CAR_Public/110308.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, March 8, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 47

                             Headlines

ACE LIMITED: Court to Rule on Motions to Dismiss This Year
ACE LIMITED: "Van Emden" Suit Still Stayed Pending N.J. Cases
ADT SECURITY: Removes "Faulkner" Complaint to N.D. Calif.
AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Suit in Massachusetts Still Pending
AOSOM LLC: Recalls 5,000 Wooden Playpens

AT&T INC: Decision on Phantom Data Class Action Expected by June
CASH AMERICA: Appeal From "Strong" Suit Certification Pending
CASH AMERICA: Continues to Defend "Alfeche" Suit in Pennsylvania
CASH AMERICA: Continues to Defend "Clerk" Suit in Pennsylvania
CASHCALL INC: Sued for Making Loans Without Banking License

CBS CORP: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
CIGNA HEALTH CARE: Faces Gender Discrimination Class Action
CITIGROUP INC: Continues to Defend Securities Litigation
CITIGROUP INC: Continues to Defend Bond Litigation
CITIGROUP INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated ERISA Suit

CITIGROUP INC: Continues to Defend Interchange Fee Litigation
CITIGROUP INC: Motion to Dismiss Customer Class Suit Pending
COMMENCE CORP: Suit Over Software Won't Proceed as Class Action
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Practices
CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Continues to Face SRAM Class Suit

DAVITA INC: California Court Approves Claims Settlement
DAVITA INC: Subsidiary Still Faces Blue Cross Suit in Louisiana
DAVITA INC: Subsidiary Still Faces Labor Violations Suit in Calif.
DE BEERS: Awaits $293 Million Class Action Settlement Order
DELL INC: Faces Class Action Over Inspiron Notebook Defects

DUKE ENERGY: Awaits Final Court Okay of ERISA Class Settlement
FINE FARE: Faces Class Action Over Non-Payment of Proper Wages
FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Discovery in "Coffey" Suit Nears Completion
GAMESTOP CORP: Accused in Calif. Suit of Defrauding Customers
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Awaits Court Approval of ERISA Suit Settlement

HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Arbitration Hearing in Oregon Suit Set for May
HSBC BANK: Accused of Collecting "Excessive" Overdraft Fees
IKEA HOME: Recalls 128,000 FORSTA Coffee/Tea Makers
ITRON INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Washington

LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: Awaits Final Court OK of "Koyle" Suit Pact
LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: Colorado Securities Suit Remains Pending
LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Defend "Walter" Suit in Colo.
LIEBHERR: Recalls 5,702 Wide Bottom Freezer Refrigerators
MANHATTAN GROUP: Recalls 400 Parents(R) Busy Time Activity Centers

MYTRAVEL CANADA: Judge Okays Norovirus Class Action Settlement
NVR INC: Employee Class Suits Remain Stayed Pending N.Y. Action
PENN NATIONAL: Appeal From Dismissal of Class Suit Still Pending
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Turner Law Firm Files Class Action
POTASH CORP: BHP-Related Securities Suits Dismissed

QUESTAR CAPITAL: Judge Dismisses Investors' Class Action
REPROS THERAPEUTICS: 2009 Securities Class Action Dismissed
RHINO TOYS: Recalls 28,000 Links & Mini Rattles (TM)
SEACOR HOLDINGS: Discovery in Delaware Antitrust Suit Completed
SEACOR HOLDINGS: Liability Limitation Petitions Stay "Robin" Case

SEACOR HOLDINGS: To Seek Dismissal of "Wunstell" Suit
SEACOR HOLDINGS: To Seek Dismissal of "Deepwater Horizon" Suit
SKYWEST INC: ExpressJet Suit Settlement Hearing Set for April 14
TEKELEC: Faces Securities Class Action Suit in North Carolina
VECTOR GROUP: Trial in "Brown" Suit to Start May 6

VECTOR GROUP: Appeal From "Cleary" Suit Dismissal Remains Pending
VECTOR GROUP: "Parsons" Suit Remains Stayed in West Virginia
VECTOR GROUP: "Young" Suit Remains Stayed in Louisiana
VECTOR GROUP: Continues to Defend "Smith" Suit in Kansas
WELLCARE SECURITIES: May 4 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

WHOLE FOODS: Continues to Defend "Kottaras" Suit
WISCONSIN ENERGY: Amended Complaint Over Pension Plan Pending
XL GROUP: Awaits Court Decision on Motions to Dismiss N.J. Suit

* U.S. FDA Removes Unapproved Drugs Involved in Class Action



                             *********


ACE LIMITED: Court to Rule on Motions to Dismiss This Year
----------------------------------------------------------
An MDL Court has indicated that it will issue a decision in 2011
regarding ACE Limited and its co-defendants' requests to dismiss
remaining claims in a commercial insurance complaint, 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.

The Company, ACE INA Holdings, Inc. and ACE USA, Inc., along with
a number of other insurers and brokers, were named in a series of
federal putative nationwide class actions brought by insurance
policyholders.  The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(JPML) consolidated these cases in the District of New Jersey. On
August 1, 2005, plaintiffs in the New Jersey consolidated
proceedings filed two consolidated amended complaints -- one
concerning commercial insurance and the other concerning employee
benefit plans.  The employee benefit plans litigation against ACE
has been dismissed.

In the commercial insurance complaint, the plaintiffs named the
Company, ACE INA Holdings, Inc., ACE USA, Inc., ACE American
Insurance Co., Illinois Union Insurance Co., and Indemnity
Insurance Co. of North America.  They allege that certain brokers
and insurers, including certain ACE entities, conspired to
increase premiums and allocate customers through the use of "B"
quotes and contingent commissions.  In addition, the complaints
allege that the broker defendants received additional income by
improperly placing their clients' business with insurers through
related wholesale entities that acted as intermediaries between
the broker and insurer.  Plaintiffs also allege that broker
defendants tied the purchase of primary insurance to the placement
of such coverage with reinsurance carriers through the broker
defendants' reinsurance broker subsidiaries.  The complaint
asserts the following causes of action against ACE: Federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), federal
antitrust law, state antitrust law, aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.

In 2006 and 2007, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' first two
attempts to properly plead a case without prejudice and permitted
plaintiffs one final opportunity to re-plead.  The amended
complaint, filed on May 22, 2007, purported to add several new ACE
defendants: ACE Group Holdings, Inc., ACE US Holdings, Inc.,
Westchester Fire Insurance Company, INA Corporation, INA Financial
Corporation, INA Holdings Corporation, ACE Property and Casualty
Insurance Company, and Pacific Employers Insurance Company.
Plaintiffs also added a new antitrust claim against Marsh, ACE,
and other insurers based on the same allegations as the other
claims but limited to excess casualty insurance.  On June 21,
2007, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint and moved
to strike the new parties.  The Court granted defendants' motions
and dismissed plaintiffs' antitrust and RICO claims with prejudice
on August 31, 2007, and September 28, 2007, respectively.  The
Court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
plaintiffs' state law claims and dismissed those claims without
prejudice.  Plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.  On August 16, 2010, the Third
Circuit affirmed, in part, and vacated, in part, the District
Court's previous dismissals with instructions for further briefing
at the District Court on remand.  Defendants have renewed their
motions to dismiss, and the District Court has indicated that it
will issue a decision in 2011.


ACE LIMITED: "Van Emden" Suit Still Stayed Pending N.J. Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit against ACE Limited's subsidiary captioned Van Emden
Management Corporation v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., et
al., is still stayed pending resolution of the consolidated
proceedings in New Jersey or until further order, 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.

Van Emden Management Corporation v. Marsh & McLennan Companies,
Inc., et al., a class action in Massachusetts, was filed on
January 13, 2005.  Illinois Union Insurance Company is named a
defendant. The Van Emden case has been stayed pending resolution
of the consolidated proceedings in the District of New Jersey or
until further order of the Court.


ADT SECURITY: Removes "Faulkner" Complaint to N.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
John Faulkner, on hehalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. ADT Security Services, Inc., et al., Case No. CIV502920(Calif.
Super. Ct. San Mateo Cty.), was filed on Feb. 3, 2011.  The
plaintiff accuses the security systems provider of recording his
telephone conversations without first obtaining his consent, thus
violating California's Invasion of Privacy Laws.

Mr. Faulkner relates that on March 4, 2010, he phoned ADT to
dispute a charge assessed by ADT.  ADT's "technical line"
representative informed him that his telephone conversation was
being recorded to which he replied that he had not given his
consent to the recording of his conversation and that he did not
wish to continue the conversation if ADT was going to record it.
As advised by ADT's representative, he then called ADT's customer
service line,  The customer representative informed him that if he
would not consent to the recording of his telephone conversation,
then he would need to hang up the telephone.

On the basis of diversity jurisdiction, ADT Security Services,
Inc., and ADT Security Systems, West, Inc., on March 2, 2011,
removed the lawsuit to the Northern District of California, and
the Clerk assigned Case No. 11-cv-00968 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian R. Strange, Esq.
          Gretchen Carpenter, Esq.
          Tamina Madsen, Esq.
          STRANGE & CARPENTER
          12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 207-5055
          E-mail: lacounsel@earthlink.net
                  gcarpenter@strangeandcarpenter.com
                  tmadsen@strangeandcarpenter.com

ADT is represented by:

          Henry P. "Hap" Weitzel, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Goldman, Esq.
          PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
          4 Park Plaza, Suite 1200
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 567-3500
          E-mail: weitzelh@pepperlaw.com
                  goldmanj@pepperlaw.com


AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Suit in Massachusetts Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed by stockholders of AMAG
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is still pending in Massachusetts,
according to the Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2010.

A purported class action complaint was originally filed on
March 18, 2010, in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, entitled Silverstrand Investments v.
AMAG Pharm., Inc., et. al., Civil Action No. 1:10-CV-10470-NMG,
and was amended on September 15, 2010.  The amended complaint
alleges that AMAG and its president and chief executive officer,
executive vice president and chief financial officer, its Board of
Directors, or Board, and certain underwriters in its January 2010
offering of common stock violated certain federal securities laws,
specifically Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, and that the Company president and chief
executive officer and executive vice president and chief financial
officer violated Section 15 of the Act, by making certain alleged
false and misleading statements and omissions in a registration
statement filed in January 2010.  The plaintiff seeks unspecified
damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock pursuant to its common stock offering on
January 21, 2010.  The Court has not set a trial date for this
matter.  The Company believes that the allegations contained in
the complaint are without merit and intend to defend the case
vigorously.


AOSOM LLC: Recalls 5,000 Wooden Playpens
----------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
AOSOM LLC, of Tualatin, Ore., announced a voluntary recall of
about 5,000 Wooden Playpens.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The wooden playpen can break, split and/or crack at points where
screws and other hardware are located.  Small, broken wood pieces
and hardware from the playpen can pose a risk of choking and
laceration hazards to children.  In addition, an unstable playpen
can fall over onto a child, posing an entrapment hazard.

AOSOM has received 69 reports of the wooden playpens breaking,
splitting and/or cracking including one report of a child mouthing
a piece of the broken wood and three reports of children found
with a broken piece of wood and/or screw in their hand.  The
objects were removed without injury.

This recall involves AOSOM wooden playpens made from pine wood.
The firm's logo "A" and "http://www.AOSOM.com/"is stamped on the
gate of the playpen.  The following four models are included in
this recall:

   AOSOM Playpen                        Model Number   Price
   -------------                        ------------   -----
AOSOM 3in1 Baby wooden Superyard
Playpen Combo                           5664-0017S&G   149.99

AOSOM Baby 8 Panel Wooden Playpen
Room Divider                            5664-0017      119.99

AOSOM Baby 8 Sided Wooden
Playpen 2 Panels                        5664-0017S      29.99

AOSOM Baby 8 Sided Wooden
Playpen Gate                            5664-0017G      29.99

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through

    http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11155.html

Consumers should immediately stop using the wooden playpens and
contact AOSOM for instructions on how to return the product and
receive a full refund.  For additional information, contact the
firm toll-free at (877) 644-9366 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,
Pacific Time, Monday through Friday, or e-mail the firm at
service@aosom.com.  Consumers can also visit the firm's Web site
at http://www.aosom.com/


AT&T INC: Decision on Phantom Data Class Action Expected by June
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Emspak, writing for IBTimes.com, reports that a class action
suit filed against AT&T's wireless division for "phantom data"
charges will have to wait for a decision from the Supreme Court
before proceeding.

A California man, Patrick Hendricks, filed a lawsuit against AT&T
in February, saying the company was engaged in "systematic
overcharging."  The suit calls AT&T's billing system "a rigged gas
pump," that overstates data usage by small amounts that add up
over the course of a monthly billing cycle.  The plaintiff said
the phone (an iPhone) was registering data usage even when it was
turned off.  AT&T said it has ways for customers to resolve
billing disputes already and does its best to allow customers to
track data usage.

This week the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California granted a stay in the case -- basically putting it on
hold -- until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on another dispute
between AT&T and a wireless customer.

In AT&T v. Concepcion, originally filed in 2006, Vincent and Liza
Concepcion, a California couple, filed suit against AT&T because
they were charged $30.22 for a "free" phone.  The money was a fee
that they said was not disclosed to them beforehand.  The couple
contends that AT&T violated California's consumer protection laws.

