO Energy Inc., as grantor, and NationsBank, N.A., as
trustee.  Bank of America, N.A. succeeded NationsBank as the
trustee of the Trust.  XTO Energy conveyed to the Trust 80% net
profits interests in certain natural gas producing working
interest properties in Kansas, Oklahoma and Wyoming under three
separate conveyances.  In exchange for these net profits interest
conveyances to the Trust, 40 million units of beneficial interest
were issued to XTO Energy.  XTO Energy distributed all of its
remaining 21.7 million trust units.  As of Dec. 31, 2008, XTO
Energy is not a unitholder of the trust.  The net profits
interests entitle the Trust to receive 80% of the net proceeds
from the sale of oil and gas from the underlying properties.


HUGOTON ROYALTY: XTO Continues Defense in "Roderick" Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
XTO Energy Inc. continues to defend itself in the class action
lawsuit filed by Wallace B. Roderick Revocable Living Trust, et
al., in the District Court of Kearny County, Kansas, according to
Hugoton Royalty Trust'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 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed against XTO
Energy Inc. styled Wallace B. Roderick Revocable Living Trust, et
al. v. XTO Energy Inc. in the District Court of Kearny County,
Kansas. XTO Energy removed the case to federal court in Wichita,
Kansas. The plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy has improperly taken
post-production costs from royalties paid to the plaintiffs from
wells located in Kansas, Oklahoma and Colorado. The plaintiffs
also seek to represent all royalty owners in these three states as
a class. The plaintiffs' claims overlap the claims made by the
plaintiffs in the Beer/Fankhouser case as to certain properties.
XTO Energy has answered, denying all claims, and has filed motions
to dismiss a portion of the claims.  In January 2010, the federal
court granted XTO Energy's motion for summary judgment concerning
prior settled class actions that overlap plaintiffs' proposed
class action.  The court also granted XTO Energy's motion to
dismiss those portions of plaintiffs' class that are currently
being prosecuted in the Beer/Fankhouser class action.  The
Roderick plaintiffs have also filed a motion to include the former
Beer/Fankhouser class into this litigation.  The court denied the
motion.  The plaintiffs have filed a motion to certify the class.

XTO Energy has informed the trustee that it believes that XTO
Energy has strong defenses to this lawsuit and intends to
vigorously defend its position. However, if XTO Energy ultimately
makes any settlement payments or receives a judgment against it,
the trust will bear its 80% share of such settlement or judgment
related to production from the underlying properties.
Additionally, if the judgment or settlement increases the amount
of future payments to royalty owners, the trust would bear its
proportionate share of the increased payments through reduced net
proceeds. XTO Energy has informed the trustee that, although the
amount of any reduction in net proceeds is not presently
determinable, in its management's opinion, the amount is not
currently expected to be material to the trust's annual
distributable income, financial position or liquidity.  It could,
however, result in costs exceeding revenues on the properties
underlying the Oklahoma and Kansas net profit interests for one or
more monthly distributions, depending on the size of the judgment
or settlement, if any, and the net proceeds being paid at that
time.

Hugoton Royalty Trust -- http://www.hugotontrust.com/-- is an
express trust created under the laws of Texas pursuant to the
Hugoton Royalty Trust Indenture entered into on Dec. 1, 1998
between XTO Energy Inc., as grantor, and NationsBank, N.A., as
trustee.  Bank of America, N.A. succeeded NationsBank as the
trustee of the Trust.  XTO Energy conveyed to the Trust 80% net
profits interests in certain natural gas producing working
interest properties in Kansas, Oklahoma and Wyoming under three
separate conveyances.  In exchange for these net profits interest
conveyances to the Trust, 40 million units of beneficial interest
were issued to XTO Energy.  XTO Energy distributed all of its
remaining 21.7 million trust units.  As of Dec. 31, 2008, XTO
Energy is not a unitholder of the trust.  The net profits
interests entitle the Trust to receive 80% of the net proceeds
from the sale of oil and gas from the underlying properties.


IMAX CORP: Appointment of Lead Plaintiff in NY Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IMAX Corporation is awaiting a New York court's ruling on
applications for lead plaintiff in a consolidated class action
arising from alleged securities fraud by the Company, 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.

The Company and certain of its officers and directors were named
as defendants in eight purported class action lawsuits filed
between August 11, 2006 and September 18, 2006, alleging
violations of U.S. federal securities laws.  These eight actions
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  On January 18, 2007, the Court consolidated all eight
class action lawsuits and appointed Westchester Capital
Management, Inc. as the lead plaintiff and Abbey Spanier Rodd &
Abrams, LLP as lead plaintiff's counsel.  On October 2, 2007,
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint.
The amended complaint, brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the Company's common stock between February 27, 2003 and
July 20, 2007, alleges primarily that the defendants engaged in
securities fraud by disseminating materially false and misleading
statements during the class period regarding the Company's revenue
recognition of theater system installations, and failing to
disclose material information concerning the Company's revenue
recognition practices.  The amended complaint also added
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the Company's auditors, as a
defendant.  The lawsuit seeks unspecified compensatory damages,
costs, and expenses.  The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on December 10, 2007.  On September 16, 2008,
the Court issued a memorandum opinion and order, denying the
motion.  On October 6, 2008, the defendants filed an answer to the
amended complaint.  On October 31, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification.  Fact discovery on the merits
commenced on November 14, 2008.  On March 13, 2009, the Court
granted a second prospective lead plaintiff's request to file a
motion for reconsideration of the Court's order naming Westchester
Capital Management, Inc. as the lead plaintiff and issued an order
denying without prejudice plaintiff's class certification motion
pending resolution of the motion for reconsideration.  On June 29,
2009, the Court granted the motion for reconsideration and
appointed Snow Capital Investment Partners, L.P. as the lead
plaintiff and Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP as lead
plaintiff's counsel.  Westchester Capital Management, Inc.
appealed this decision, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit denied its petition on October 1, 2009.  On
April 22, 2010, the new lead plaintiff filed its motion for class
certification, defendants filed their oppositions to the motion on
June 10, 2010, and plaintiff filed its reply on July 30, 2010.  On
December 20, 2010, the Court denied Snow Capital Investment
Partners' motion and ordered that all applications to be appointed
lead plaintiff must be filed within 20 days of the decision.  Two
applications for lead plaintiff were filed, on January 10, 2011
and January 12, 2011, respectively.

The lawsuit is at an early stage and as a result the Company is
not able to estimate a potential loss exposure at this time.  The
Company will vigorously defend the matter, although no assurances
can be given with respect to the outcome of such proceedings.  The
Company's directors and officers insurance policy provides for
reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred in connection with
this lawsuit as well as potential damages awarded, if any, subject
to certain policy limits and deductibles.


IMAX CORP: Awaits Ontario Court's Ruling on Motion to Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
IMAX Corporation is awaiting an Ontario court's decision on its
motion for approval to appeal the certification of a class action
brought by the Company's shareholders in Canada, 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.

A class action lawsuit was filed on September 20, 2006 in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the Company and certain
of its officers and directors, alleging violations of Canadian
securities laws.  This lawsuit was brought on behalf of
shareholders who acquired the Company's securities between
February 17, 2006 and August 9, 2006.  The lawsuit is in an early
procedural stage and seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages, as well as costs and expenses.  As a result, the Company
is unable to estimate a potential loss exposure at this time.  For
reasons released December 14, 2009, the Court granted leave to the
Plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim to plead certain
claims pursuant to the Securities Act against the Company and
certain individuals and granted certification of the action as a
class proceeding.  These are procedural decisions, and do not
contain any binding conclusions on the factual or legal merits of
the claim.  The Company has brought a motion seeking Court
approval to appeal those decisions and it is not known when the
Ontario court will release a decision on that motion.

The Company believes the allegations made against it in the
statement of claim are meritless and will vigorously defend the
matter, although no assurance can be given with respect to the
ultimate outcome of such proceedings.  The Company's directors and
officers insurance policy provides for reimbursement of costs and
expenses incurred in connection with this lawsuit as well as
potential damages awarded, if any, subject to certain policy
limits and deductibles.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Discovery in Budeprion XL Suit Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in a consolidated action entitled In re Budeprion XL
Marketing Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL
No. 2107 against Impax Laboratories, Inc., is still ongoing,
according to the Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2010.