AT&T's cell phone contracts has a clause that forbade customers
from bring or taking part in class actions, and only allowed for
individual arbitration claims.  Arbitration claims are made
outside the court system, and often offer a simpler and cheaper
way for parties to resolve disputes than lawsuits.

The courts in California said that provision was "unconscionable,"
which essentially means that it is so unfair that it can't be
enforced, as it would essentially prevent anybody from bringing
suits against companies that had injured them.

AT&T is arguing that Federal laws that encourage arbitration pre-
empt state laws that allow for class actions.  Allowing the
Concepcions to file a class action would undermine arbitration
agreements in California. The Concepcions argue that many states
have provisions like California's and the state law does not
discriminate against arbitration.

If the California decision is struck down then it could make it
more difficult for plaintiffs to file class actions in cases of
overbilling, as in the phantom data case.  The contract signed
with AT&T could limit people to claiming the relatively small
amounts individually, and the cost of litigation could deter
customers from filing suits.  Upholding the California court's
decision would make it easier for Hendricks' suit to go forward.

Phantom data has been a problem for other smartphones as well.
Windows Phone 7 has had reports of transmitting such data and
running up huge bills when linked with the Yahoo! mail client.  If
the Hendricks suit proceeds other carriers might also find
themselves vulnerable to suits.

A decision is expected by June.


CASH AMERICA: Appeal From "Strong" Suit Certification Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cash America International Inc.'s appeal from the class
certification ruling in the lawsuit brought by James E. Strong
remains pending before the Georgia Supreme Court.

On August 6, 2004, James E. Strong filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia, against
Georgia Cash America, Inc., Cash America International, Inc.,
Daniel R. Feehan, and several unnamed officers, directors, owners
and "stakeholders" of Cash America.  The lawsuit alleges many
different causes of action, among the most significant of which is
that Cash America made illegal short-term loans in Georgia in
violation of Georgia's usury law, the Georgia Industrial Loan Act
and Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
Community State Bank ("CSB") for some time made loans to Georgia
residents through Cash America's Georgia operating locations.  The
complaint in the lawsuit claims that Cash America was the true
lender with respect to the loans made to Georgia borrowers and
that CSB's involvement in the process is "a mere subterfuge."
Based on this claim, the suit alleges that Cash America was the
"de facto" lender and was illegally operating in Georgia.  The
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's fees,
punitive damages and the trebling of any compensatory damages.  In
November 2009, the trial court certified the case as a class
action lawsuit, and Cash America appealed the certification.  In
October 2010, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's grant
of class certification and Cash America further appealed the class
certification ruling to the Georgia Supreme Court where a decision
is still pending.

No further updates were reported in 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.

Cash America believes that the Plaintiffs' claims in the suit are
without merit and is vigorously defending this lawsuit.

Cash America offers specialty financial services to consumers.


CASH AMERICA: Continues to Defend "Alfeche" Suit in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cash America International Inc.'s continues to defend itself in a
class action lawsuit, alleging illegal loan activities, filed by
Peter Alfeche in Pennsylvania in 2009.

On March 5, 2009, Peter Alfeche filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania against Cash America International, Inc.,
Cash America Net of Nevada, LLC, Cash America Net of Pennsylvania,
LLC and Cash America of PA, LLC, d/b/a CashNetUSA.com --
collectively, CashNetUSA.  The lawsuit alleges, among other
things, that CashNetUSA's online consumer loan activities in
Pennsylvania were illegal and not in accordance with the
Pennsylvania Loan Interest Protection Law or the licensing
requirements of the Pennsylvania Consumer Discount Company Act or
CDCA.  The lawsuit also seeks declaratory judgment that several of
CashNetUSA's contractual provisions, including choice of law and
arbitration provisions, are not authorized by Pennsylvania law.
The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's
fees and the trebling of any compensatory damages.  CashNetUSA
filed a motion to enforce the arbitration provision located in the
agreements governing the lending activities, and the Court has not
yet ruled on the motion.

No updates were reported in Cash America's February 25, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Cash America says the Alfeche litigation is still at an early
stage, and neither the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor
the ultimate liability, if any, with respect to the litigation can
be determined at this time.  CashNetUSA believes that the
Plaintiffs' claims in the suit are without merit and will
vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Cash America offers specialty financial services to consumers.


CASH AMERICA: Continues to Defend "Clerk" Suit in Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cash America International Inc.'s subsidiary, Cash America Net of
Nevada, LLC, continues to defend itself in a class action lawsuit
commenced by Yulon Clerk in Pennsylvania in 2009.

On April 21, 2009, Yulon Clerk filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
Pennsylvania, against CashNet Nevada and several other unrelated
third-party lenders.  The lawsuit alleges, among other things,
that the defendants' lending activities in Pennsylvania, including
CashNet Nevada's online consumer loan lending activities in
Pennsylvania, were illegal and in violation of various
Pennsylvania laws, including the Loan Interest Protection Law, the
Pennsylvania Consumer Discount Company Act and the Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Laws.  The complaint seeks
payment of potential fines, unspecified damages, attorney's fees
and the trebling of certain damages.  The defendants removed the
case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania where the lawsuit now resides.  The case was
subsequently reassigned to the same judge presiding in a similar
litigation commenced by Peter Alfeche.  In August 2009, the Court
severed the claims against the other defendants originally named
in the litigation.  CashNet Nevada filed a motion with the federal
court to enforce the arbitration provision located in the
agreements governing the lending activities, and the Court has not
yet ruled on the motion.

No updates were reported in Cash America's February 25, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

The Clerk litigation is still at an early stage, and neither the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor the ultimate liability,
if any, with respect to the litigation can be determined at this
time, Cash America relates.  CashNet Nevada believes that the
Plaintiffs' claims in the suit are without merit and will
vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Cash America offers specialty financial services to consumers.


CASHCALL INC: Sued for Making Loans Without Banking License
-----------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Teager and Rachel Johnson, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. CashCall, Inc., Case No.
2011-CH-07808 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. March 2, 2011), allege
violations of the Consumer Installment Loan Act, 205 ILCS 670/1
("CILA"), and the Illinois Interest Act, 815 ILCS 205/4 ("Interest
Act").  The plaintiffs accuse CashCall of making or arranging
high-interest loans to consumers over the Internet, without a
banking charter or a license under the Illinois lending statute.
Furthermore, plaintiffs state that the loans obtained from
CashCall provided for charges in excess of those authorized under
CILA, such as a late fee of $29 on payments of $216.55, and
collected interest at more than 9% interest.

Plaintiffs, both residents of Illinois, relate that each obtained
a loan made or arranged by CashCall at a rate exceeding 9%, for
personal, family or household purposes.  After obtaining the
loans, plaintiffs received form loan agreements that purport to
state that the loans were made by First Bank of Delaware.
Plaintiffs say they have never dealt with First Bank of Delaware.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Cassandra P. Miller, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200


CBS CORP: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation continues to await a court ruling on its motion to
dismiss an amended securities class action complaint in New York.

On December 12, 2008, the City of Pontiac General Employees'
Retirement System filed a self-styled class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer, Chief
Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer, and Treasurer,
alleging violations of federal securities law.  The complaint,
which was filed on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between February 26, 2008 and October 10,
2008, alleges that, among other things, the Company's failure to
timely write down the value of certain assets caused the Company's
reported operating results during the Class Period to be
materially inflated.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory
damages.  On February 11, 2009, a motion was filed in the case on
behalf of The City of Omaha, Nebraska Civilian Employees'
Retirement System, and The City of Omaha Police and Fire
Retirement System -- collectively, the "Omaha Funds" -- seeking to
appoint the Omaha Funds as the lead plaintiffs in this case; on
March 5, 2009, the court granted that motion.  On May 4, 2009, the
plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which removes the Treasurer
as a defendant and adds the Executive Chairman.  On July 13, 2009,
all defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action.  On March 16,
2010, the court granted the Company's motion and dismissed the
action as to the Company and all defendants.  On April 30, 2010,
the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to serve an amended
complaint.  On September 23, 2010, the court issued an order
granting leave to amend.  On October 8, 2010, the Company was
served with an Amended Complaint, which redefines the Class Period
to be April 29, 2008 to October 10, 2008 and alleges that the
impairment charge should have been taken during the first quarter
of 2008.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint on November 19, 2010.

No updates were reported in 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.

The Company believes that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit
and intends to vigorously defend itself in the litigation.


CIGNA HEALTH CARE: Faces Gender Discrimination Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gender discrimination in the form of a hostile work environment
and differential treatment of males and females occurs company-
wide at CIGNA Health Care Inc., according to a class action
compliant filed by a female CIGNA employee in the U.S. District
Court for Massachusetts on March 3.

Longtime CIGNA Provider Contracting Manager Bretta Karp filed the
complaint on behalf of herself and a class of female employees in
the United States under Title VII of the 1964 federal Civil Rights
Act and Massachusetts law.  She is represented in the matter by
David W. Sanford, Kristen L. Walsh and Catharine Edwards of
Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP, Washington, D.C.

The firm recently secured the largest jury award in the U.S. in an
employment discrimination case in May 2010 when a jury returned a
verdict of $253 million in compensatory and punitive damage
against Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.  After weeks of
negotiations, the parties settled the case for $175 million.

According to the CIGNA complaint, CIGNA discriminates against
Ms. Karp and other female employees by treating them less
favorably than its male employees in similar positions and by
subjecting all females to intentional, deliberate and willful
discriminatory denials of promotions and pay raises,
discriminatory evaluations, disparate terms and conditions of
work, harassment, hostile work environments, and other forms of
discrimination in callous disregard of their rights.

The complaint further details that CIGNA has created a hostile
work environment where male supervisors harass and intimidate
female employees, where management has made clear that it favors
male employees over women, and where company investigations into
complaints made by female employees are either nonexistent or
superficial and inadequate.

"This suit seeks to remedy the effects of this discrimination on
Ms. Karp and the lives, careers and working conditions of all
other female employees, as well as to implement substantive
changes company-wide to prevent continued gender discrimination at
CIGNA," said David Sanford, partner at Sanford Wittels & Heisler
and lead counsel in the case.

The complaint seeks certification of two classes -- a national
class and a State of Massachusetts class comprising current and
former female CIGNA employees.  Ms. Karp is the Class
Representative and a member of both classes.

Ms. Karp joined CIGNA as a Contract Manager in 1997 after the
company acquired her former employer, Healthsource Inc.  Between
1997 and 2004, Ms. Karp held various jobs -- including Director,
Assistant Vice President of Contracting and Senior Contract
Negotiator -- for CIGNA's Vermont, Massachusetts and Rhode Island
territories.  Since 2010, Ms. Karp has been the Provider
Contracting Manager for CIGNA's Massachusetts and Rhode Island
provider network comprising hospital systems and physician and
other health care profession groups.  The Complaint asserts that
pervasive gender discrimination at CIGNA prevented Ms. Karp from
advancing into higher and better paying positions and subjected
her to active and ongoing gender hostility from her male co-
workers.

Despite stellar annual performance reviews, in 2004, Ms. Karp's
salary level was downgraded without explanation while male
employees with her same qualifications were put in a higher level
salary band.  In addition, in 2010, Ms. Karp's territory
responsibilities were reduced and a less qualified male employee
was assigned to the territory she has successfully managed for 13
years and in that same year she was denied a promotion for which
she applied due to "a style thing," according to  a senior
director at CIGNA involved in filling that position.

The complaint seeks an award of compensatory, nominal and punitive
damages to Ms. Karp and the members of both classes in an amount
of not less than $100 million, along with litigation costs and
expenses and prejudgment interest and ongoing oversight by the
Court until the requested employment reforms are in place.

CIGNA Healthcare, Inc. is a global health organization
headquartered in Philadelphia.  Its core businesses are health
care products and services and group disability, life, health and
accident insurance. The company's full-year revenues in 2009 were
$18.4 billion.

Sanford Wittels & Heisler LLP (SWH) -- http://www.swhlegal.com/--
is a boutique class-action litigation law firm with offices in New
York, Washington, D.C., and San Francisco.  SWH specializes in
civil rights and general public interest cases, representing
plaintiffs with employment discrimination, labor and wage
violations, predatory lending, whistleblower, consumer fraud, and
other claims.  Along with an expertise in class actions, SWH also
represents select individuals and has developed a particular
expertise in the representation of executives in employment
disputes.


CITIGROUP INC: Continues to Defend Securities Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. continues to defend itself in a consolidated class
action lawsuits filed by purchasers of the Company's securities,
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.

Citigroup and Related Parties have been named as defendants in
four putative class actions filed in the Southern District of New
York. These actions allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On August 19, 2008, these
actions were consolidated under the caption IN RE CITIGROUP INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION. In this action, lead plaintiffs assert
claims on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Citigroup
stock from January 1, 2004 through January 15, 2009.

On November 9, 2010, the district court issued an order and
opinion granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion to
dismiss the amended consolidated class action complaint. The court
dismissed all claims except those arising out of Citigroup's
exposure to CDOs for the time period February 1, 2007 through
April 18, 2008. Fact discovery has begun. A class certification
motion has not yet been filed, and plaintiffs have not yet
quantified the putative class's alleged damages. During the
putative class period, as narrowed by the court, the price of
Citigroup's common stock declined from $54.73 at the beginning of
the period to $25.11 at the end of the period. Additional
information relating to this action is publicly available in court
filings under the consolidated lead docket number 07 Civ. 9901
(S.D.N.Y.) (Stein, J.).

Based in New York, Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C) -- is a global
diversified financial services holding company whose businesses
provide a broad range of financial services to consumer and
corporate customers.


CITIGROUP INC: Continues to Defend Bond Litigation
--------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. continues to defend itself in a consolidated class
action lawsuit filed by purchasers of the Company's notes,
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.

Citigroup and Related Parties have been named as defendants in two
putative class actions filed in New York state court, but since
removed to the Southern District of New York. These actions allege
violations of Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, arising out of various offerings of Citigroup notes during
2006, 2007 and 2008. On December 10, 2008, these actions were
consolidated under the caption IN RE CITIGROUP INC. BOND
LITIGATION. In the consolidated action, lead plaintiffs assert
claims on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of 48 corporate
debt securities, preferred stock, and interests in preferred stock
issued by Citigroup and related issuers over a two-year period
from 2006 to 2008. On July 12, 2010, the district court issued an
order and opinion granting in part and denying in part defendants'
motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint. The
court, among other things, dismissed plaintiffs' claims under
Section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, but denied defendants'
motion to dismiss certain claims under Section 11 of that Act. A
motion for partial reconsideration of the latter ruling is
pending. Fact discovery has begun. A class certification motion
has not yet been filed, and plaintiffs have not yet quantified the
putative class's alleged damages. Additional information relating
to this action is publicly available in court filings under the
consolidated lead docket number 08 Civ. 9522 (S.D.N.Y.) (Stein,
J.).

Based in New York, Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C) -- is a global
diversified financial services holding company whose businesses
provide a broad range of financial services to consumer and
corporate customers.


CITIGROUP INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. continues to defend itself in a consolidated class
action lawsuit asserting claims under the Employee Retirement
Security Act, 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.

Numerous class actions were filed in the Southern District of New
York asserting claims under ERISA against Citigroup and certain
Citigroup employees alleged to have served as ERISA plan
fiduciaries. On August 31, 2009, the court granted defendants'
motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint,
captioned IN RE CITIGROUP ERISA LITIGATION. Plaintiffs have
appealed the dismissal, and the appeal is fully briefed and
argued. Additional information relating to this action is publicly
available in court filings under the consolidated lead docket
number 07 Civ. 9790 (S.D.N.Y.) (Stein, J.) and under GRAY v.
CITIGROUP INC., 09-3804 (2d Cir.).

Based in New York, Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C) -- is a global
diversified financial services holding company whose businesses
provide a broad range of financial services to consumer and
corporate customers.


CITIGROUP INC: Continues to Defend Interchange Fee Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. continues to defend itself in a consolidated class
action lawsuit related to interchange fees, 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.

Beginning in 2005, several putative class actions were filed
against Citigroup and Related Parties, together with Visa,
MasterCard and other banks and their affiliates, in various
federal district courts. These actions were consolidated with
other related cases in the Eastern District of New York and
captioned IN RE PAYMENT CARD INTERCHANGE FEE AND MERCHANT DISCOUNT
ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The plaintiffs in the consolidated class
action are merchants that accept Visa- and MasterCard-branded
payment cards, as well as membership associations that claim to
represent certain groups of merchants. The pending complaint
alleges, among other things, that defendants have engaged in
conspiracies to set the price of interchange and merchant discount
fees on credit and debit card transactions in violation of Section
1 of the Sherman Act. The complaint also alleges additional
Sherman Act and California law violations, including alleged
unlawful maintenance of monopoly power and alleged unlawful
contracts in restraint of trade pertaining to various Visa and
MasterCard rules governing merchant conduct (including rules
allegedly affecting merchants' ability, at the point of sale, to
surcharge payment card transactions or steer customers to
particular payment cards). In addition, supplemental complaints
filed against defendants in the class action allege that Visa's
and MasterCard's respective initial public offerings were
anticompetitive and violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act, and
that MasterCard's initial public offering constituted a fraudulent
conveyance.

Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief as well as joint and several
liability for treble their damages, including all interchange fees
paid to all Visa and MasterCard members with respect to Visa and
MasterCard transactions in the U.S. since at least January 1,
2004. Certain publicly available documents estimate that Visa- and
MasterCard-branded cards generated approximately $40 billion in
interchange fees industry-wide in 2009. Defendants dispute that
the manner in which interchange and merchant discount fees are
set, or the rules governing merchant conduct, are anticompetitive.
Fact and expert discovery has closed. Defendants' motions to
dismiss the pending class action complaint and the supplemental
complaints are pending. Also pending are plaintiffs' motion to
certify nationwide classes consisting of all U.S. merchants that
accept Visa- and MasterCard-branded payment cards and motions by
both plaintiffs and defendants for summary judgment. Additional
information relating to these consolidated actions is publicly
available in court filings under the docket number MDL 05-1720
(E.D.N.Y.) (Gleeson, J.).

Based in New York, Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C) -- is a global
diversified financial services holding company whose businesses
provide a broad range of financial services to consumer and
corporate customers.


CITIGROUP INC: Motion to Dismiss Customer Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc.'s motion to dismiss a customer class action lawsuit
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.

In March 2004, a putative research-related customer class action
alleging various state law claims arising out of the issuance of
allegedly misleading research analyst reports concerning numerous
issuers was filed against certain Citigroup entities in Illinois
state court.  Citigroup's motion to dismiss the complaint is
pending.

Based in New York, Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C) -- is a global
diversified financial services holding company whose businesses
provide a broad range of financial services to consumer and
corporate customers.


COMMENCE CORP: Suit Over Software Won't Proceed as Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a consumer fraud suit alleging that a deliberately placed "time
bomb" caused a law firm's management software to shut down can't
proceed as a class action, at least for now, a federal judge ruled
on Feb. 28.

Kalow & Springut, an 11-lawyer New York intellectual property
firm, had used software made by Commence Corp. of Tinton Falls for
six years when it stopped working on March 20, 2006, according to
the suit, Kalow & Springut v. Commence Corp., 3:07-cv-03442.

The firm, bringing counts under the federal Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act and New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, contends that
Commence intentionally designed the software to shut down so users
would be compelled to buy upgrades and that thousands of other
users of the software nationwide suffered crashes on that date.

Kalow & Springut became reliant on the software -- which managed
its client records, timekeeping, patent docketing and calendaring
-- because data entered into the program is converted into a
unique, proprietary format that is not readily converted for use
in other programs, the suit says.

"When your whole system goes down, it creates huge problems.
You're missing all sorts of data," says the plaintiff's attorney,
Peter Pearlman of Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Herrman & Knopf in
Saddle Brook.

Commence eventually provided a patch that restored operation for
users of newer versions of its software, but users of older
versions, like Kalow & Springut, had to buy the program's latest
version at a cost of $15,211, and all users incurred thousands of
dollars in losses from lost productivity and wages or fees paid to
computer consultants, the suit says.

The firm sought certification on behalf of all users of networked
Commence software on March 20, 2006.  Alternatively, it sought
certification of two subclasses -- one of users who had to buy an
upgrade to apply the patch, and the other of users who could use
the patch without an upgrade.

The suit was brought as a putative class action under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3), and District Judge Freda Wolfson found the
class met the requirements under 23(a) -- numerosity, commonality,
typicality and adequacy.

Numerosity was not a problem because the number of customers in
the class is about 15,000 and each proposed subclass is at least
40 members, meeting the requirement set in Stewart v. Abraham ,
275 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 2001), Judge Wolfson said

She rejected Commence's assertions that variations in the software
problem's impact on users meant the commonality and typicality
requirements were not met.  And meeting the commonality and
typicality requirements demonstrated that Kalow & Springut was
adequate to represent the class, she said.

Judge Wolfson also found the proposed class met Rule 23(b)(3)'s
requirement that a class action is superior to other methods of
adjudication, citing claims that would likely range from less than
$100 to tens of thousands of dollars.

But Judge Wolfson found that since the firm failed to conduct an
analysis into whether New Jersey law should apply to class members
nationwide, it failed to meet the Rule 23(b)(3) requirement that
questions of law or fact common to class members predominated over
questions affecting only individual members.

She agreed with Commence that, with respect to the plaintiff's
consumer fraud claim, a court would have to decide whether New
Jersey's statute should apply to a nationwide class.

Kalow & Springut argued that because Commence's software licenses
provided that they were governed by New Jersey law, the company
should not be allowed to oppose application of that law to a
nationwide class.  But Judge Wolfson found that since the fraud
claim is not based on any provision of the software license, the
license's choice-of-law clause is not dispositive.

Rather, the fraud claim is based on a knowing omission of the
defendant's allegedly deceptive failure to disclose the existence
of a "time bomb," so the court was bound to apply Section 148 of
Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, which applies to claims
of misrepresentation, Judge Wolfson said.

That section requires the court to consider several factors,
including the location where the plaintiff acted in reliance on
the misrepresentation, the location where the plaintiff received
the misrepresentation, the location where the defendant made the
misrepresentation and the domicile of the parties.

If the analysis dictates application of the consumer fraud laws of
other states, "Plaintiff would be faced with an uphill battle of
demonstrating predominance," Judge Wolfson said.  But the parties
provided none of the information needed to perform that analysis,
Judge Wolfson said.

Plaintiff's attorney Pearlman says he plans to file a brief
addressing the choice-of-law issue and is confident he can provide
Judge Wolfson with a basis to certify the class.  "She found we
really satisfied every requirement other than the issue of whether
the state law of New Jersey should apply to all 50 states.  We
believe we can give the court what the court requires," Mr.
Pearlman says.

The lawyer for Commence Corp., Bruce Barrett of Margolis Edelstein
in Mount Laurel, declines to comment.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Irizarry, through the law firm of Forizs & Dogali, P.A. has
filed a statewide class action against Corinthian Colleges, Inc.,
the operator of Everest University, alleging that Everest
University has engaged in multiple violations of the Florida
Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.  Everest University is
currently under investigation by the Florida Attorney General
based upon allegations of misleading conduct.

Ms. Irizarry brings a class action seeking to represent all
Florida Everest University students.  The class action alleges
that Everest engaged in deceptive and misleading practices by
misrepresenting their accreditation status.  The Plaintiff further
alleges that Everest University failed to disclose and
intentionally obscured the fact that it was not regionally
accredited, and that many of the credits earned at Everest
University cannot be transferred to most other post-secondary
institutions and cannot be used to obtain state licenses or
certificates.  Ms. Irizary also alleges that Everest University
engaged in deceptive and misleading practices in misrepresenting
the ultimate cost of an Everest University program and failing to
disclose the amount actually paid for Everest University credits.
The Plaintiff further alleges that Everest University obtained
excessive student loan debt on behalf of students without ever
revealing the amount of debt being incurred to the student.
Finally, Ms. Irizarry also alleges that Everest University engaged
in deceptive and misleading conduct by representing that it would
make efforts to assist students in obtaining post-matriculation
employment and certification and then failing to make the promised
efforts.

The action alleges that this conduct is a violation of the Florida
Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices act, which forbids deceptive
and unfair actions in commerce.  The class action seeks damages on
behalf of all Florida students, and also seeks an injunction to
prevent Everest University from engaging in the deceptive and
misleading practices alleged.

The class action has been filed in the United States District
Court, Middle District of Florida, in Tampa, Florida, Case No.
8:11-cv-00424-SDM-MAP.  The law firm of Forizs & Dogali, P.A.
represents Ms. Irizarry in this class action.  For any questions,
please contact:

          Rachel Green, Esq.
          Telephone: (813) 289-0700
          E-mail: rgreen@forizs-dogali.com

               - or -

          Joel Ewusiak, Esq.
          Telephone: (813) 289-0700
          E-mail: jewusiak@forizs-dogali.com


CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Continues to Face SRAM Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Cypress Semiconductor Corporation continues to defend itself from
a consolidated class action lawsuit resulting from investigations
into the Static Random Access Memory market, according to the
Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended January 2, 2011.

In October 2006, the Company received a subpoena related to the
Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice's investigation
into the SRAM market.  In December 2008, the DOJ closed its two
year investigation without any charge or allegation brought
against Cypress.  As a result of the DOJ's investigation, in
October 2006, the Company, along with a majority of the other SRAM
manufacturers, were named in numerous consumer class action suits
that are now consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.  The direct and indirect
purchaser classes were certified.  Cypress aggressively defended
itself in this matter, and as a result, was able to reach
favorable resolutions with both the direct and indirect purchaser
classes and expect the court to dismiss the case by the end of the
first quarter in fiscal 2011.  Cypress is also named in purported
consumer antitrust class action suits in three provinces of
Canada; however, those cases have not been materially active over
the last three years.


DAVITA INC: California Court Approves Claims Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California approved an agreement to settle
the remaining claims in a complaint filed against DaVita Inc. in
October 2008, 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.