In June 2009, the Company was named a co-defendant in class action
lawsuits filed in California state court in an action titled Kelly
v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Indus. Ltd, et al., No. BC414812.
Subsequently, additional class action lawsuits were filed in
Louisiana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Florida, Texas, Oklahoma,
Ohio, Alabama, and Washington.  All of the complaints involve
Budeprion XL, a generic version of Wellbutrin XL(R) that is
manufactured by the Company and marketed by Teva, and allege that,
contrary to representations of Teva, Budeprion XL is less
effective in treating depression, and more likely to cause
dangerous side effects, than Wellbutrin XL. The actions are
brought on behalf of purchasers of Budeprion XL and assert claims
such as unfair competition, unfair trade practices and negligent
misrepresentation under state law  Each lawsuit seeks damages in
an unspecified amount consisting of the cost of Budeprion XL paid
by class members, as well as any applicable penalties imposed by
state law, and disclaims damages for personal injury.  The state
court cases have been removed to federal court, and a petition for
multidistrict litigation to consolidate the cases in federal court
has been granted.  These cases and any subsequently filed cases
will be heard under the consolidated action entitled In re:
Budeprion XL Marketing Sales Practices, and Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 2107, in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  The Company filed a motion
to dismiss and a motion to certify that order for interlocutory
appeal, both of which were denied. Discovery is proceeding, and no
trial date has been scheduled.


ITRON INC: April 25 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Harwood Feffer LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Washington on behalf of purchasers of the common stock
of Itron, Inc. from April 28, 2010 through Feb. 16, 2011,
inclusive.

No class has yet been certified in the above action.  Class
members will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel
chosen by the lead plaintiff.  If you wish to choose counsel to
represent you and the Class, you must apply to be appointed lead
plaintiff no later than April 25, 2011 and be selected by the
Court.  The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement and how much of a settlement to accept for the Class in
the action.  The lead plaintiff will be selected from among
applicants claiming the largest loss from investment in the
Company during the Class Period.  You are not required to have
sold your shares to seek damages to serve as a lead plaintiff. You
may contact the Harwood Feffer LLP Web site --
http://www.hfesq.com/-- or Samuel K. Rosen, directly, at
srosen@hfesq.com to ask any questions you may have in that regard.

The filed complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its
executive officers issued false and misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) the Company improperly recognized
revenue on a contract due to an extended warranty obligation; (2)
the Company's revenue and financial results were overstated during
the Class Period; (3) the Company's financial results were not
prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles (GAAP); (4) the Company lacked adequate internal and
financial controls; and (5) as a result of the above, the
Company's financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On Feb. 16, 2011, Itron announced it was restating its financial
results for the quarters ended March 31, June 30, and
Sept. 30, 2010, to correct improperly recognized revenue on a
contract due to an extended warranty obligation.  The Company's
restatement reduced total revenue for the first nine months of
2010 by $6.1 million, and both GAAP and non-GAAP diluted earnings
per share were reduced by $0.11 over this same period.  On this
news, Itron shares declined $6.33 per share, to close on
Feb. 17, 2011, at $57.29 per share, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

Harwood Feffer has been representing individual and institutional
investors for many years, serving as lead counsel in numerous
cases in federal and state courts.  Please visit the Harwood
Feffer LLP Web site -- http://www.hfesq.com/-- for more
information about the firm.

If you purchased Itron shares and suffered a loss in excess of
$100,000 during the Class Period and you wish to discuss this
matter with us, or have any questions concerning your rights and
interests with regard to this matter, please contact:

          Robert I. Harwood, Esq.
          Samuel K. Rosen, Esq.
          HARWOOD FEFFER LLP
          488 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (877) 935-7400
                     (212) 935-7400
          E-mail: rharwood@hfesq.com
                  srosen@hfesq.com
          Web site: http://www.hfesq.com


KEYCORP: Awaits Ruling on Appeal and Cross-Appeal in "Taylor" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
KeyCorp is awaiting an Ohio court's decision on an appeal and
cross-appeal in a consolidated class action styled as Taylor v.
KeyCorp, et al., 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.

As previously reported, in the third quarter of 2008, the Company
and certain of its directors and employees, were named as
defendants in two putative class actions filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio styled:
Taylor v. KeyCorp, et al., and Wildes v. KeyCorp, et al. The
plaintiffs in these cases seek to represent a class of all
participants in our 401(k) Savings Plan and allege that the
defendants in the lawsuit breached fiduciary duties owed to them
under ERISA. These cases have been substantively consolidated with
each other and are proceeding styled Taylor v. KeyCorp, et al.
Plaintiffs' consolidated complaint continues to name certain
employees as defendants but no longer names any outside directors.
Following briefing and argument on the Company's motion to dismiss
for, among other things, failure to make a demand on the board of
directors, the Court dismissed Taylor on August 12, 2010. As
previously reported, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal, and the
Company filed a Cross-Appeal, both of which remain pending.

Although the Taylor matters are claims made under the same policy
year, based upon the information available to the Company,
including the advice of counsel, the Company believes that in the
event it was to incur any liability for these matters, that it
should be covered under the terms and conditions of the Company's
insurance policy, subject to a $25 million self-insurance
deductible and usual policy exceptions.


KEYCORP: Continues to Defend "Metyk" Suit in Ohio
-------------------------------------------------
KeyCorp is defending two putative class action cases that are
substantively consolidated as Metyk, et al., v. KeyCorp, et al.,
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.

Two putative class action cases with allegations and causes of
action similar to those of Taylor v. KeyCorp, et al. were filed on
September 21, 2010, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio; these actions are styled Anthony Lobasso, et
al., v. KeyCorp, et al., and Thomas J. Metyk, et al., v. KeyCorp,
et al.  The Metyk and Lobasso lawsuits were substantively
consolidated with each other and are proceeding styled Thomas J.
Metyk, et al., v. KeyCorp, et al.

The Company strongly disagrees with the allegations asserted
against it in these actions, and intends to vigorously defend
against it.


KEYCORP: Subsidiary Continues to Defend ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------
KeyCorp's subsidiary remains a defendant in lawsuits that were
consolidated into one action styled In re Austin Capital
Management, LTD., Securities & Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA) Litigation, 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.

Austin Capital Management, Ltd., a subsidiary that specialized in
managing hedge fund investments for institutional customers,
determined that its funds had suffered investment losses of up to
approximately $186 million resulting from the crimes perpetrated
by Bernard L. Madoff and entities that he controlled.  The
investment losses borne by Austin's clients stem from investments
that Austin made in certain Madoff-advised "hedge" funds.  Several
lawsuits, including putative class actions and direct actions, and
one arbitration proceeding were filed against Austin seeking to
recover losses incurred as a result of Madoff's crimes.  The
lawsuits and arbitration proceeding allege various claims,
including negligence, fraud, breach of fiduciary duties, and
violations of federal securities laws and ERISA.  As previously
reported, the arbitration proceeding remains in abeyance while
Austin's operations are wound down.  The lawsuits were
consolidated into one action styled In re Austin Capital
Management, LTD., Securities & Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA) Litigation.

Although the Madoff matters are claims made under the same policy
year, based upon the information available to the Company,
including the advice of counsel, the Company believes that in the
event it was to incur any liability for these matters, that it
should be covered under the terms and conditions of the Company's
insurance policy, subject to a $25 million self-insurance
deductible and usual policy exceptions.

In April 2009, the Company decided to wind down Austin's
operations and have determined that the related exit costs will
not be material.


KEYCORP: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation Still Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action as to KeyCorp's subsidiary remains stayed
pending its appeal, 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.

KeyBank National Association was named a defendant in the
proceeding styled David M. Johnson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. KeyBank National Association
filed in the United States District Court for the Western District
of Washington.  Johnson is a putative class action seeking to
represent a national class of KeyBank customers allegedly harmed
by KeyBank's overdraft practices.  The complaint alleges that
KeyBank unfairly manipulates customer transactions to maximize the
number of overdraft charges.  The claims asserted against KeyBank
include breach of contract and breach of covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, common law unconscionability, conversion, unjust
enrichment and violation of the Washington Consumer Protection
Act. Plaintiffs seek restitution and disgorgement, damages,
expenses of litigation, attorneys' fees, and other relief deemed
equitable by the court.  The case was transferred and consolidated
for purposes of pretrial discovery and motion proceedings to a
multidistrict proceeding styled In Re: Checking Account Overdraft
Litigation pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.  KeyBank filed a motion to compel
arbitration which the court denied. KeyBank subsequently filed a
notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit in regard to the denial of the motion.  The case
is currently stayed as to KeyBank pending the appeal.

The Company said at this stage of the proceedings it is too early
to determine if the matter would reasonably be expected to have a
material adverse effect on its financial condition.


LEHMAN BROTHERS: DRL Investor Mulls Class Action Over Losses
------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Wall, writing for the Telegraph, reports that an investor is
hoping to garner enough support for a class-action lawsuit after
losing GBP150,000 in a Lehman-backed investment product.

In the summer of 2008, Mark Everett invested two amounts of
GBP50,000 into the Kick-out Performance Plan, an investment
product provided by Defined Returns Limited and backed by Lehman
Brothers, the now-defunct American investment bank, as part of his
self-invested personal pension.  His wife Judith also invested
GBP50,000 into the same plan.

The plan was a FTSE 100-linked investment, which aimed to pay 12%
a year -- and promised "100pc capital return" if the investor
remained invested until the end of the term.