Several wage and hour claims have been filed against the Company
in the Superior Court of California, each of which has been styled
as a class action.  In February 2007, June 2008, October 2008 and
December 2008, the Company was served with five separate
complaints in California, including two in October 2008, by
various former employees, each of which alleges, among other
things, that the Company failed to provide rest and meal periods,
failed to pay compensation in lieu of providing such rest or meal
periods, failed to pay the correct amount of overtime, failed to
pay the rate on the "wage statement," and failed to comply with
certain other California Labor Code requirements.  The Company has
reached a settlement and release of all claims against it in
connection with the complaints served in February 2007 and
December 2008 and one of the complaints served in October 2008.
The Company has fully paid the settlement amount and the case has
been dismissed.  The overall settlement amount was not material to
its consolidated financial statements.  The Company has reached an
agreement with plaintiffs to settle the claims in the second
complaint filed in October 2008.  In February 2011, the agreement
was approved by the Court, and the amount of the overall
settlement was not material.  The Company intends to vigorously
defend against the remaining claims and to vigorously oppose the
certification of the remaining matters as class actions.  Any
potential settlements of these remaining claims are not
anticipated to be material to the Company's consolidated financial
statements.


DAVITA INC: Subsidiary Still Faces Blue Cross Suit in Louisiana
---------------------------------------------------------------
DVA Renal Healthcare, a subsidiary of DaVita Inc., continues to
defend itself from a complaint filed by Blue Cross/Blue Shield of
Louisiana, 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 August 2005, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Louisiana filed a
complaint in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana against Gambro AB, DVA Renal Healthcare
(formerly known as Gambro Healthcare) and related entities.  The
plaintiff sought to bring its claims as a class action on behalf
of itself and all entities that paid any of the defendants for
health care goods and services from on or about January 1991
through at least December 2004.  The complaint alleged, among
other things, damages resulting from facts and circumstances
underlying Gambro Healthcare's 2004 settlement agreement with the
Department of Justice and certain agencies of the U.S. government.

In March 2006, the case was dismissed and the plaintiff was
compelled to seek arbitration to resolve the matter.  In November
2006, the plaintiff filed a demand for class arbitration against
DaVita and DVA Renal Healthcare, a subsidiary of DaVita.  In
February 2011, the arbitration panel denied plaintiff's request to
certify a class.  The Company intends to vigorously defend against
plaintiff's remaining individual claims and any appeal that may be
filed.  At this time, the Company cannot predict the ultimate
outcome of this matter or the potential range of damages, if any.


DAVITA INC: Subsidiary Still Faces Labor Violations Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
DVA Renal Healthcare, a subsidiary of DaVita Inc., continues to
defend itself from a complaint filed by a former employee in
California, 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 June 2004, Gambro Healthcare (now known as DVA Renal Healthcare
and a subsidiary of DaVita Inc.) was served with a complaint filed
in the Superior Court of California by one of its former employees
who worked for its California acute services program.  The
complaint, which is styled as a class action, alleges, among other
things, that DVA Renal Healthcare failed to provide overtime
wages, defined rest periods and meal periods, or compensation in
lieu of such provisions and failed to comply with certain other
California Labor Code requirements.  The Company intends to
vigorously defend against these claims.  It also intends to
vigorously oppose the certification of this matter as a class
action.  At this time, the Company's estimate of the range of
possible damages related to this matter is immaterial to its
consolidated financial statements.


DE BEERS: Awaits $293 Million Class Action Settlement Order
-----------------------------------------------------------
Diamond News reports that following an appeal on Feb. 23, a court
order is expected in the coming 6 to 10 months in the diamonds
class action settlement of De Beers in the United States.

The class actions are brought on behalf of persons and businesses
who purchased loose gem diamonds or jewelry or other products
containing gem diamonds in the United States.

Beginning in 2001, Plaintiffs in several states filed lawsuits
against De Beers, the largest supplier of rough diamonds in the
world, in state and federal courts alleging that De Beers
unlawfully monopolized the supply of diamonds, conspired to fix,
raise, and control diamond prices, and issued false and misleading
advertising.  De Beers denies it violated the law or did anything
wrong.

The Settlement Agreement provides that $293 million be
distributed.  De Beers also agrees to refrain from engaging in
certain conduct that violates federal and state antitrust laws and
submit to the jurisdiction of the Court to enforce the Settlement.


DELL INC: Faces Class Action Over Inspiron Notebook Defects
-----------------------------------------------------------
What is this lawsuit about?

The Plaintiffs said that Dell acted deceptively in designing,
manufacturing, marketing, selling, and servicing the Inspiron
1150, 5100, and 5160.  The Plaintiffs also said that at the time
it sold these computers, Dell knew they contained three common
defects that could cause premature failure: (1) inadequate cooling
systems (2) a power supply system that prematurely fails when used
as intended and (3) motherboards that prematurely fail when used
as intended.

Dell denies wrongdoing or liability of any kind associated with
the claims brought by the Plaintiffs, and has agreed to settle the
case for the sole purpose of avoiding the uncertainties, expenses,
and time of further litigation.

How do I know if I am part of the Settlement?

The Court has decided that everyone who fits this description is a
Class Member:

All individuals and entities in the United States who own or have
owned a Dell Inspiron 1150, 5100, or 5160 notebook computer.

How much would my payment be?

We do not know how much your payment would be at this time.  The
amount of your payment will be based on which model laptop you own
or owned, whether the repair was a Reimbursable Repair performed
by Dell or an ASP (Banctec or QualxServ), and when the repair took
place.

Can I get out of the Settlement?

Yes.  If you are a Class Member, you may exclude yourself from
this case by sending a letter stating your name and address to the
following address by December 6, 2010:

          Carideo Settlement Claims Administrator
          c/o Analytics, Inc.
          P.O. Box 2009
          Chanhassen, MN 55317-2009

Note that your letter must clearly state that you wish to be
excluded from the Class.  If you exclude yourself from the Class,
you will not be eligible to participate in any aspect of the
Settlement.

How can I get a payment?

If you own or have owned a Dell Inspiron 1150, 5100, or 5160
notebook computer that has undergone one of the Reimbursable
Repairs described above, you may receive a refund in one of
several ways:

   1. Dell will use information within its repair databases to
determine those who paid for Reimbursable Repairs.  The ICA will
mail a Notice of Eligibility postcard to people who are entitled
to an automatic refund under the Settlement.  The Notice of
Eligibility postcards will be mailed by Dec. 6, 2010.  If you
receive such a Notice, you must confirm your mailing address with
the ICA within thirty (30) days of receiving the Notice of
Eligibility.  If you confirm your address on time, you will
receive your refund within ninety (90) days of the Notice of
Eligibility or the Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement,
whichever is later.  If you do not confirm your address with the
ICA, you will not receive a refund.

   2.  If you do not receive a Notice of Eligibility, it means you
do not automatically qualify for a refund based on Dell's repair
databases and you must submit a claim form.  Claim forms and
instructions regarding submission of claims can be accessed
through the Online Claim Submission button on the top of the
screen.  The claim form will ask you for (1) the Service Tag
Number of your Inspiron 1150, 5100 or 5160; (2) an invoice,
receipt or other documents showing your Inspiron 1150, 5100 or
5160 was serviced for a Reimbursable Repair by Dell or one of
Dell's ASPs (Banctec or QualxServ), and the amount paid for the
Reimbursable Repair; and (3) a declaration under penalty of
perjury confirming the truth of the claim.  Follow the
instructions on the claim form closely.

   3. If you no longer have documentation of a Reimbursable Repair
and Dell's database does not contain the necessary information
related to such repairs, you may nonetheless submit a claim and
Dell will cooperate in attempting to locate the necessary
documentation.  Under such circumstances you must submit a Claim
Form including a written explanation of: (1) whether the relevant
repair was performed by Dell or one of its ASPs (Banctec or
QualxServ); (2) the date of the repair; (3) the reason for
service; (4) a reason for why the proof of repair is not
available; and (5) a description of your efforts to find the
necessary documentation. Such claims must be made under oath, and
are subject to the penalties for perjury.

Claim forms may be submitted either online or by U.S. mail.  If
you have any questions, you may also contact the ICA toll-free by
calling 1-866-890-4857 or emailing to:

     carideosettlement@analytics-inc.com

You have until April 5, 2011 to send in a claim form seeking a
refund under this Settlement.  Claims will not be accepted if
submitted online or postmarked after April 5, 2011.

When would I get my payment?

You will not be paid until after the Court approves the Settlement
and there is a Final Order and Judgment in the lawsuit.  The Court
will hold a hearing on Dec. 17, 2010 to decide whether to approve
the Settlement.  If the Court approves the Settlement after the
hearing, there may be appeals. Until any appeals are resolved, you
will not be paid. Please be patient.

Do I have a lawyer in this case?

The Court appointed the following law firms and/or organizations
to represent you as Class Counsel: Terrell Marshall & Daudt PLLC
of Seattle, WA; Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, of San
Francisco, CA; Public Justice of Oakland, CA; Caddell & Chapman,
PC of Houston, TX; Malesovas Law Firm of Austin, TX; Fee Smith
Sharp & Vitullo LLP of Dallas, TX; and Kiesel, Boucher & Larson,
LLP of Beverly Hills, CA.

You do not have to pay Class Counsel.  If you want to be
represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one at your own
expense to appear for you in Court.

When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the
Settlement?

The Court has scheduled a Fairness Hearing at 1:30 p.m. on
Dec. 17, 2010 at the United States Courthouse, 700 Stewart Street,
Lobby Level, Seattle, Washington 98101.  At this hearing, the
Court will consider whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable,
and adequate.  If there are objections, the Court will consider
them.  The Court will listen to people who have asked to speak at
the hearing.  After the hearing, the Court will make its
decisions.  We do not know how long this will take.

What happens if I do nothing at all?

If you do nothing, you will not get a payment from this
Settlement.  To receive a refund you need to either: (1) confirm
your address with the ICA within thirty (30) days after you
receive a Notice of Eligibility; or (2) submit a claim form by
April 5, 2011.  If you do not exclude yourself from the Class, you
cannot sue Dell with claims that relate to those in this case.

Official Carideo vs. Dell Class Action Website


DUKE ENERGY: Awaits Final Court Okay of ERISA Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation is awaiting final court approval of its
settlement with plaintiffs in a class action alleging violations
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the Company
disclosed in its February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

A class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in South
Carolina against Duke Energy and the Duke Energy Retirement Cash
Balance Plan, alleging violations of the ERISA and the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act.  The allegations arise out of
the conversion of the Duke Energy Company Employees' Retirement
Plan into the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan.  The case
also raises some Plan administration issues, alleging errors in
the application of Plan provisions (i.e., the calculation of
interest rate credits in 1997 and 1998 and the calculation of
lump-sum distributions).  Six causes of action were alleged,
ranging from age discrimination, to various alleged ERISA
violations, to allegations of breach of fiduciary duty.
Plaintiffs sought a broad array of remedies, including a
retroactive reformation of the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance
Plan and a recalculation of participants'/beneficiaries' benefits
under the revised and reformed plan.  Duke Energy filed its answer
in March 2006.  A portion of this contingent liability was
assigned to Spectra Energy, Corp. in connection with the spin-off
in January 2007.  A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion to amend the
complaint to add an additional age discrimination claim,
defendant's motion to dismiss and the respective motions for
summary judgment was held in December 2007.  On June 2, 2008, the
court issued its ruling denying plaintiffs' motion to add the
additional claim and dismissing a number of plaintiffs' claims,
including the claims for ERISA age discrimination.  Since that
date, plaintiffs have notified Duke Energy that they are
withdrawing their ADEA claim.  On September 4, 2009, the court
issued its order certifying classes for three of the remaining
claims, but not certifying their claims as to plaintiffs'
fiduciary duty claims.  At an unsuccessful mediation in September
2008, Plaintiffs quantified their claims as being in excess of
$150 million.  After mediation on September 21, 2010, the parties
reached an agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit, subject
to execution of a definitive settlement agreement, notice to the
class members and approval of the settlement by the Court.  In the
third quarter of 2010, Duke Energy recorded a provision related to
the settlement agreement.  On October 12, 2010, the Court issued
an order staying all pending motions in the case.  On February 8,
2011, the settlement was preliminarily approved by the court;
however, the settlement is still subject to final approval.

Duke Energy is an energy company primarily located in the
Americas.


FINE FARE: Faces Class Action Over Non-Payment of Proper Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Massey, writing for Crain's New York Business, reports that
workers at two Brooklyn supermarkets filed class-action lawsuits
on March 3, alleging the owners of the shops violated minimum wage
and overtime laws.

The suits, filed against a Fine Fare and a Key Food, are part of
an ongoing campaign by New York Communities for Change -- the
successor to Acorn -- and Retail, Wholesale and Department Store
Local 338 to improve conditions for low-wage supermarket workers
in the city.

The suit against Fine Fare alleges stock workers earned between
$300 and $400 for weeks that ranged from 65 to 78 hours, starting
in 2006.  It claims they weren't paid the time and a half required
by law for hours in excess of 40, nor were they given bonus pay
for days longer than 10 hours.  The Key Food complaint makes
similar allegations, charging that stock workers earned between
$300 and $450 for weeks between 72 and 84 hours, without overtime
pay, from 2007 through 2010.