The Plan literature said Lehman Brothers had an A+ credit rating
from Standard & Poor's and AA- from Fitch, among the most secure
ratings that can be issued.

Three weeks later, Lehman Brothers collapsed.  The bank filed for
bankruptcy in September 2008, causing the London stock market to
fall by more than 20pc.

It was the starting point of the financial crisis -- within 12
months, Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley had failed, Royal
Bank of Scotland was nationalized, and Lloyds had taken over HBOS
-- and then needed a bail-out too.

"We had no idea Lehman's was in trouble, or we would never have
invested," said Mr. Everett.  "But after the initial shock I
thought, it will be OK, we'll be able to make a claim to the
FSCS."

The plan literature said: "In the unlikely event that DRL becomes
insolvent, you should contact the Financial Services Compensation
Scheme."

With the help of their financial adviser, the Everetts applied for
compensation on the grounds that they had not been aware that
their capital was at risk at the time of purchasing the plan and
that DLR should have been aware that Lehman Brothers was in
financial difficulty.  But the FSCS turned down their claim,
saying that the Everetts -- and others like them -- were
sufficiently warned of the counterparty risks and their
investments were not capital-protected.

By October 2009, DRL had gone into administration itself -- with
rumors that the Lehman-backed products were to blame.

In September 2010, the FSCS said that investors sold Lehman-backed
structured products by three investment managers -- DRL, NDF and
Arc Capital & Income -- were not entitled to compensation.  The
ruling said investors had been adequately warned about the risk of
a counterparty default in the marketing material -- although it
said customers who had invested in "capital-secure" products had
already been compensated a total of GBP22 million.

The Everetts' financial adviser, Phil Hendry, of Reddington House
Investments, has appealed against the ruling and wants other
investors in the same position to join with the couple, resulting
in a class action if necessary.

In a letter to the FSCS, Mr. Hendry said the FSCS's main reason
for turning down the capital-at-risk investors, including the
Everetts, was that the counterparty risk had been explained
adequately -- but this also applied to the capital-protected
investors.


"I firmly believe that Mr. and Mrs. Everett ought to be
compensated as there were not in my opinion 'clear and prominent
warnings' in relation to the opaque nature of what actually
unfolded," Mr. Hendry said.

"The blurred fashion in which the investments were dealt with
shortly after the monies were received by DRL/Lehman, with the
lack of a paper trail in terms of the custody of the monies, is
the clear problem."

Mr. Everett urged others who feel they may also have missed out on
compensation to e-mail him on jmeverett@yahoo.co.uk


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Class Action Summary Judgment Motions for Review
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that dueling summary judgment moves in a seven-year old class
action suit against Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. are under a
Madison County judge's review after a long hearing earlier this
month.

In a hearing that lasted nearly six hours Feb. 4, Madison County
Circuit Judge Dennis Ruth and the attorneys for a plaintiff class
of health care providers and defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance
Company mulled over breaches of contract, Illinois' workers
compensation law and the definition of the word "direct."

Judge Ruth, who is a former chairman of the Illinois Workers'
Compensation Commission, currently has the motions under
advisement after entering an order that required parties to submit
additional materials by Feb. 18.

Judge Ruth referenced his experience often in questioning class
counsel Robert Schmieder II about how the state's workers'
compensation laws play into claims that Liberty Mutual failed to
send clients to providers in the First Health Network.

His counterpart, attorney Thomas Keefe Jr., pointed to the state's
workers' compensation law that prohibits Liberty Mutual or any
other insurer from dictating a worker's choice of health care
provider.

At the end of the Feb. 4 hearing, Ruth took the matters under
advisement.

Chiropractor Thomas Kaltenbronn and his fellow lead plaintiffs
sued Liberty Mutual in one of a series of class actions over
allegedly improper Preferred Provider Organization (PPO)
discounts.

The plaintiffs claim that Liberty Mutual, using a PPO now known as
First Health, did not steer workers' compensation injuries to them
for treatment but that the insurers took the PPO discounts anyway.

Liberty Mutual class action linked to First Health class action

The class action is one of a series of PPO cases filed in the
early part of the last decade by Mr. Schmieder's firm, then called
the Lakin Law Firm and the Chicago firm of Freed & Weiss.  That
partnership dissolved in 2007.

Chiropractor Richard Coy was one of the lead of the plaintiffs in
a PPO class action against First Health that settled in 2009.

Together with chiropractor Lawrence Shipley, Mr. Coy sued First
Health on behalf of Illinois health care providers on nearly
identical claims.

The First Health suit settled for $1.25 million in 2009.

Under that settlement, Messrs. Coy and Shipley took home $10,000
each.

Mr. Schmieder II was the class counsel in the suit.  He and his
team got $650,000 in legal fees.

The remainder of the settlement went to continuing medical
education for health care providers.

One class member, Kathleen Roche, objected to the settlement.

Her attorney, Richard Burke, argued it did not adequately
represent the interests of the class.

After then-Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack discounted
the objection and approved the settlement, Roche appealed.

The issue is currently before the Fifth District Appellate Court
in Mount Vernon.

First Health settlement claim release issue

First Health and its settlement with the Shipley-Coy class played
a role in the Feb. 4 hearing as Judge Ruth questioned whether
plaintiffs had not already given Liberty Mutual a way out.

Under the 2009 First Health settlement, some of the claims
Kaltenbronn and the Liberty Mutual class raised were dropped.

Among those were financial incentive issues that Mr. Schmieder II
would discuss with Ruth in his argument that Liberty Mutual
breached a contract with his clients.

Mr. Schmieder II also represented the Shipley-Coy class and
advocated for its settlement.

Judge Ruth questioned Mr. Schmieder II on that subject, noting
that he had "nosed around" in the First Health case to understand
its relation to the Liberty Mutual suit.

Liberty Mutual cited the Shipley-Coy settlement in its response to
the plaintiffs' summary judgment move.

Liberty Mutual pointed to that settlement's release of the
financial incentives claims as further evidence that it could not
send clients specifically to the PPO members.

Judge and attorneys argue meaning of 'direct'

Judge Ruth and Mr. Schmieder debated the meaning of "direct" for
much of the hearing.

According to Mr. Schmieder II, the insurance companies had a duty
to send clients to the providers who signed on to the First Health
network.

"I think when you read the word 'direct,' 'access,' 'make
available,' 'utilize,' and 'use,' and when you read them all in
conjunction, it's the only meaning that can exist," Mr. Schmieder
II said.

Judge Ruth drew on his experience heading the IWCC and noted that,
in his view, Mr. Schmieder II seemed to leave out the section of
the state's workers' compensation statute that forbids employers
from dictating what doctor an injured worker may choose.

The judge also noted that in the contracts he'd seen in the case
there was not a clear definition of "direct" listed.

"But if it's not in the contract, the contract language, then you
go secondarily to case law or state law," the judge said.
"Statutory law."

"I don't think [Liberty Mutual] they say it's never a
requirement," Judge Ruth said.  "I think they are saying it's
permissive.  They point out the 'may' portion of the statute.

Mr. Schmieder II countered that the state's PPO statute uses
language like "shall" to require incentives for consumers such as
injured workers to use PPO members.

"There's nothing permissive about the word 'shall,'" Mr. Schmieder
II said.

Mr. Schmieder II said his clients' contention is that Liberty
Mutual admits it didn't make good on incentives promised to its
First Health PPO members because it didn't send more workers'
compensation cases their way.

Judge Ruth returned to the workers' compensation statute and its
prohibition on directing injury treatment.

"Are you saying the contracts are all illegal that both sides
entered into?" the judge asked.

"No, no, no, no," Mr. Schmieder II replied.  "What I'm saying is,
we are talking about financial incentives.  I think the Court's
biting on sort of a red herring that Liberty has thrown out there.
We've never said anything about co-pays and deductibles.  We've
talked about financial incentives.  Just like the statute says,
incentives, incentives, incentives."

Mr. Schmieder II told the judge that Liberty Mutual was using many
of the same arguments it had tried when it sought to defeat the
class's certification.

Later in the hearing Judge Ruth again returned to the meaning of
the word "direct," after Mr. Schmieder II showed clips of
depositions with Liberty Mutual employees and presented evidence
from First Health.

"I guess that's leading to some confusion as -- that to me you
keep saying that the definition of the word direct is obvious.
I'm not so sure it is.  That is, has different meanings in
different contexts," Judge Ruth added.  "I'm not so sure that the
meaning of the word 'direct' is quite as direct as everybody says
it is."

Judge Ruth noted the differing viewpoints on the matter at play in
Mr. Schmieder's presentation and in the filings that led up to the
hearing.

He also noted that although Mr. Schmieder II relied heavily on the
language found in the state's PPO Act, the contracts in the case
referenced state laws like the workers' compensation statute.

"So why is the plaintiff just dug in on the fact that there has to
be this financial direction versus when they say, they -- Liberty
Mutual -- says we did do all this informational stuff, and you
say, 'No, they didn't," the judge wondered.

Judge's work comp law background comes to fore

Before becoming a judge, Judge Ruth headed the Illinois Workers
Compensation Commission and heard more than 400 arbitration cases
before becoming one of the panel's commissioners.

The judge returned many times in the hearing to that background.

At one point, Judge Ruth even confronted Mr. Schmieder II about
his own familiarity with workers' compensation practice.

"I guess what I'm suggesting is this," the judge said as the
discussion continued as to Liberty Mutual's ability to "direct"
clients to the PPO members, "it's not so clear what the meaning of
the word direct is, and I would suggest that if you talk -- when
you keep talking context, context isn't just PPO.  In this case
context is also workers' comp, and you are obviously not a
workers' compensation lawyer or you would know that when people
start using those words they are talking about a choice of doctor.
Even though the word 'direct' isn't in the Workers' Compensation
Act, but the choice of doctor is."

Judge Ruth also chided Mr. Schmieder II for going back and forth
between examples of how a PPO works in states without employee
choice in workers' compensation injury cases and Illinois.

"I mean, you bounce back and forth between the country and
specifically Illinois," Judge Ruth said.  "Illinois is almost
unique in this, and I hope they remain unique in this, in allowing
free choice of doctor to the injured citizens of the state.
Because there's some assaults being made upon that right now in
Springfield, which is neither here nor there to our discussion
here today.  But it's unique to Illinois that -- so when you talk
about these things direct, you know - across the river in Missouri
when they say 'direct' they mean 'you go to Joe Blow or you are on
your own.'"

Mr. Schmieder II stuck to his contention that the insurer had not
complied with the state's PPO Act.

"Liberty Mutual is flat-out ignoring Illinois law and the
regulation that says there shall be incentives for them to
utilize," Mr. Schmieder II said.

Liberty Mutual responds and hearing concludes as judge takes
issues under advisement

In its filings and arguments at the Feb. 4 hearing, Liberty Mutual
returned several times to the wording of the state's workers'
compensation law.

For Liberty Mutual, Keefe agreed that parts of the law were
cumbersome but argued his client had acted as best it could to
fulfill its obligations to health care providers such as
Kaltenbronn and his class.

Mr. Keefe stressed Liberty Mutual's efforts to send clients to the
class members through directories, its Web page and workplace
postings.

Mr. Keefe noted that, in his view, the case was clearly about
breach of contract.

Mr. Keefe drew on his family's experience with workers'
compensation law and his own in discussing how the case fit in the
context of that area of law.

And he took issue with Mr. Schmieder II's reading of "direct."

"The reason that I'm in this case honestly is because, you know, I
come from a [workers' compensation] family.  I have a deep meaning
about workers' comp and to do what he is asking you to do, to take
this term and to apply it into the contract, it's the first step
in an emasculating or attempt to emasculate the most inviolate
rule that I believe exists and makes our state so unique, which is
the worker's right to choose his or her own doctor," Mr. Keefe
said.

Mr. Keefe said during the hearing that he practiced workers'
compensation law between 1979 and 1995 and that his father had
also been a workers' compensation attorney.

Judge Ruth pointed out that workers' compensation law doesn't
necessarily free Liberty Mutual from all of the obligations
Schmieder II stressed.

Mr. Keefe acknowledged the judge's point.

Judge Ruth noted that "both sides are kind of wanting to cling to
the statute that most helps their particular cause."

Mr. Keefe continued to stress that the PPO statute was permissive
in its language rather than mandatory of how Liberty Mutual was to
send more workers' compensation claims to the PPO member
providers.

"The statute doesn't require what Rob says it requires," Mr. Keefe
said.

Mr. Keefe also suggested there might be a case of estoppel going
on in the suit.

He noted that Mr. Schmieder II represents the class at hand and
had represented the Shipley-Coy class.

Richard Coy is one of the lead plaintiffs in the Kaltenbronn case.
And, according to Keefe's arguments Feb. 4, the claims were
virtually the same.

Mr. Keefe also questioned how lead plaintiffs and class members
who spent large amounts of time dealing with workers' compensation
claims in Illinois would be unaware that workers had a choice in
what doctor to see.

Mr. Keefe and Liberty Mutual attorney Carol Rudder presented parts
of the lead plaintiffs' depositions where they admitted to
understanding employee choice of doctor.

Mr. Keefe also had Liberty Mutual's technical support pull up the
Web site of Mr. Schmieder's firm, LakinChapman LLC of Wood River,
and go to its workers' compensation law page.

"I'm not trying to be a smart aleck," Mr. Keefe said of the
gesture.  He pointed to statements on the firm's page noting
employee choice of doctor. "It says right here, 'Do you have to
receive treatment from the company doctor? The answer is no . . .
Under the Illinois [Workers' Compensation Act] you are allowed to
see two doctors of your choice and any doctors they refer you to
see . . . I'm not trying to be a smart aleck with LakinChapman.
They're a great plaintiff's firm and has a great history."

Judge Ruth gave the parties deadlines for filing added materials
and proposed orders before ending the hearing.

He required both sides to submit orders but warned he likely
wouldn't enter either in the form he received them.

"I'm going to cut and paste and I probably won't be using either
side's proposed order," the judge said. I don't know that anybody
is particularly happy with all my opinions here today."

The case is Madison case number 04-L-1416.


MASSACHUSETTS: Judge Allows Foster Care Lawsuit to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge has ruled that a
class action lawsuit against Massachusetts alleging the abuse and
neglect of thousands of children in state care can proceed.

U.S. District Judge Michael Ponsor ruled on Feb. 28 that those
bringing the case met the threshold for a class action.

The New York-based advocacy group Children's Rights said it filed
the case on behalf of about 8,500 children in foster care.

The lawsuit charges the Massachusetts Department of Children and
Families with violating the constitutional rights of children by
routinely placing them in dangerous and unstable situations once
removed from their parents' care.

The department has said it shares the goal of protecting children,
but said the lawsuit will force it to spend scarce dollars
defending itself instead of using the money to help families.


METLIFE INC: Stuy Class Action Costs Greater Than Expected
----------------------------------------------------------
Chip Brian, writing for TradeTheTrend.com, reports that
MetLife Inc. said costs tied to a class-action lawsuit by tenants
of Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village in New York may be
greater than it previously had expected, according to a Bloomberg
report.

Shares of the company are currently trading 0.09% higher at
$46.82.

MetLife has a potential upside of 16.9% based on a current price
of $46.86 and an average consensus analyst price target of $54.79.

MetLife is currently above its 50-day moving average (MA) of
$46.08 and above its 200-day of $41.44.

In the last five trading sessions, the 50-day MA has climbed 0.41%
while the 200-day MA has risen 0.16%.

MetLife, Inc. provides individual insurance, employee benefits and
financial services with operations throughout the United States
and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia Pacific. The
Company's products include life insurance, annuities, automobile
and homeowners insurance, retail banking and other financial
services to individuals as well as group insurance.


PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Motion for Class Certification Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., continues to defend itself in
a class action lawsuit filed by purchasers of the Company's common
stock between July 23, 2001 and July 5, 2006, 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.

The Company and certain of its former executive officers have
been named as defendants in consolidated class action lawsuits
filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between July 23, 2001 and July 5, 2006. The lawsuits followed the
Company's July 5, 2006 announcement regarding the restatement of
certain of its financial statements and allege that the Company
and certain members of the Company's then management engaged in
violations of the Exchange Act, by issuing false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's financial condition and
results of operations.  The class actions are pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.  On July 23, 2008,
co-lead plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended complaint.
On September 30, 2009, the Court granted a motion to dismiss all
claims as against Kenneth Sawyer but denied the motion as to the
Company, Dennis O'Connor, and Scott Tarriff.  The Company and
Messrs. O'Connor and Tarriff have answered the Amended complaint
and intend to vigorously defend the consolidated class action.
Plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification which the
Company and the other defendants intend to oppose.

Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. -- http://www.parpharm.com/--
is a holding company that, principally through its wholly owned
subsidiary, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., is in the business of
developing, manufacturing and distributing generic and branded
drugs in the United States.  The company is divided into two
business segments: generic pharmaceuticals and brand
pharmaceuticals.  The company is operating the brand
pharmaceutical segment under the name Strativa Pharmaceuticals.
In the brand segment, Par Pharmaceutical markets brand products
under trademarked brand names designed to create an association
between the products and their intended uses.  In June 2008, the
company entered into an exclusive licensing agreement with
MonoSol Rx under which it acquired the commercialization rights
in the United States to MonoSol's thin film formulation of
ondansetron.


RELIABLE STAFFING: Sued Over Non-Payment of Proper Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Kari Lydersen, writing for Working In These Times, reports that
after three months of working in a Wal-Mart warehouse in the
Chicago suburbs last fall, Robert Hines was fed up with getting
paid much less than he had been promised by the company Reliable
Staffing, which hired temporary workers to unload containers.