"This is pretty common in a lot of stores in New York City and I
see these as the first of many cases we're going to bring," said
Arthur Schwartz, the workers' attorney.

Fine Fare owner Mustafa Aba Saab said he has not yet seen the
suit.  There was no answer at the Key Food store and there was no
immediate response to an e-mail sent to Key Food corporate
headquarters.

As part of the campaign, Mr. Schwartz sent a letter to the owner
of a third shop -- Golden Farm in Flatbush -- threatening a suit
by next week if he did not negotiate over minimum wage and
overtime violations against a dozen employees.  Workers there are
trying to organize a union and Local 338 filed for an election on
March 1.

Sonny Kim, the owner of Golden Farm, said his lawyer has been
working for four months to bring the situation to a close,
negotiating with the state Department of Labor, which is demanding
back wages and penalty payments.  "We're trying to settle,"
he said.

Organizers also announced on March 3 that a union election would
be held on March 7 at a fourth supermarket -- Master Food in
Flatbush, where workers say they are fighting for respect on the
job.

"I've worked there from August 2004 and I have never had a
vacation; I've gotten sick and had to go to work sick; I've worked
on holidays and haven't gotten paid extra; and I never got
overtime," said Jesus Najera, a 31-year-old immigrant from
Honduras who plans to vote in favor of the union.  "We think that
with the union there will be changes for the better at the store."

Since the campaign launched in December, organizers from Local 338
and New York Communities for Change have met with more than 300
workers.  The drive combines the organizing of workers to demand
back pay with more traditional efforts seeking union
representation.  New York Communities for Change has used its
roots on the ground in Brooklyn to help activate workers who are
often difficult to organize because many are undocumented.  Late
last year, the group organized a bus caravan that stopped at
various supermarkets where workers claimed their rights were being
violated.

"By combining the strength of the union and labor laws with a
community base, the employer has to realize he can't just treat
these guys poorly or it's going to blow up in his own backyard,"
said Kevin Lynch, director of organizing at Local 338.  The
community group Make the Road New York employed a similar strategy
in a campaign with the Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union
to organize retail workers on Knickerbocker Avenue in Bushwick in
2005.

The supermarket campaign comes as a new state law pushed by Make
the Road is set to go into effect next month, increasing penalties
on employers who violate wage and hour laws and don't properly
keep records.

Workers will be able to recoup the money they are owed, plus a
100% penalty.  The current law allows for just 25% in damages,
meaning even if caught, employers typically end up paying little
more than they stole.  The act also beefs up protections for
workers who are retaliated against for exerting their rights, and
gives the state's commissioner of labor new powers to collect
damages from employers who violate the law.

Wage theft costs more than 317,000 low-wage workers in the city
$18.4 million per week, according to a 2010 study by the National
Employment Law Project.  The workers lose almost 15% of their
earnings due to labor violations -- $58 each per week, or $3,016
every year, according to the group.  Minimum wage violations are
particularly prevalent in grocery stores, the study showed.


FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Discovery in "Coffey" Suit Nears Completion
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in the class action lawsuit titled Coffey, et al., v.
Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold, Inc., et al., Kay County, Oklahoma
District Court, Case No. CJ-2008-68, is near completion, 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 April 14, 2008, a purported class action was filed against the
Company and several of its direct and indirect subsidiaries,
including Blackwell Zinc Company, Inc. (BZC) (Coffey, et al., v.
Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold, Inc., et al., Kay County, Oklahoma
District Court, Case No. CJ-2008-68). This suit alleges that the
operations of BZC's zinc smelter in Blackwell, Oklahoma, from 1918
to 1974 resulted in contamination of soils and groundwater in
Blackwell and the surrounding area. The complaint seeks
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of the
putative class members, consisting of current and former residents
and property owners, for alleged diminution in property values.
Plaintiffs also requested an order compelling remediation of
allegedly contaminated properties and the establishment of a
monetary fund to pay for monitoring the present and future health
of the putative class members.  On February 2, 2010, the court
granted the Company's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' medical
monitoring claims and the court denied plaintiffs' request for
reconsideration at a hearing on May 6, 2010. Discovery and
briefing on class certification are near completion.

Headquartered in Phoenix, Freeport-McMoran Copper & Gold Inc.
mines copper, gold, and molybdenum. Assets include the Grasberg
minerals district in Indonesia, mining operations in North and
South America, and the Tenke Fungurume development project in
the Democratic Republic of Congo.


GAMESTOP CORP: Accused in Calif. Suit of Defrauding Customers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Gamestop and Gamestop.com defraud customers by claiming the used
video games they sell come with free downloadable content, "when
in fact the free downloadable content is no longer available."

A copy of the Complaint in Proctor v. Gamestop Corp., et al., Case
No. 11-cv-00962 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/03/Gamestop.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gene Williams, Esq.
          Melissa Grant, Esq.
          Arnab Banerjee, Esq.
          INITIATIVE LEGAL GROUP APC
          1800 Century Park East, 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-5637
          E-mail: gwilliams@initiativelegal.com
                  mgrant@initiativelegal.com
                  abanjeree@initiativelegal.com


HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Awaits Court Approval of ERISA Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., is awaiting court
approval of an agreement in principle to settle on a class basis
lawsuits filed on behalf of participants in the Company's
Investment and Savings Plan, 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 November and December 2008, following a decline in the share
price of the Company's common stock, seven putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut on behalf of certain participants in the
Company's Investment and Savings Plan, which offers the Company's
common stock as one of many investment options. These lawsuits
have been consolidated, and a consolidated amended class-action
complaint was filed on March 23, 2009, alleging that the Company
and certain of its officers and employees violated ERISA by
allowing the Plan's participants to invest in the Company's common
stock and by failing to disclose to the Plan's participants
information about the Company's financial condition. The lawsuit
seeks restitution or damages for losses arising from the
investment of the Plan's assets in the Company's common stock
during the period from December 10, 2007 to the present. In
January 2010, the district court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. In February 2011, the
parties reached an agreement in principle to settle on a class
basis for an immaterial amount. The settlement is contingent upon
the execution of a final settlement agreement and preliminary and
final court approval.


HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a
securities class action lawsuit filed in a New York district court
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.

The Company and certain of its present or former officers are
defendants in a putative securities class action lawsuit filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York in March 2010. The operative complaint, filed in October
2010, is brought on behalf of persons who acquired Hartford common
stock during the period of July 28, 2008 through February 5, 2009,
and alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, by making false or
misleading statements during the alleged class period about the
Company's valuation of certain asset-backed securities and its
effect on the Company's capital position. The Company disputes the
allegations and has moved to dismiss the complaint.


HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Arbitration Hearing in Oregon Suit Set for May
------------------------------------------------------------------
An arbitration hearing in the fair credit reporting class action
filed against The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., is set
for May 2011, 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 February 2007, the United States District Court for the
District of Oregon gave final approval of the Company's settlement
of a lawsuit brought on behalf of a class of homeowners and
automobile policy holders alleging that the Company willfully
violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to send
appropriate notices to new customers whose initial rates were
higher than they would have been had the customer had a more
favorable credit report. The Company paid approximately $84.3 to
eligible claimants and their counsel in connection with the
settlement, and sought reimbursement from the Company's Excess
Professional Liability Insurance Program for the portion of the
settlement in excess of the Company's $10 self-insured retention.
Certain insurance carriers participating in that program disputed
coverage for the settlement, and one of the excess insurers
commenced an arbitration that resulted in an award in the
Company's favor and payments to the Company of approximately
$30.1, thereby exhausting the primary and first-layer excess
policies. In June 2009, the second-layer excess carriers commenced
an arbitration to resolve the dispute over coverage for the
remainder of the amounts paid by the Company. The arbitration
hearing is scheduled for May 2011. Management believes it is
probable that the Company's coverage position ultimately will be
sustained.


HSBC BANK: Accused of Collecting "Excessive" Overdraft Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ofra Levin, et al., on behalf of themselves v. HSBC Bank USA,
N.A., and HSBC USA Inc., Case No. 650562/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New
York Cty. March 1, 2011), seek monetary damages against HSBC
arising out of its "unfair, deceptive and unconscionable"
assessment and collection of excessive overdraft fees from its
checking account customers.

According to the plaintiffs, these resulted because HSBC allowed
its checking account holders (who were issued debit cards or ATM
cards) to incur overdrafts without providing a warning that an
overdraft fee would be incurred, so that consumers could make a
decision whether or not to proceed with the debit or "point or
sale" transaction.  But, as the Complaint alleges, instead of
declining debit or "point of sale" transactions when there are
insufficient funds, or warning that an overdraft fee will be
assessed if the costumer proceeds with the transaction, HSBC would
routinely process these transactions in order to charge its
customers an overdraft fee of $35, even when the transaction is
for only a few dollars.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
          Scott J. Farrell, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          585 Stewart Avenue, Suite 304
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 683-3516
          E-mail: sdr@rigrodskylong.com
                  tjm@rigrodskylong.com
                  sjf@rigrodskylong.com

               - and -

          Brian S. Cohen, Esq.
          Jonathan A. Cohen, Esq.
          COHEN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1220 Broadway, Suite 708
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 967-2879
          E-mail: brian@cohenlg.com
                  jon@cohenlg.com


IKEA HOME: Recalls 128,000 FORSTA Coffee/Tea Makers
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
IKEA Home Furnishings, of Conshohocken, Pa., announced a voluntary
recall of about 94,000 FORSTA Coffee/Tea Makers in the United
States and 34,000 in Canada.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

Pressure from the metal pot holder against the coffee/tea maker
can cause the glass to break unexpectedly, posing burn and
laceration hazards.

This recall involves FORSTA coffee/tea makers sold in sizes 0.4
and 1 liters.  The coffee/tea maker is a press pot comprising a
handmade clear glass pot, metal holder and black plastic top and
handle.  Coffee/tea makers included in this recall have supplier
number 20325, "IKEA" and "Made in China" etched on the bottom of
the metal holder.  Pictures of the recalled products are available
at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11154.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
IKEA stores nationwide from January 2010 through December 2010 for
between $6 and $10.

Consumers should immediately stop using the F™RST¸ coffee/tea
makers and bring it back to any IKEA store for a full refund.  For
additional information, contact IKEA toll-free at (888) 966-4532
anytime, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.ikea-usa.com/


ITRON INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Washington
------------------------------------------------------
Itron, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit in Washington for
federal securities law violations, according to the Company's
February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On February 23, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed in U.S.
Federal Court for the Eastern District of Washington alleging a
violation of federal securities laws relating to a restatement of
the Company' financial results for the quarters ended March 31,
June 30, and September 30, 2010.  These revisions were made
primarily to defer revenue that had been incorrectly recognized on
one contract due to a misinterpretation of an extended warranty
obligation.  The effect was to reduce revenue and earnings in each
of the first three quarters of the year.  For the first nine
months of 2010, total revenue was reduced by $6.1 million and
diluted EPS was reduced by 11 cents.  The Company intends to
vigorously defend its interests.


LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: Awaits Final Court OK of "Koyle" Suit Pact
------------------------------------------------------------------
Level 3 Communications Inc. is awaiting final court approval of a
class settlement with plaintiffs asserting rights-of-way issues in
Idaho, 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.

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries are parties to a
number of purported class action lawsuits involving the companies'
right to install fiber optic cable network in railroad right-of-
ways adjacent to plaintiffs' land.  The only lawsuit in which a
class has been certified against the Company occurred in Koyle,
et. al. v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., et. al.,  a purported two
state class action filed in the U.S. Court for the District of
Idaho.  In November 2005, the court granted class certification
only for the state of Idaho.  The Company have motions for class
certification in a number of these actions but expect that
plaintiffs in the pending lawsuits will continue to seek
certification of statewide or multi-state classes.  In general,
the Company obtained the rights to construct its networks from
railroads, utilities, and others, and has installed its networks
along the rights-of-way so granted.  Plaintiffs in the purported
class actions assert that they are the owners of lands over which
the companies' fiber optic cable networks pass, and that the
railroads, utilities, and others who granted the companies the
right to construct and maintain their networks did not have the
legal authority to do so.  The complaints seek damages on theories
of trespass, unjust enrichment and slander of title and property,
as well as punitive damages.  The companies have also received,
and may in the future receive, claims and demands related to
rights-of-way issues similar to the issues in these cases that may
be based on similar or different legal theories.

The Company negotiated a series of class settlements affecting all
persons who own or owned land next to or near railroad rights of
way in which the Company has installed its fiber optic cable
network.  The U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts in Kingsborough v. Sprint Communications Co. L.P.
granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement; however,
on September 10, 2009, the court denied a motion for final
approval of the settlement on the basis that the court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the case.

In November 2010, the Company negotiated revised settlement terms
for a series of state class settlements affecting all persons who
own or owned land next to or near railroad rights of way in which
the Company has installed it fiber optic cable network.  The
Company are currently negotiating certain procedural issues with
legal counsel representing the interests of the current and former
landowners with respect to presentment of the settlement in
applicable jurisdictions.  The settlement affecting current and
former landowners in the state of Idaho was presented to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Idaho and preliminary approval
of the settlement was granted on January 28, 2011.