But the final straw came when he wasn't paid at all for seven
10-12 hour days he'd worked shortly before Thanksgiving, he says.
His calls to the agency weren't returned, and when he went in
person to demand his money, he said a manager claimed he and his
work partner, Leo Williamson, had never worked those days at all.

So Messrs. Hines and Williamson are among eight named plaintiffs
in a class action lawsuit filed on Feb. 28 in federal court
charging Reliable Staffing, its owner Daniel Gallagher and
Schneider Logistics, which runs the Wal-Mart warehouse in Elwood,
Ill., with violating state and federal labor laws.

When former Reliable Staffing workers marched into the agency last
Monday demanding pay and billing records (as is their right under
the Illinois Day and Temporary Labor Services Act), they were not
given any records and, they say, were greeted with hostility by
Mr. Gallagher.

Under the Illinois day labor act, considered one of the nation's
strongest such laws, the workers have the right to see what
Reliable Staffing billed Schneider for their work, and what it
paid them.  If the hours and/or piece rates reported to
Mr. Schneider and reported to the workers themselves don't add up,
it could show Reliable Staffing was intentionally not paying
workers for their labor.

The plaintiffs think that was standard practice at the company.

"The lady looked me in the face and said I have no recollection of
you working," said Mr. Hines, 37.  "I got vulgar comments, a
snazzy attitude from them.  And I was breaking my back for
peanuts, or to not even be paid at all."

The lawsuit alleges violations of the aforementioned Illinois Day
and Temporary Labor Services Act, along with the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act.  Allegations include unpaid overtime,
failure to pay state and federal minimum wage and failure to pay
at least four hours' wages when workers were called in to work, as
mandated by the day labor services act.

The lawsuit says that plaintiffs who worked for Reliable Staffing
from 2006 on were promised $10 an hour, plus a piece rate for
unloading trucks, including a higher "premium" piece rate for
heavier goods.  It alleges they were not paid the piece rate as
promised, and that in fact workers were often paid less than state
and federal minimum wage along with not being paying overtime.

Mr. Hines said that at the rate promised, his paychecks for
working often from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. should have been at
least $300 a week -- not counting overtime, which he also should
have been due.  But he was usually paid $239.

The suit also alleges workers were not paid for mandatory waiting
time, adding up to multiple hours per week.  It says that when one
defendant wrote his arrival time on a sign-in sheet, a supervisor
actually tore the sheet up.

"Reliable Staffing actually did not keep track of people's hours,"
said attorney Chris Williams.  "That's illegal.  Even if you are
paying a piece rate, under federal law you need to show that adds
up to at least minimum wage."

And the suit alleges Reliable Staffing violated state laws by
failing to provide workers with documentation of where and for
which third party they would be working, the nature of the work
and how much they would be paid.  The suit basically alleges that
workers were paid the $10 piece rate only -- often divided between
two or three workers, workers say -- and then the employer simply
made up the number of hours the worker supposedly worked by
dividing the piece rate by 10.

"The check stub is a fiction -- their check stub could show they
worked 36 hours when they really worked 72 hours," said
Mr. Williams.  That's why, Mr. Williams said, it's so important
the workers are able to demand their billing records under the
state day labor services act.

"The workers are supposed to be able to go into the office and get
this information themselves," Mr. Williams said.  "But
unfortunately the law isn't working.  That's why we had to take
this to federal court."

The suit says:

In fact, Defendants Reliable and Gallagher provided Plaintiffs and
similarly situated laborers with check stubs that contained false
information, showing the final gross compensation to the laborer
divided by $10.00, thereby showing a number of hours worked on the
check stub that bears no relationship to the actual number of
hours worked . . .

Rather than provide Plaintiffs and the Class with the actual hours
worked, Defendants Reliable and Gallagher provided Plaintiffs and
the Class with a fictional number of hours worked and a fictional
pay rate as described in paragraph.

The lawsuit adds that failing to provide workers documentation of
their employment terms makes it easier for employers to cheat
workers, saying:

The Illinois legislature found that such at-risk workers are
particularly vulnerable to abuse of their labor rights, including
unpaid wages, failure to pay for all hours worked, minimum wage
and overtime violations, and unlawful deduction from pay for
meals, transportation, equipment and other items.

The workers' want unpaid wages, going back up to three years.  The
lawsuit also asks for statutory damages on some counts, attorneys'
fees, and that the company be blocked from violating these laws in
the future.  The suit notes that under the day labor services act,
third party companies like Schneider that hire staffing companies
are liable and legally responsible for any unpaid wages by the
staffing company.

Depending on how the law is interpreted, it's possible Wal-Mart
itself could be liable.

"Hopefully this lawsuit will trickle down and help not just us but
other people," said Mr. Hines.  "Maybe they'll wake up and see
that they have to treat people fairly if they want to get more out
of us.  Now they're sitting there high on the hog, eating nice
food, while we're on the dollar menu at McDonald's."


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Continues to Oppose Park West Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. continues to oppose the move to
rename it as a defendant in the class action initially brought
against Park West Galleries, 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.

In September 2010, the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington denied motions seeking permission
by the Court to rename Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., Celebrity
Cruises Inc. and other cruise lines as defendants in five actions,
one of which is a pending class action, being brought against Park
West Galleries, Inc., doing business as Park West Gallery, PWG
Florida, Inc., Fine Art Sales, Inc., Vista Fine Art LLC, doing
business as Park West At Sea, and other named and unnamed parties.
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. and Celebrity Cruises Inc. had
previously been dismissed from these actions on the basis that the
claims against them were not timely filed and/or properly pled.
The actions are being brought on behalf of purchasers of artwork
at shipboard art auctions conducted by Park West on the named
cruise lines alleging that the artwork Park West sells is not what
it represents to its customers and that Royal Caribbean Cruises
Ltd., Celebrity Cruises Inc. and other named cruise lines are
complicit in the activities of Park West, including engaging in a
conspiracy with Park West in violation of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act and are being enriched unjustly from
the sale of the artwork. The actions seek refund and restitution
of all monies acquired from the sale of artwork at shipboard
auctions, recovery for the amount of payments for the purchased
artwork, damages on the RICO claims in an indeterminate amount,
and other permitted statutory damages and equitable relief. The
Company will vigorously oppose any attempt by plaintiffs to rename
either Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. or Celebrity Cruises Inc. as
defendants and, if the Company is so renamed, the Company believes
it has meritorious defenses to the claims against the Company
which it will vigorously pursue. Under the current facts and
circumstances, the Company no longer considers this matter to be a
material proceeding.

Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. operates in cruise vacation industry
in North America and internationally. The Company is based in
Miami, with offices in the United Kingdom, Germany, Norway, Italy,
Spain, Singapore, and China.


SCHWEITZER-MAUDUIT: Securities Suit in Georgia Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action against Schweitzer-Mauduit International, Inc.,
filed by the City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement
System in Georgia remains pending, according to the Company's
February 25, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On March 31, 2010, the City of Pontiac General Employees'
Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, sued the Company, its Chief Executive Officer,
Frederic P. Villoutreix, and its Chief Financial Officer, Peter J.
Thompson, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia for alleged violations of certain sections and
rules of the Securities Act of 1934.  The plaintiffs' identified a
putative class period covering August 5, 2009 to February 10,
2010.  The primary allegations of the suit contend that the
defendants misrepresented the strength of the Company's
competitive position in the U.S. and its ability to withstand
European competition, particularly in the area of lower ignition
propensity papers.  Further, the complaint alleges that the
defendants concealed threats to the Company's relationship with
Phillip Morris USA, Inc.  As a consequence of these alleged
misrepresentations or omissions, the plaintiffs contend that the
Company's stock price was artificially inflated causing the
plaintiffs to be damaged in an unspecified amount.  The court
issued an order on August 26, 2010 appointing as co-Lead
Plaintiffs the City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement
System and the Western Washington Laborers-Employers Pension
Trust.  Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd was appointed Lead Counsel.
Plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint, which becomes
the operative complaint in the case going forward.  The matter has
been fully briefed by the parties.

The Company believes that the allegations are without merit as to
all defendants and intends to vigorously defend the matter as to
itself and its two officers.  The Company has not recorded any
liability associated with this matter and believes the outcome of
this litigation will not have a material adverse impact on the
Company's financial condition.


SOLUTIA INC: Still Faces Contamination Case in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed against Solutia Inc. over a case of
contamination at its plants in Sauget, Illinois, remains pending,
according to the Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2010.