It is still too early for the Company to reach a conclusion as to
the ultimate outcome of these actions.  However, management
believes that the Company has substantial defenses to the claims
asserted in all of these actions, and intends to defend them
vigorously if a satisfactory settlement is not ultimately approved
for all affected landowners.  Additionally, management believes
that any resulting liabilities for these actions, beyond amounts
reserved, will not materially affect the Company's financial
condition or future results of operations, but could affect future
cash flows.


LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: Colorado Securities Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Level 3 Communications Inc. continues to defend itself against a
consolidated securities class action complaint in Colorado.

In February 2009, Level 3 Communications, certain of its current
officers and a former officer were named as defendants in
purported class action lawsuits filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado, which have been
consolidated as In re Level 3 Communications, Inc. Securities
Litigation (Civil Case No. 09-cv-00200-PAB-CBS).  The Plaintiffs
in each complaint allege, in general, that throughout the
purported class period specified in the complaint that the
defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's integration activities, business and operations.  The
complaints seek damages based on purported violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  On May 4, 2009, the
Court appointed a lead plaintiff in the case, and on September 29,
2009, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint.  A motion to dismiss the Complaint was filed by the
Company and the other named defendants.  While the motion to
dismiss the Complaint was pending, the court granted the lead
plaintiff's motion to further amend the Complaint.  Thereafter,
the Company and the other defendants named in the Amended
Complaint filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint with
prejudice.  The court granted this motion to dismiss, with
prejudice, and the plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal of that
decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

No updates were reported in 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.

The Company says it is too early to reach a conclusion as to the
ultimate outcome of the actions.  However, management believes
that the Company has substantial defenses to the claims asserted
in all of these actions and intends to defend these actions
vigorously.


LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Defend "Walter" Suit in Colo.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Level 3 Communications Inc. continues to defend itself in a
consolidated class action lawsuit in Colorado that alleges
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

In March 2009, late April 2009 and early May 2009, Level 3
Communications, Inc., the Level 3 Communications, Inc. 401(k) Plan
Committee and certain current and former officers and directors of
Level 3 Communications, Inc. were named as defendants in purported
class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado.  The cases have been consolidated as Walter
v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., et. al., (Civil Case No.
09cv00658).  The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary and other
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act with
respect to investments in the Company's common stock held in
individual participant accounts in the Level 3 Communications,
Inc. 401(k) Plan.  The complaint claims that those investments
were imprudent for reasons that are similar to those alleged in
other securities and derivative actions lodged against the
Company.

No updates were reported in 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.


LIEBHERR: Recalls 5,702 Wide Bottom Freezer Refrigerators
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Liebherr-Hausgeraete Lienz GmbH, of Austria, announced a voluntary
recall of about 5,702 Liebherr Built-In 30-Inch Wide Bottom
Freezer Refrigerators.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The refrigerator's door can detach, posing an injury hazard to
consumers.

Liebherr has received 10 reports of doors detaching.  No injuries
reported.

This recall involves Liebherr built-in 30-inch wide bottom freezer
refrigerators with model and index numbers listed below.  The
refrigerators were sold individually or as side-by-side companion
units.  The refrigerators come in stainless steel and various
custom finishes and are built into the kitchen cabinetry.
"Liebherr" is written on the top interior control panel.  The
model number can be found on a label located behind the bottom
drawer on the left interior side of the single door refrigerator.

                   Model Number         Index Number
                   ------------         ------------
                       C 1600               16/137
                                            16A/137

                       C 1601               15/237
                                            15A/237
                                            15B/237
                                            15F/237
                                            15G/237
                                            16/237
                                            16A/237

                      CI 1600               15G/137
                                            16/137
                                            16A/137

                      CI 1601               15/237
                                            15A/237
                                            15B/237
                                            15F/237
                                            15G/237
                                            16/237
                                            16A/237

                      C 1650                15/137
                                            15A/137
                                            15B/137
                                            15C/137
                                            15D/137
                                            15H/137
                                            15I/137
                                            16/137
                                            16A/137
                                            16B/137

                      C 1651                15A/237
                                            15B/237
                                            15C/237
                                            15D/237
                                            15H/237
                                            15I/237
                                            16/237
                                            16A/237
                                            16B/237

                        CI 1650             15/137
                                            15A/137
                                            15B/137
                                            15C/137
                                            15D/137
                                            15H/137
                                            15I/137
                                            16/137
                                            16A/137
                                            16B/137

                        CI 1651             15A/237
                                            15B/237
                                            15C/237
                                            15D/237
                                            15H/237
                                            15I/237
                                            16/237
                                            16A/237
                                            16B/237

                         CI 1700            14A/137

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11153.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Austria and sold
through appliance and specialty retailers nationwide from February
2004 through January 2011 for between $4,400 and $5,000.

Consumers with recalled refrigerators should contact Liebherr
immediately to schedule a free in-home repair.  Consumers should
check their refrigerator immediately to see whether the door hinge
pin has become loose as indicated by a popped up hinge pin at the
top or bottom.  If the hinge has not become loose and the door is
functioning properly, consumers may continue to use the
refrigerator until it is repaired.  For additional information,
contact Liebherr toll-free at (877) 337-2653 Monday through Friday
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Mountain Time, or visit Liebherr's Web
site at http://www.liebherr.us/


MANHATTAN GROUP: Recalls 400 Parents(R) Busy Time Activity Centers
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Manhattan Group LLC, of Minneapolis, Minn., announced a voluntary
recall of about 400 Parents(R) Busy Time Activity Centers (TM).
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

CPSC has received one report of a child putting a peg in his
mouth.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the Parents(R) Busy Time Activity Centers(TM)
is a wooden activity center cube-shaped toy that has a multi-
colored bead run on the top.  Activities on each side include a
4-tone xylophone and rasp, butterfly and caterpillar spinners,
zig-zag drum, castanets, and pockets with "alligator," "bear," and
"cat" pillow characters. Only items with wooden pegs bearing date
code 400090GC are involved in this recall.  The date code can be
found on the bottom of the product packaging near the UPC code and
on the tags on the bear character.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

    http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11156.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Consumers should take these recalled toys away from young children
immediately and return it to the store where purchased for a full
refund.

Consumers can also contact Manhattan Group for instructions on
receiving a replacement item or a full refund.  For additional
information, contact Manhattan Group at (800) 541-1345 between
8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Central Time, Monday through Friday or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.manhattantoy.com/


MYTRAVEL CANADA: Judge Okays Norovirus Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------0----------------------------
Justice Perell of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved a
class action settlement entered into between the plaintiff,
Suzanne Lavier of Ajax, Ontario, and MyTravel Canada Holidays Inc.
The class action, commenced on November 14, 2005, involved
allegations that MyTravel sent travellers to three Riu resorts in
Puerto Plata, Dominican Republic during an outbreak of norovirus
at the Riu Resorts in late 2004 and early 2005.  The settlement
was made without any admission of liability by MyTravel or finding
of liability by the Court.

As a condition of settlement, the action was certified as a class
proceeding on behalf of all persons in Canada (excluding Quebec
residents) who booked a vacation package through MyTravel to the
Riu Resorts between December 20, 2004 and March 31, 2005.  The
class excludes individuals who previously signed releases with
MyTravel.

The settlement provides for the creation of a fund of $2.25
million from which eligible class members will receive
compensation and from which administration costs will be paid.
Eligible class members who suffered physical symptoms consistent
with norovirus will receive payments between $650 and $2,500,
depending on the length of their illness and whether there is
medical documentation supporting their claim.  More serious cases
can be pursued through a streamlined arbitration process.
Additionally, travelers who provided care to a class member who
sought medical treatment for physical symptoms consistent with
norovirus are eligible to receive $250.

In approving the settlement, Justice Perell was satisfied that the
settlement was fair, reasonable and in the best interests of class
members.

Joel P. Rochon and Sakie Tambakos of Rochon Genova LLP are the
lawyers acting for the class.

The deadline for class members to file a claim under the
settlement is April 18, 2011.

For further information:

          Rochon Genova LLP
          Telephone: (416) 363-1867
          E-mail: contact@rochongenova.com
          Web site: http://www.rochongenova.com/


NVR INC: Employee Class Suits Remain Stayed Pending N.Y. Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Purported class actions filed against NVR, Inc., by its former and
current employees, pending in various states, are stayed pending
further developments in a lawsuit in New York, 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 July 18, 2007, former and current employees filed lawsuits
against the Company in the Court of Common Pleas in Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania and Hamilton County, Ohio, in Superior Court
in Durham County, North Carolina, and in the Circuit Court in
Montgomery County, Maryland, and on July 19, 2007 in the Superior
Court in New Jersey, alleging that the Company incorrectly
classified its sales and marketing representatives as being exempt
from overtime wages.  These lawsuits are similar in nature to
another lawsuit filed on October 29, 2004 by another former
employee in the United States District Court for the Western
District of New York.  The complaints seek injunctive relief, an
award of unpaid wages, including fringe benefits, liquidated
damages equal to the overtime wages allegedly due and not paid,
attorney and other fees and interest, and where available,
multiple damages.  The suits were filed as purported class
actions.  However, while a number of individuals have filed
consents to join and assert federal claims in the New York action,
none of the groups of employees that the lawsuits purport to
represent have been certified as a class.  The lawsuits filed in
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey and North Carolina have
been stayed pending further developments in the New York action.


PENN NATIONAL: Appeal From Dismissal of Class Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit against
Penn National Gaming, 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 July 16, 2008, the Company was served with a purported class
action lawsuit brought by plaintiffs seeking to represent a class
of shareholders who purchased shares of the Company's Common Stock
between March 20, 2008 and July 2, 2008.  The lawsuit alleges that
the Company's disclosure practices relative to the proposed
transaction with Fortress Investment Group, LLC and Centerbridge
Partners, L.P. and the eventual termination of that transaction
were misleading and deficient in violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint, which seeks class
certification and unspecified damages, was filed in federal court
in Maryland.  The complaint was amended, among other things, to
add three new named plaintiffs and to name Peter M. Carlino,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and William J. Clifford,
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, as additional
defendants.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
in November 2008, and the court granted the motion and dismissed
the complaint with prejudice.  The plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration, which was denied on October 21, 2009.  The
plaintiffs subsequently appealed the dismissal to the Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals and an oral argument was heard on
October 26, 2010.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Turner Law Firm Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Turner Law Offices, LLC has filed a Class Action
lawsuit against Defendant Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc. in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia on behalf of all persons in the State of Georgia who,
since October 28, 2010, received a non-emergency telephone call
from PRA to a cellular telephone through the use of an automatic
telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice and
who did not provide prior express consent for such calls during
the transaction that resulted in the debt owed.  The action is
captioned Kimberly Bartlett v. Portfolio Recovery Associates,
Inc., and is numbered 11-CV-00624.

According to the Complaint, PRA violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by using automatic dialing systems or an artificial
or prerecorded voice to contact cell phone users about purported
debts without their prior consent.  As described in the Complaint,
Ms. Bartlett, the named plaintiff in the action, was repeatedly
contacted since Oct. 28, 2010 on her cell phone about a purported
credit card debt.  The Complaint avers that Plaintiff never
consented to those calls, nor did she provide PRA with her
telephone number.

Under the TCPA, PRA could be ordered to pay attorneys' fees,
litigation expenses and costs of the lawsuit, and statutory
damages of $500 for each negligent violation, and/or $1,500 for
each knowing and/or willing violation.  According to the
Complaint, the potential Class Members are estimated to number in
the tens of thousands.

For further information please contact:

          Henry A. Turner, Esq.
          TURNER LAW OFFICES, LLC
          403 W. Ponce de Leon Avenue, Suite 207
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: 404-261-7787
          Web site: http://tloffices.com/


POTASH CORP: BHP-Related Securities Suits Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits arising from BHP Billiton Limited's
unsolicited offer to purchase all of Potash Corporation of
Saskatchewan Inc.'s issued and outstanding common shares were
dismissed in November 2010, 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 September 22, 2010, PotashCorp filed a complaint against BHP
Billiton Limited, BHP Billiton Plc, and BHP Billiton Development 2
(Canada) limited in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois asserting that BHP has violated the
federal securities laws by disseminating false and misleading
information and omitting material information from its Schedule TO
and other documents in connection with BHP's unsolicited offer to
purchase all of PotashCorp's issued and outstanding common shares.
On October 28, 2010, PotashCorp filed a first amended complaint in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois to provide further factual detail for the claims set
forth in the original complaint. On November 4 and 8, 2010, the
District Court held a hearing on PotashCorp's motion for a
preliminary injunction. On November 15, 2010, BHP withdrew the BHP
Offer. PotashCorp filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on
November 16, 2010, and the action was dismissed without prejudice.

On October 6 and 13, 2010, named plaintiffs filed substantially
similar purported class action complaints in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of
themselves and all other shareholders of the Company against the
Company and each of its directors. The complaints alleged, among
other things, that the Company defendants violated Sections
14(d)(4) and 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Section 241 of the Canada Business Corporations Act. Pursuant to
notices filed in the District Court on November 19, 2010, named
plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed both lawsuits. On November 23,
2010, the District Court entered Orders dismissing both cases.

Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan, Inc. (PotashCorp) produces and sells
fertilizers, and related industrial and feed products in North
America. The Company was founded in 1953 and is based in
Saskatoon, Canada.


QUESTAR CAPITAL: Judge Dismisses Investors' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Chad Halcom, writing for Crain's Detroit Business, reports that a
potential class action lawsuit against a stockbroker and alleged
adviser to a $250 million Ponzi scheme was dismissed last week
after a Detroit judge found that the last legal claims --
involving one of the adviser's prior employers -- could not stand.

U.S. District Judge Julian Abele Cook ordered the investors'
lawsuit dismissed against the Minneapolis-based brokerage
Questar Capital Corp., where Frank Bluestein was a broker and
representative from 2000 to 2005.

Questar was the last remaining defendant in the 2008 lawsuit.
Bluestein himself was removed from the suit in January after six
investors brought a separate petition for involuntary bankruptcy
against him last year and obtained a stay in the civil case.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission alleges separately
that Bluestein received at least $3.8 million in commissions and
other compensation for driving investments toward Edward May,
president of Lake Orion-based E-M Management Co. LLC, who is
accused of heading a $250 million Ponzi scheme.

Last year the SEC obtained a $40.8 million civil judgment against
May.  He was accused of raising $250 million between 1998 and mid-
2007 through his company from more than 1,000 investors in
Michigan and elsewhere by purporting to sell investments in
companies with contracts to provide telecommunications equipment
and services to hotel chains.

Investors allege in the lawsuit that Bluestein, during his time at
Questar and later at GunnAllen Financial Inc., solicited
investments in the limited-liability companies that May had
contended held the telecommunications contracts.  GunnAllen was
previously dismissed from the case, as was Bluestein's own
company, Maximum Financial Group of Waterford Township.

Judge Cook ruled that the investors were unable to establish
clearly enough that Bluestein committed fraud during his tenure at
Questar or that the brokerage could have known about his actions
in the May scheme.


REPROS THERAPEUTICS: 2009 Securities Class Action Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Repros Therapeutics Inc.(R) disclosed that the pending class
action securities lawsuits that were filed against it during 2009
have been dismissed.

As was previously announced, several securities fraud class action
lawsuits were filed in federal court for the Southern District of
Texas against the Company and various of its current or former
officers and directors in August and September 2009.  The
plaintiffs in these lawsuits alleged that the defendants made
certain misleading statements related to the Company's Proellex(R)
drug, including that the defendants misrepresented the side
effects of the drug related to liver function and the risk that
these side effects could cause a suspension of clinical trials on
Proellex(R).  The lawsuits were consolidated under the caption In
re Repros Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action
No. 09 Civ. 2530 (VDG), and the court appointed lead plaintiffs
and class counsel.  Lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint making essentially the same allegations as had been made
in the prior complaints.  Lead plaintiffs sought to represent a
class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Repros
common stock between July 1, 2009 and Aug. 2, 2009, and asserted
claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  On Jan. 19, 2011, the
court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and entered a
final judgment dismissing the case.  The time for plaintiffs to
file an appeal of that order has expired.

Repros Therapeutics focuses on the development of oral small
molecule drugs for major unmet medical needs that treat male and
female reproductive disorders.


RHINO TOYS: Recalls 28,000 Links & Mini Rattles (TM)
----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Rhino Toys Inc., of Santa Cruz, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of about 14,000 OBall Links & Mini Rattles (TM) in the
United States and 14,000 in Canada.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The hard plastic C-links on both ends of the rattles' soft plastic
chain can break, posing a choking hazard to young children

Rhino Toys has received one report of a broken C-link.  No
injuries have been reported.

This recall involves infant rattles called OBall Links & Mini
Rattles (TM).  The soft plastic OBall is 2 1/2 inches in diameter
and has beads inside a small plastic bubble that make the rattle
sound.  The OBall is attached to a 7 1/2 inch soft plastic chain
by C-shaped plastic links on both ends. "OBall" is stamped into
the top of the plastic chain.  Pictures of the recalled products
are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11151.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Toys R Us and other specialty toy stores nationwide from April
2010 through December 2010 for about $8.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled rattle away from
children and contact Rhino Toys to receive a full refund.  For
additional information, contact Rhino Toys toll-free at (888) 250-
9969 between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Pacific Time, Monday through
Friday or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.rhinotoys.com/


SEACOR HOLDINGS: Discovery in Delaware Antitrust Suit Completed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in the antitrust class action lawsuit filed against
Seacor Holdings, Inc., in a Delaware court has been completed,
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 June 12, 2009, a purported civil class action was filed against
SEACOR, Era Group Inc., Era Aviation, Inc., Era Helicopters LLC
and two other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware, Superior Offshore International, Inc. v.
Bristow Group Inc., et al., No. 09-CV-438 (D.Del.). SEACOR
acquired Era Group Inc., Era Aviation, Inc., and Era Helicopters
LLC in December 2004. The complaint alleges that the Defendants
violated federal antitrust laws by conspiring with each other to
raise, fix, maintain or stabilize prices for offshore helicopter
services in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico during the period January 2001
to December 2005. The purported class of plaintiffs includes all
direct purchasers of such services and the relief sought includes
compensatory damages and treble damages. On September 14, 2010,
the District Court entered an order dismissing the complaint. On
November 30, 2010, the District Court granted the plaintiffs
motion for reconsideration and amendment, and ordered limited
discovery strictly in regard to the allegations set forth on the
plaintiff's amended complaint. The limited discovery was completed
and the defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment, which
is pending. The Company is unable to estimate the potential
exposure, if any, resulting from these claims but believes they
are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the action.

SEACOR Holdings, Inc., headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
provides offshore marine and aviation services to oil and gas
companies.  The company also provides marine and inland river
transportation, environmental and other services.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: Liability Limitation Petitions Stay "Robin" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Petitions filed by SEACOR Holdings, Inc., seeking limitation of
liability in the fire that occurred in the Deepwater Horizon
drilling rig have stayed the class action lawsuit filed by Terry
Robin, 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 July 14, 2010, a group of individuals and entities purporting
to represent a class commenced a civil action in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Terry G. Robin, et
al. v. Seacor Marine, L.L.C., et al., No. 2:10-cv-01986 (E.D.
La.), in which they assert that support vessels, including vessels
owned by the Company, responding to the explosion and resulting
fire that occurred aboard the semi-submersible drilling rig, the
Deepwater Horizon, were negligent in their efforts to save lives
and put out the fire and contributed to the sinking of the
Deepwater Horizon and subsequent oil spill. The action now is part
of the overall multi-district litigation, In re Oil Spill by the
Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon", MDL No. 2179. The complaint seeks
compensatory, punitive, exemplary, and other damages. The Company
believes that this lawsuit brought by class action lawyers
targeting emergency responders acting under the direction of the
U.S. Coast Guard has no merit and will seek its dismissal. The
Company also recently filed petitions seeking exoneration from or
limitation of liability in relation to any actions that may have
been taken by vessels owned by the Company to extinguish the fire.
Pursuant to the Limitation of Liability Act, those petitions
impose an automatic stay on the Robin case, and the court has set
a deadline of April 20, 2011, for individual claimants to assert
claims in the limitation cases.

SEACOR Holdings, Inc., headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
provides offshore marine and aviation services to oil and gas
companies.  The company also provides marine and inland river
transportation, environmental and other services.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: To Seek Dismissal of "Wunstell" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
SEACOR Holdings, Inc., will seek dismissal of the lawsuit filed by
John Wunstell in a Louisiana court, 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 July 20, 2010, two individuals purporting to represent a class
commenced a civil action in the Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans in the State of Louisiana, John Wunstell, Jr.
and Kelly Blanchard v. BP, et al., No. 2010-7437 (Division K), in
which they assert, among other theories, that Mr. Wunstell
suffered injuries as a result of his exposure to certain noxious
fumes and chemicals in connection with the provision of
remediation, containment and response services by O'Brien's
Response Management Inc., a subsidiary of SEACOR. The action now
is part of the overall multi-district litigation, In re Oil Spill
by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon", MDL No. 2179. The complaint
also seeks to establish a "class-wide court-supervised medical
monitoring program" for all individuals "participating in BP's
Deepwater Horizon Vessels of Opportunity Program and/or Horizon
Response Program" who allegedly experience injuries similar to Mr.
Wunstell. The Company believes this lawsuit has no merit and will
seek its dismissal. Pursuant to contractual agreements with the
responsible party, the responsible party has agreed, subject to
certain potential limitations, to indemnify and defend O'Brien's
in connection with the Wunstell Action and claims asserted in the
MDL.

SEACOR Holdings, Inc., headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
provides offshore marine and aviation services to oil and gas
companies.  The company also provides marine and inland river
transportation, environmental and other services.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: To Seek Dismissal of "Deepwater Horizon" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
SEACOR Holdings, Inc., will seek dismissal of the multi-district
litigation, In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon",
MDL No. 2179, 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 December 15, 2010, SEACOR subsidiaries O'Brien's Response
Management Inc. and National Response Corporation were named as
defendants in one of the several consolidated "master complaints"
that have been filed in the overall multi-district litigation, In
re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon", MDL No. 2179. The
master complaint naming O'Brien's and NRC asserts various claims
on behalf of a punitive class against multiple defendants
concerning the clean-up activities generally, and the use of
dispersants specifically. The Company believes that the claims
asserted against its subsidiaries in the master complaint have no
merit and will seek dismissal of the master complaint against both
O'Brien's and NRC. In addition to the indemnity provided to
O'Brien's, the Company has also sought indemnity from the
responsible party pursuant to certain contractual arrangements for
the claims asserted against NRC in the MDL.

SEACOR Holdings, Inc., headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
provides offshore marine and aviation services to oil and gas
companies.  The company also provides marine and inland river
transportation, environmental and other services.


SKYWEST INC: ExpressJet Suit Settlement Hearing Set for April 14
----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on the settlement of the ExpressJet Stockholder
Litigation, wherein SkyWest, Inc., has been named a defendant,
has been scheduled for April 14, 2011, according to the Company's
February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On November 12, 2010, the Company completed the acquisition of
ExpressJet Airlines, Inc., via the merger of Express Delaware
Merger Co., a wholly owned subsidiary of Atlantic Southeast (the
Merger Subsidiary), with and into ExpressJet Holdings, Inc., the
parent company of ExpressJet, with ExpressJet Holdings continuing
as the surviving company in the merger and becoming a wholly owned
subsidiary of Atlantic Southeast.

Between August 5, 2010, and August 25, 2010, nine substantially
similar putative shareholder class action suits were filed by
individual ExpressJet Holdings stockholders in the District Court
of Harris County, Texas against ExpressJet and its directors.
Many of the petitions also name SkyWest, Atlantic Southeast and/or
Merger Subsidiary as defendants in the litigation.

The petitions filed in the Texas State Actions generally allege
that the ExpressJet Holdings director defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the negotiations and approval
of the definitive merger agreement which sets forth the terms and
conditions of the ExpressJet Merger, and that the SkyWest
Defendants aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties.  The Texas State Actions seek, among other things, an
injunction enjoining the ExpressJet Merger and the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement and rescission of any
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement.  On August 18,
2010, plaintiff Rayside filed a motion to consolidate the Texas
State Actions into Case No. 2010-48784 in the first-filed court
(the 189th District Court).  On August 20, 2010, plaintiffs
Levine, Tejeda, Doraiswamy and Swanepoel filed a similar motion in
the 189th District Court.  On September 10, 2010, the 189th
District Court ordered the consolidation of the Texas State
Actions with and into Case No. 2010-48784.

On September 20, 2010, a putative stockholder class action (the
Texas Federal Action) was commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.  The
complaint filed in the Texas Federal Action includes substantially
identical allegations to and requests substantially the same
relief as the petitions in the Texas State Actions, but also
includes allegations related to the ExpressJet Holdings
preliminary proxy statement filed with the U. S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 3, 2010.

On October 8, 2010, counsel for the defendants in the Actions,
counsel for the plaintiff class in the Consolidated Texas State
Action and counsel for plaintiff in the Texas Federal Action
agreed to and executed a memorandum of understanding (the MOU)
containing the terms of an agreement in principle to resolve the
Actions.  The MOU provides that, in consideration for the
settlement of the Actions, ExpressJet Holdings made certain
disclosures in the definitive proxy statement that was sent to the
ExpressJet Holdings stockholders soliciting approval of the
ExpressJet Merger.  In the MOU, the defendants in the Actions
acknowledge that they considered the claims raised by the
plaintiffs in the Actions in connection with the disclosures
contemplated by the MOU.  In exchange, the parties to the MOU have
agreed to use their best efforts to draft and execute a definitive
stipulation of settlement that includes a plaintiff class
consisting of all record and beneficial holders of ExpressJet
Holdings stock, other than defendants in the Consolidated Texas
State Action and any firm, trust, corporation or other entity
controlled by any defendant, during the period beginning on and
including December 2, 2009, through and including the date of the
consummation of the ExpressJet Merger.  The court has scheduled a
hearing for April 14, 2011, to consider whether the negotiated
settlement should be approved.  If approved by the parties and the
189th District Court, the settlement will result in the dismissal
with prejudice of the Consolidated Texas State Action and release
by the plaintiff class of all claims under federal and state law
that were or could have been asserted in the Actions or which
arise out of or relate to the transactions contemplated by the
ExpressJet Merger.  The MOU further provides that, in the event
the Consolidated Texas State Action is dismissed in accordance
with the settlement stipulation, the parties to the MOU will use
their best efforts to obtain the dismissal with prejudice of the
Texas Federal Action.  The settlement of the Consolidated Texas
State Actions is subject to numerous conditions set forth in the
MOU and to be contained in any stipulation of settlement,
including the completion of the ExpressJet Merger.