On February 10, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
in the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois against the
Company, Pharmacia, Monsanto and two other unrelated defendants
alleging the contamination of the plaintiff's property from PCBs,
dioxins, furans and other hazardous substances emanating from the
defendants' facilities in Sauget, Illinois (including the
Company's W.G. Krummrich site in Sauget, Illinois).  The proposed
class action is comprised of residents who live within a two-mile
radius of the Sauget facilities.  The plaintiffs are seeking
damages for medical monitoring and the costs associated with
remediation and removal of alleged contaminants from their
property.  This action is one of several lawsuits (primarily filed
by the same plaintiffs' counsel) filed in 2009 and 2010 regarding
alleged historical contamination from the W.G. Krummrich site.

In addition to the purported class action lawsuit, twenty
additional individual lawsuits have been filed since February 2009
against the same defendants (including the Company) comprised of
claims from over one thousand individual residents of Illinois who
claim they suffered illnesses or injuries as well as property
damages as a result of the same PCBs, dioxins, furans and other
hazardous substances allegedly emanating from the defendants'
facilities in Sauget.  In June 2010, a group of approximately
1,200 plaintiffs also filed wrongful death claims in a lawsuit in
the Circuit Court of St. Clair County arising out of contamination
from the defendants' facilities.  Moreover, four additional
individual lawsuits comprised of claims from twelve plaintiffs
were filed between January and April 2010 in the Circuit Court of
Madison County, Illinois, alleging that plaintiffs suffered
illnesses resulting from exposure to benzene, PCBs, dioxins,
furans and other hazardous substances.  Lastly, on June 14, 2010,
a second purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Circuit
Court of St. Louis City, Missouri against the same defendants
alleging the contamination of the plaintiffs' property from PCBs,
dioxins, furans and other hazardous substances emanating from the
defendants' facilities in Sauget, Illinois and from the Company's
now-closed Queeny plant in St. Louis.  The plaintiffs are seeking
damages for medical monitoring and the costs associated with
remediation and removal of alleged contaminants from their
property.  The proposed class members include residents
exclusively within the state of Missouri.


SOLUTIA INC: Awaits Decision on Petition for Writ of Certiorari
---------------------------------------------------------------
A petition for a writ of certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme
Court by participants of Solutia Inc.'s U.S. pension plan remains
pending, according to the Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Starting in October 2005, separate purported class action lawsuits
were filed by current or former participants in the Company's U.S.
pension plan, which were ultimately consolidated into a single
case on September 1, 2006 with similar lawsuits against the
pension plans of Monsanto and Pharmacia.  The Consolidated Class
Action Complaint alleged three separate causes of action against
the U.S. Plan: (1) the U.S. Plan violates ERISA by terminating
interest credits on prior plan accounts at the age of 55; (2) the
U.S. Plan is improperly backloaded in violation of ERISA; and (3)
the U.S. Plan is discriminatory on the basis of age.  In September
2007, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' second and third claims,
and by consent of the parties, certified a class action against
the U.S. Plan only with respect to plaintiffs' claim that the U.S.
Plan violates ERISA by allegedly terminating interest credits on
prior plan accounts at the age of 55.  On June 11, 2009, the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
entered a summary judgment in favor of the U.S. Plan on the sole
remaining claim against the U.S. Plan.  The district court entered
its final appealable judgment in the case on September 29, 2009,
and plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Seventh Circuit Court
of Appeals.  The Seventh Circuit affirmed the decision of the
district court in favor of the defendants on July 30, 2010.  The
plaintiffs have subsequently filed with the United States Supreme
Court a petition for a writ of certiorari, and that request
remains pending.


SOUTHEAST TEXAS TEA PARTY: Sued for Defrauding Donors
-----------------------------------------------------
David Yates, writing for Southeast Texas Record, reports that
several area residents have banded together and filed suit against
the Southeast Texas TEA Party Patriots and its director,
Ralph McBride, alleging the political organization defrauded
donors.

On behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Peggy
Denson, Charles Henson, Mitzi Toups, William Lucas, Theresa Kelly,
Jalina Stutte, Laurie Ingram and Jack Simmons filed their suit on
Feb. 23 in Jefferson County District Court.

The petition states that in early 2009, a number of Southeast
Texas residents began organizing a local component of the national
TEA Party movement.

The focal point of the initial organization was a protest held
April 15, 2009, as the Southeast Texas Record previously reported.

To fund the event, organizers began soliciting "contributions from
like-minded citizens."

Those who contributed were dubbed "members" and were encouraged to
donate monthly, the suit states.

"Without the knowledge of most of these founding members, three of
the organizers, including defendant Ralph McBride, Jeff Lake and
Brad Lewis, surreptitiously filed documents with the state of
Texas, creating an entity called the Southeast Texas TEA Party
Patriots Inc. as a nonprofit corporation," the suit states.

While creating the organization, Mr. McBride elected that "the
corporation will not have members," making individuals who thought
they were members to be officially listed as voiceless donors.

"Defendant McBride . . . continued to solicit contributions from
plaintiffs . . . for two years," the suit states.

"Defendants never disclosed to plaintiffs the formulation of the
corporation, or that they were not actually members or that the
money they were contributing was being solely managed and
controlled by the directors."

In their suit, the plaintiffs allege the directors refuse to hold
elections, disclose an accounting of funds, or give donors a voice
in its affairs.

Seeking an award of actual and economic damages, they are accusing
the defendants of fraud, negligent misrepresentation and theft.

No attorney is listed in the suit.

Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd District Court, has been assigned to the
case.

Case No. E189-445


SUNRISE SENIOR: Continues to Defend "Purnell" Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sunrise Senior Living, Inc., remains a defendant in a purported
class action filed by LaShone Purnell over the Company's alleged
violations of California labor laws, according to the Company's
February 25, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On May 14, 2010, Ms. Purnell filed a lawsuit on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated in the Superior Court of the State
of California, Orange County, against Sunrise Senior Living
Management, Inc., captioned LaShone Purnell as an individual and
on behalf of all employees similarly situated v. Sunrise Senior
Living Management, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, Case No. 30-2010-
00372725.  Plaintiff's complaint is styled as a class action and
alleges that Sunrise failed to properly schedule the purported
class of care givers and other related positions so that they
would be able to take meal and rest breaks as provided for under
California law.  The complaint asserts claims for: (1) failure to
pay overtime wages; (2) failure to provide meal periods; (3)
failure to provide rest periods; (4) failure to pay wages upon
ending employment; (5) failure to keep accurate payroll records;
(6) unfair business practices; and (7) unfair competition.
Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages, statutory
penalties provided for under the California Labor Code, injunctive
relief, and costs and attorneys' fees.  On June 17, 2010, Sunrise
removed this action to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.  On July 16, 2010, plaintiff filed
a motion to remand the case to state court.  On August 10, 2010,
the Court stayed all proceedings pending early mediation by the
parties.  Early mediation was unsuccessful, and on January 18,
2011, the United States District Court for the Central District of
California denied plaintiff's motion to remand the action to state
court.

The Company believes that Plaintiff's allegations are not
meritorious and that a class action is not appropriate in this
case, and intends to defend itself vigorously.  Because of the
early stage of this suit, the Company can not at this time
estimate an amount or range of potential loss in the event of an
unfavorable outcome.


TERREMARK WORLDWIDE: Reaches Accord on Suits Over Verizon Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Terremark Worldwide, Inc. disclosed that it has entered into a
memorandum of understanding providing for the settlement of all
eight putative class action lawsuits that have been brought in
Delaware and Florida in connection with the previously announced
Agreement and Plan of Merger dated Jan. 27, 2011 among Terremark,
Verizon Communications Inc. and Verizon Holdings Inc., whereby all
outstanding shares of Terremark common stock will be acquired by
Verizon in a tender offer and merger transaction for $19.00 net
per share in cash.

Pursuant to the MOU, the parties have agreed to enter into a
definitive stipulation of settlement (Definitive Settlement) that
will settle all claims that were or could have been made in the
lawsuits by all plaintiffs against Terremark and each of its
directors, Verizon and all other defendants in connection with the
Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby.  The
Definitive Settlement will provide that, upon the approval thereof
by the Delaware Court of Chancery, all eight pending lawsuits will
be dismissed with prejudice.  There can be no assurance that the
parties will enter into a Definitive Settlement or that the
Delaware Court will approve it.  If the Definitive Settlement is
not approved by the Delaware Court, the settlement contemplated by
the MOU would be null and void. If the Definitive Settlement is
not approved, Terremark and the other defendants will continue to
vigorously defend against the allegations set forth in the
lawsuits.

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, Terremark has agreed to
make certain additional disclosures regarding the background of
the events leading to the signing of the Merger Agreement on
Jan. 27, 2011 and with respect to certain of the analyses
undertaken by Terremark's financial advisor in connection with
such financial advisor's assessment of the fairness to Terremark's
stockholders, from a financial point of view, of the $19.00 net
per share tender offer price and merger consideration.  Terremark
and Verizon also have agreed to an amendment to the Merger
Agreement to extend the initial expiration date of the tender
offer to March 21, 2011 from the previous March 10, 2011
expiration date, eliminate a so-called "force-the-vote" covenant
whereby, in certain limited circumstances Verizon previously could
have required Terremark to hold a special meeting of the holders
of common stock of Terremark to vote for the adoption of the
Merger Agreement, notwithstanding a prior determination by
Terremark's directors to withdraw their recommendation of the
transaction, reduce to $40,000,000 from $52,500,000 the
termination fee payable to Verizon under the circumstances
contemplated by the Merger Agreement, and provide that Verizon
will not under any circumstances exercise the "top-up" option
granted to Verizon under the Merger Agreement.

Terremark and the other defendants continue to deny all
allegations of wrongdoing, fault, liability or damage to
plaintiffs and the putative class of Terremark stockholders, and
specifically deny any breach of fiduciary duty in connection with
the Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby.
Terremark and the other defendants further specifically deny that
any of the new disclosures, which are being made pursuant to the
MOU strictly for litigation settlement purposes are material to
Terremark's stockholders or are otherwise required to be disclosed
under federal securities laws, state corporate law or under any
other regulation or law.

Terremark intends to file an amendment to its Schedule 14D-9 on or
about March 1, 2011 to include the new disclosures required by the
MOU, describe the amended terms of the Merger Agreement and
confirm the recommendation of Terremark's directors that
Terremark's stockholders should accept the tender offer and tender
their shares of common stock of Terremark pursuant thereto.

The eight putative class action lawsuits referred to above that
are being settled are: (i) Schaefer v. Terremark Worldwide, Inc.,
et al. (Case No. 11-03279-CA-32), filed on Jan. 31, 2011, in the
Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-
Dade County, Florida; (ii) Stackewicz v. Terremark Worldwide,
Inc., et al. (Case No. 11-03106-CA-40), filed on Jan. 28, 2011, in
the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for
Miami-Dade County, Florida; (iii) Jiannaras v. Terremark
Worldwide, Inc., et al. (Case No. 11-03471-CA-40), filed on
Feb. 2, 2011, in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial
Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida; (iv) Hogan v.
Terremark Worldwide, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:11-cv-20369), filed
on Feb. 2, 2011 in the United States District Court, Southern
District of Florida, Miami Division; (v) Minneapolis Firefighters'
Relief Association v. Guillermo Amore, et al. (Case No. 6175-VCN),
filed on February 7, 2011 in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware; (vi) Trejo v. Terremark Worldwide, Inc., et al. (Case
No. 11-04668-CA-3), filed on Feb. 11, 2011, in the Circuit Court
of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County,
Florida; (vii) Adams v. Guillermo Amore, et al. (Case No.
11-04838-CA-13), filed on Feb. 14, 2011, in the Circuit Court of
the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County,
Florida and (viii) Abril v. Manuel Medina, et al. (Case No. 1:11-
CV-20555); filed on February 18, 2011 in the United States
District Court, Southern District of Florida, Miami Division.

Terremark Worldwide, Inc. (NASDAQ:TMRK) is a global provider of IT
infrastructure services.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Worried Over Trade Secrets in Acceleration Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
San Diego 6 reports that experts for people suing Torrance-based
Toyota in a class-action alleging sudden acceleration problems
should have as much access to the carmaker's secret source code as
possible, a federal judge said on Feb. 28.

The plaintiffs want to evaluate the computer code to its
electronic engines to determine if it caused Toyotas to suddenly
accelerate, resulting in crashes, some of them fatal.

Toyota claims the code is the "crown jewel" to its intellectual
property, and that it's not responsible for the problems.

NASA engineers who reviewed some of Toyota's vehicles could not
find any evidence that the sudden acceleration was caused by
electronic malfunctions.

Toyota claims that sticky accelerator pedals and poorly fitted
floor mats were the cause of the runaway vehicles, and has
recalled millions of its Toyota and Lexus vehicles to replace the
mats.

The plaintiffs say that whether or not the code is responsible,
the company should have installed acceleration override systems,
as its competitors did.

Both sides have had trouble agreeing on how to provide Toyota's
source code to experts hired by the plaintiffs, so U.S. District
Judge James Selna was called on today to help referee the dispute.

Toyota attorney Joel Smith told Selna the company wanted to parcel
out chunks of the computer code to the plaintiffs' experts.

"Too much of it in one place gives away secrets," Smith said.
"It's kind of like a long phrase on Wheel of Fortune . . . If you
get too much of it up front you can find out our secret."

Judge Selna frowned on that proposal.

"That's backwards," Judge Selna said.  "The expert needs to
determine how much (code) they need."

Toyota officials are worried the code could be leaked, while
attorneys for the plaintiffs don't want to let Toyota experts
monitor their experts as they analyze the code because it could
give away legal strategy.

Both sides have agreed on a number of James Bond-type ways of
securing the privacy of the code, from eye-scans to special paper
and a video camera to record who is coming and going.

After the Feb. 28 hearing, plaintiffs' attorney Mark P. Robinson
Jr. brushed off the U.S. Department of Transportation's
announcement earlier this month that NASA engineers found no
evidence that Toyota's sudden acceleration was caused by
electronic malfunctions.

Mr. Robinson pointed to the legal brief he filed on Feb. 22 in
which he argues the NASA report does not rule out problems with
the electronic throttle control systems in the recalled Toyota
vehicles.

Mr. Robinson said he is convinced the answer to the problems lies
in the source code.

In a separate matter, Judge Selna told the attorneys he will not
get involved with a sudden-acceleration lawsuit about to go to
trial next month in New York.

The first sudden acceleration lawsuits against Toyota in Santa Ana
are scheduled to go to trial in the first quarter of 2013.  Those
are called "bellwether" lawsuits that will help frame how to
handle the hundreds of claims that are being combined in the two
class action complaints for economic loss and personal injury.

Another issue brewing involves Judge Selna's ruling last month
that Toyota turn over the full records of the company's e-mails
regarding runaway vehicles.  Toyota has appealed to a panel of
"special master" judges who are refereeing legal conflicts.

Judge Selna agreed to consider to any reports from the special
masters.


TULANE UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Improperly Cleaned Endoscopes
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Tulane University Medical Center's improperly cleaned endoscopes
may have exposed patients to hepatitis and HIV from Oct. 7 to
Dec. 1, 2010.

A copy of the Complaint in Doe, et ux. v. University Healthcare
System, L.L.C. d/b/a Tulane University Medical Center and Clinic
and Indemnity Clinic, Case No. 2011-01924 (La. Civ. Dist. Ct.,
Parish of Orleans), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/28/Medical.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ron A. Austin, Esq.
          AUSTIN & ASSOCIATES, L.L.C.
          400 Manhattan Blvd.
          Harvey, LA 70058
          Telephone: 504-227-8100
          E-mail: raustin@austin-associates.net

               - and -

          Kara Hadican Samuels, Esq.
          Robert J. David, Esq.
          GAINSBURGH, BENJAMIN, DAVID MEUNIER & WARSHAUER, L.L.C.
          2800 Energy Centre, 1100 Poydras Street
          New Orleans, LA 70163-2800
          Telephone: 504-522-2304
          E-mail: ksamuels@gainsben.com


UNIT CORP: Appeal From Certification Order Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Unit Corporation's appeal from an order certifying a class action
lawsuit filed by royalty owners in oil and gas drilling and
spacing units 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.

Panola Independent School District No. 4, Michael Kilpatrick, Gwen
Grego, Carla Lessel, Thelma Christine Pate, Juanita Golightly,
Melody Culberson and Charlotte Abernathy are the Plaintiffs in the
case titled Panola Independent School District No. 4, et al., v.
Unit Petroleum Company, No. CJ-07-215, District Court of Latimer
County, Oklahoma, and are royalty owners in oil and gas drilling
and spacing units for which the Company's exploration segment
distributes royalty. The Plaintiffs' central allegation is that
the company's exploration segment has underpaid royalty
obligations by deducting post-production costs or marketing
related fees. Plaintiffs also seek to pursue the case as a class
action on behalf of persons who receive royalty from us for our
Oklahoma production. The Company has asserted several defenses
including that the deductions are permitted under Oklahoma law.
The Company has also asserted that the case should not be tried as
a class action due to the materially different circumstances that
determine what, if any, deductions are taken for each lease. On
December 16, 2009, the trial court entered its order certifying
the class. The Company has appealed the trial court's order. It is
not currently known when the appeal will be acted on by the
Oklahoma Appellate courts. Adjudication of the merits of the
Plaintiffs' claims is stayed until the appeal of the class
certification order is decided.

Unit Corporation -- http://www.unitcorp.com/-- is a contract
drilling company.  Its operations are conducted through its
subsidiaries, Unit Drilling Company, Unit Petroleum Company and
Superior Pipeline Company, L.L.C (Superior).  Unit Drilling
Company is engaged in drilling onshore oil and natural gas wells
for others and for the Company's own account.  Unit Petroleum
Company is engaged in the exploration, development, acquisition
and production of oil and natural gas properties for the
Company's own account (oil and natural gas), and Superior
Pipeline Company, L.L.C. buys, sells, gathers, processes and
treats natural gas for third parties and for its own account
(mid-stream).  During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, Unit acquired
interests in approximately 60,000 net undeveloped acres in the
Marcellus Shale Play.


VALERO ENERGY: Multi-District Litigation Still Pending in Kansas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valero Energy Corp. continues to defend itself from a multi-
district litigation case pending in a district court in Kansas,
according to the Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2010.

In 2006, a class action complaint was filed against the Company
and several other defendants engaged in the retail and wholesale
petroleum marketing business.  The complaint alleges that because
fuel volume increases with fuel temperature, the defendants
violated state consumer protection laws by failing to adjust the
volume or price of fuel when the fuel temperature exceeded 60
degrees Fahrenheit.  The complaints seek to certify classes of
retail consumers who purchased fuel in various locations.  The
complaints seek an order compelling the installation of
temperature correction devices as well as monetary relief.

Following the 2006 complaint, numerous other federal complaints
were filed, and there are now a total of 46 lawsuits of which 21
involve the Company.  (Valero Energy is named in classes involving
several states where it has no retail presence.)  The lawsuits are
consolidated into a multi-district litigation case in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City) (Multi-
District Litigation Docket No. 1840, In re: Motor Fuel Temperature
Sales Practices Litigation).  In May 2010, the court issued an
order in response to the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification of the Kansas cases.  The court certified an
"injunction class" covering non-monetary relief but deferred
ruling on a "damages class."   The court has scheduled trial in
the Kansas cases for May 2012.  The Company anticipates that the
non-Kansas cases will be remanded in late 2011 or early 2012 with
no additional rulings on the merits or class certification.
Valero Energy is a party to the Kansas cases but has no company-
owned retail locations in Kansas.

The Company believes that it has several strong defenses to these
lawsuits and intend to contest them.  It has not recorded a loss
contingency liability with respect to this matter but due to the
inherent uncertainty of litigation, the Company believes that it
is reasonably possible that it may suffer a loss with respect to
one or more of the lawsuits.  An estimate of the possible loss or
range of loss from an adverse result in all or substantially all
of these cases cannot reasonably be made.


VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Proctor Plaintiffs May Amend Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vishay Intertechnology Inc. continues to defend itself from a
class action lawsuit filed by stockholders of Siliconix, according
to the Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

In January 2005, an amended class action complaint was filed in
the Superior Court of California on behalf of all non-Vishay
stockholders of Siliconix against Vishay, Ernst & Young LLP (the
independent registered public accounting firm that audits the
Company's financial statements), Dr. Felix Zandman, Executive
Chairman and Chief Technical and Business Development Officer of
Vishay, and as a nominal defendant, Siliconix.  The suit made
various claims against Vishay and the other defendants for actions
allegedly taken in respect of Siliconix during the period when
Vishay owned an 80.4% interest in Siliconix.  The action, which is
referred to as the Proctor litigation on account of the lead
plaintiff, sought injunctive relief and unspecified damages.

In May 2005, Vishay successfully completed a tender offer to
acquire all shares of Siliconix that were not already owned by
Vishay.  Following the announcement of Vishay's intent to make
this tender offer, several purported class-action complaints were
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery.  These actions were
consolidated into a single class action and a settlement agreement
was reached with the plaintiffs, who effectively represented all
non-Vishay stockholders of Siliconix.  The settlement agreement
was approved by the Delaware Court of Chancery in October 2005.

The plaintiffs in the Proctor litigation filed an amended
complaint in the Superior Court of California in November 2005.
In June 2006, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued a permanent
injunction restraining the Proctor plaintiffs from prosecuting the
Proctor action.  An appeal of the injunction order brought by a
former stockholder of Siliconix was dismissed by the Delaware
Supreme Court in January 2007.

Also in June 2006, the Proctor litigation was removed from the
Superior Court of California to federal District Court there.  The
District Court granted a motion by Ernst & Young to dismiss the
complaint and a motion by Vishay for summary judgment, effective
October 15, 2007.  The Proctor plaintiffs thereafter filed a
Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  On
October 9, 2009, the Court of Appeals issued a decision affirming
the dismissal of Proctor's class action claim and remanded the
remaining two claims to state court.  On February 10, 2011, the
Superior Court ruled in Vishay's favor, but granted the plaintiff
20 days to amend its complaint.


WELLS FARGO: Class Action Over ATM Fee Notification Dropped
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Gilblom, writing for Puget Sound Business Journal, reports
that a woman who filed a lawsuit intended to be a class action
against Wells Fargo two weeks ago has dropped her claim that the
bank violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act when it charged her
a $3 ATM fee without notice.

According to Melody French's lawyer, Jeffrey Grant, she filed a
notice to dismiss her complaint in U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington when it turned out the ATM in
question, on Olive Way in downtown Seattle, did have the proper
notifications.

Originally Ms. French sought unspecified damages and believed "at
least thousands of people" had been affected by the lack of notice
on the machine.

Said Mr. Grant in an email: "It appears that the ATM in question
had both postings, so we appreciate Wells Fargo's prompt and
helpful response."


* Colorado Supreme Court Set to Hear 4 Class Actions This Week
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Masich, writing for Law Week Colorado, reports that the
Colorado Supreme Court hears oral arguments this week in 10 cases,
including issues of class certification in four class-action
lawsuits.

In State Farm v. Reyher, the insurance company seeks to reverse
the Court of Appeal's decision in favor of class certification.
The lawsuit stems from the case of Pauline Reyher, who was injured
in a car crash and got treatment from an orthopedic surgeon.  She
had no-fault insurance with State Farm, but the insurer refused to
pay the cost of her treatment that it deemed unreasonable.  Class
certification was denied by Otero County District Judge Jon
Kolmowitz, but the appeals court reversed in an opinion penned by
Judge Robert Hawthorne.

State Farm is represented by Aaron Van Oort, Michael McCarthy,
Todd Walker and Sarah Mastalir of Faegre & Benson, and H. Barton
Mendenhall, II, of Mendenhall & Malouff.  The plaintiffs are
represented by Robert Carey, Megan Waples, Leif Garrison and Craig
Valentine of The Carey Law Firm; Todd Travis of Todd A. Travis,
P.C.; and John Gehlhausen of the Law Offices of John Gehlhausen.

There are a number of amicus briefs.  Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell's
Mal Wheeler is one of the lawyers on an amicus brief for the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce and American Tort Reform Association.  Eric
Elliff, now a Denver district judge, did an amicus for the
Colorado Civil Justice League when he was with Husch Blackwell.

In Garcia v. Medved Chevrolet, Trina Garcia seeks to reverse the
Court of Appeal's denial of class certification.  Ms. Garcia's
complaint alleges customers either paid for but didn't receive
dealer-added products on new cars, or received the products
without being told that their cost was added to the cost of the
vehicle.  Ms. Garcia lacked a class-wide theory of injury and
therefore couldn't serve as a class representative, wrote Judge
Dennis Graham in the appeals court's opinion that reversed
Jefferson County District Court Judge Jane Tidball.

Medved is represented by Daniel Friesen of Friesen Lamb and Peter
Krumholz of Hale Westfall (both formerly with Hale Friesen).
Garcia is represented by Dan Reilly, Eric Fisher, Caleb Durling,
Laurie Jaeckel and Sean Connelly of Reilly Pozner; and Dennis Polk
of Holley Albertson & Polk. There are several amicus briefs.

In BP America v. Patterson, the oil giant is seeking to reverse
the Court of Appeals decision affirming class certification in a
lawsuit over deductions of postproduction costs from royalty
payments that BP paid.  Denver District Chief Judge Larry Naves
originally approved class certification, and Judge Rich Gabriel
wrote the appeals opinion to affirm.

BP is represented by Scott Barker of Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell and
Rachel Yates of Holland & Hart.  The plaintiffs are represented by
George A. Barton and Charles Carpenter.

In all three cases, the Supreme Court will decide whether the
Court of Appeals erred in either affirming or reversing class
certification.

In Jackson v. Unocal Corp., certiorari was granted on three
issues: Whether the court of appeals erred by creating a
"preponderance of the evidence" burden of proof in the
certification of a class pursuant to C.R.C.P. 23.; whether the
court of appeals erred by requiring the trial court to assess the
credibility of expert testimony at the class certification stage;
and whether the court of appeals' construction of C.R.C.P. 23
improperly invaded the trial court's case management discretion.

The petitioners are represented by Kevin Hanson and Justin Blum of
The Hannon Law Firm, and Richard Brentlinger and Eric Voogt of
Inman Flynn Biesterfeld & Brentlinger.  Unocal Corp. is
represented by Stephen Masciocchi, John Ramey and Rachel Yates of
Holland & Hart.


                             *********

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  * * *