TEKELEC: Faces Securities Class Action Suit in North Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tekelec is facing a lawsuit in North Carolina over purported
federal securities law violations, according to the Company's
February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On January 6, 2011, a purported class action complaint was filed
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina alleging claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The case purports to be brought on behalf
of a class of purchasers of Tekelec stock during the period
February 11, 2010, to August 5, 2010.  The complaint generally
alleges violations of federal securities laws based on, among
other things, claimed misstatements or omissions regarding the
Company's business and prospects in emerging markets.  The
complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
costs, and expenses.  The Company denies the allegations in the
complaint and intends to vigorously pursue its defense.

Based in Morrisville, N.C., Tekelec develops signaling and
switching telecommunications products and services, network
performance management technology, business intelligence and
value-added applications.


VECTOR GROUP: Trial in "Brown" Suit to Start May 6
--------------------------------------------------
Trial is scheduled to start on May 6, 2011, on the defendants'
motion for a determination that the class representatives lack
standing in a lawsuit filed against cigarette manufacturers,
including Liggett Group Inc., according to Vector Group Ltd.'s
February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

An action, Brown, et al. v. Philip Morris USA Inc., et al., (In
Re: Tobacco II Cases), Case No. 711400, Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego (case filed 10/01/97), was brought
against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including Vector's
subsidiary Liggett Group Inc., seeking to recover restitution,
disgorgement of profits and other equitable relief under
California Business and Professions Code.

In April 2001, under the California Unfair Competition Laws and
the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the court granted in part the
plaintiffs' motion for certification of a class composed of
residents of California who smoked at least one of the defendants'
cigarettes from June 10, 1993 through April 23, 2001, and who were
exposed to the defendants' marketing and advertising activities in
California.  Certification was granted as to the plaintiffs'
claims that the defendants violated Section 17200 of the
California Business and Professions Code pertaining to unfair
competition.  The court, however, refused to certify the class
under the California Legal Remedies Act or the plaintiffs' common
law claims.  Following the November 2004 passage of a proposition
in California that changed the law regarding cases of this nature,
the defendants moved to decertify the class.

In March 2005, the court granted the defendants' motion, and
plaintiffs appealed that decertification order.  In September
2006, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the class
decertification order.  In May 2009, the California Supreme Court
reversed the class decertification order and remanded the case for
further proceedings regarding whether there are class
representatives that can demonstrate standing.  In June 2009, the
defendants filed a Petition for Rehearing in the California
Supreme Court, which was denied by the court in August 2009.
Additionally, in September 2009, plaintiffs' counsel informed the
trial court that plaintiffs intend to seek reconsideration of the
trial court's September 2004 order finding that plaintiffs'
allegations regarding lights cigarettes are preempted by federal
law.  Plaintiffs contend that the recent decision in Altria v.
Good, by the United States Supreme Court, necessitates
reconsideration of the trial court's September 2004 preemption
ruling.

In March 2010, the trial court granted reconsideration of its
September 2004 order granting partial summary judgment to
defendants with respect to plaintiffs' "lights" claims on the
basis of judicial decisions issued since its order was issued,
including the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Altria,
thereby reinstating plaintiffs' "lights" claims.  Since the trial
court's prior ruling decertifying the class was reversed on appeal
by the California Supreme Court, the parties and the court are
treating all claims currently being asserted by the plaintiffs as
certified, subject, however, to defendants' challenge to the class
representatives standing to assert their claims.

In December 2010, defendants filed a motion for a determination
that the class representatives lack standing and are not adequate
to represent the class.  Argument on this motion was scheduled on
February 23, 2011.  Trial is scheduled to start on May 6, 2011.

Vector Group Ltd., a Delaware corporation, is a holding company
and is principally engaged in (i) the manufacture and sale of
cigarettes in the United States through its Liggett Group LLC and
Vector Tobacco Inc. subsidiaries, and (ii) the real estate
business through the Company's New Valley LLC subsidiary, which is
seeking to acquire additional operating companies and real estate
properties. New Valley owns 50% of Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC,
which operates the largest residential brokerage company in the
New York metropolitan area.


VECTOR GROUP: Appeal From "Cleary" Suit Dismissal Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of an amended complaint in a lawsuit
against cigarette manufacturers, including Liggett Group Inc.,
remains pending, according to Vector Group Ltd.'s February 25,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

An action was brought on behalf of persons who have allegedly been
injured by (1) the defendants' purported conspiracy pursuant to
which defendants allegedly concealed material facts regarding the
addictive nature of nicotine; (2) the defendants' alleged acts of
targeting their advertising and marketing to minors; and (3) the
defendants' claimed breach of the public's right to defendants'
compliance with laws prohibiting the distribution of cigarettes to
minors.  The action is entitled Cleary, et al. v. Philip Morris,
Inc., et al., Case No. 09-cv-01596, USDC Northern District of
Illinois (case was originally filed June 3, 1998 in Circuit Court
of Cook County, Illinois).  The plaintiffs seek disgorgement of
all profits unjustly received through defendants' sale of
cigarettes to plaintiffs.  In March 2009, plaintiffs filed a Third
Amended Complaint replacing one named class representative with a
new plaintiff and adding new allegations regarding defendants'
sale of "light" cigarettes.  In March 2009, defendants filed a
notice of removal to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.  In November 2009, plaintiffs filed
a revised motion for class certification.  On February 1, 2010,
the court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants as to
all claims, other than a "lights" claim involving another
cigarette manufacturer.

On February 22, 2010, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for
class certification as to each purported class of plaintiffs, but,
allowed plaintiffs an opportunity to reinstate the motion as to
the addiction claim, if the plaintiffs identified a new class
representative, which they did, on April 13, 2010.  Plaintiffs
filed a Fourth Amended Complaint in an attempt to resurrect their
addiction claims.  In June 2010, the court granted defendants'
motion to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint.  Plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration was denied by the court.  In August
2010, plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit.

Vector Group Ltd., a Delaware corporation, is a holding company
and is principally engaged in (i) the manufacture and sale of
cigarettes in the United States through its Liggett Group LLC and
Vector Tobacco Inc. subsidiaries, and (ii) the real estate
business through its New Valley LLC subsidiary, which is seeking
to acquire additional operating companies and real estate
properties. New Valley owns 50% of Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC,
which operates the largest residential brokerage company in the
New York metropolitan area.


VECTOR GROUP: "Parsons" Suit Remains Stayed in West Virginia
------------------------------------------------------------
The personal injury class action against cigarette manufacturers,
including Liggett Group Inc., remains stayed due to the bankruptcy
filing of three of the defendants, according to Vector Group
Ltd.'s February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

The personal injury class action entitled Parsons, et al. v. A C &
S Inc., et al., Case No. 98-C-388, Circuit Court, West Virginia,
Kanawha County (case filed April 9, 1998)., is brought on behalf
of plaintiff's decedent and all West Virginia residents who
allegedly have personal injury claims arising from their exposure
to cigarette smoke and asbestos fibers.  The case is stayed as a
result of the December 2000 bankruptcy petitions filed by three
defendants in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District
of Delaware.

Vector Group Ltd., a Delaware corporation, is a holding company
and is principally engaged in (i) the manufacture and sale of
cigarettes in the United States through its Liggett Group LLC and
Vector Tobacco Inc. subsidiaries, and (ii) the real estate
business through its New Valley LLC subsidiary, which is seeking
to acquire additional operating companies and real estate
properties. New Valley owns 50% of Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC,
which operates the largest residential brokerage company in the
New York metropolitan area.


VECTOR GROUP: "Young" Suit Remains Stayed in Louisiana
------------------------------------------------------
The personal injury class action against cigarette manufacturers,
including Liggett Group Inc., commenced in Louisiana remains
pending, according to Vector Group Ltd.'s February 25, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2010.

A purported personal injury class action entitled Young, et al. v.
American Brands Inc., et al., Case No. 97-19984cv, Civil District
Court, Louisiana, Orleans Parish (case filed 11/12/97), is brought
on behalf of plaintiff and all similarly situated residents in
Louisiana who, though not themselves cigarette smokers, have been
exposed to secondhand smoke from cigarettes which were
manufactured by the defendants, and who suffered injury as a
result of that exposure.  The class has not been certified.  The
plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of compensatory
and punitive damages.  In October 2004, the trial court stayed
this case pending the outcome of an appeal in Scott v. American
Tobacco Co.

Vector Group Ltd., a Delaware corporation, is a holding company
and is principally engaged in (i) the manufacture and sale of
cigarettes in the United States through its Liggett Group LLC and
Vector Tobacco Inc. subsidiaries, and (ii) the real estate
business through its New Valley LLC subsidiary, which is seeking
to acquire additional operating companies and real estate
properties. New Valley owns 50% of Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC,
which operates the largest residential brokerage company in the
New York metropolitan area.


VECTOR GROUP: Continues to Defend "Smith" Suit in Kansas
--------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. continues to defend itself in a class action in
Kansas, 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 a class action entitled Smith, et al. v. Philip Morris, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 00-cv-26, District Court, Kansas, Seward County
(case filed February 7, 2000), plaintiffs allege that defendants
conspired to fix, raise, stabilize, or maintain prices for
cigarettes in Kansas.  The court granted class certification in
November 2001 and discovery is proceeding.  A status conference
was conducted in August 2010 at which time the court ordered the
parties to non-binding mediation.

Vector Group Ltd., a Delaware corporation, is a holding company
and is principally engaged in (i) the manufacture and sale of
cigarettes in the United States through its Liggett Group LLC and
Vector Tobacco Inc. subsidiaries, and (ii) the real estate
business through its New Valley LLC subsidiary, which is seeking
to acquire additional operating companies and real estate
properties. New Valley owns 50% of Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC,
which operates the largest residential brokerage company in the
New York metropolitan area.


WELLCARE SECURITIES: May 4 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and Labaton Sucharow LLP
issue a statement regarding the WellCare Securities Litigation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

EASTWOOD ENTERPRISES, LLC, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, vs. TODD S. FARHA, PAUL L.
BEHRENS, THADDEUS BEREDAY, and WELLCARE HEALTH PLANS, INC.,
Defendants. Case No.: 8:07-cv-1940-VMC-EAJ

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS'
FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
THE COMMON STOCK OF WELLCARE HEALTH PLANS, INC. DURING THE PERIOD
FROM FEBRUARY 14, 2005 THROUGH 10:59 A.M. EASTERN STANDARD TIME ON
OCTOBER 24, 2007, INCLUSIVE, (THE "CLASS PERIOD") AND WHO WERE
DAMAGED THEREBY (THE "CLASS").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the Court, that the above-
captioned action has been preliminarily certified as a class
action for the purposes of settlement only and that a settlement
of the Action in the face amount of at least $200 million has been
proposed by the Parties. (fn 1)  A hearing will be held before the
Honorable Virginia M. Hernandez Covington of the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division
in the Sam M. Gibbons United States Courthouse, 801 North Florida
Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33602, at 10:00 a.m., on May 4, 2011 to
determine:  whether the proposed settlement should be approved by
the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; whether the Class
should be certified and class representatives and class counsel be
appointed; whether the proposed plan of allocation for
distribution of the settlement proceeds should be approved; and to
consider the request of Lead Counsel for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of litigation expenses; and the request of Lead
Plaintiffs for reimbursement of their reasonable costs and
expenses relating to their representation of the Class.  The Court
may change the date of the hearing without providing another
notice.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE NET SETTLEMENT
FUND.  If you have not yet received the full printed Notice of
Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement, Settlement
Fairness Hearing, and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement
of Litigation Expenses and a Proof of Claim form, you may obtain
copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator:

          WellCare Securities Litigation
          Claims Administrator
          GCG, Inc.
          P.O. Box 9640
          Dublin, OH 43017-4940
          Telephone: 888-345-0869
          Web site: http://www.WellCareSecuritiesLitigation.com/

Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of
a claim, may also be made to Co-Lead Counsel:

          Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
          Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Attn: Steven B. Singer
          Telephone: (866) 648-2524
          Web site: http://www.blbglaw.com/

               - or -

          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Attn: James W. Johnson
          Telephone: (888) 219-6877
          Web site: http://www.labaton.com/

To participate in the proposed settlement and be eligible to
receive a recovery, you must submit a Proof of Claim form
postmarked no later than June 4, 2011.  To exclude yourself from
the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion for receipt no
later than April 13, 2011.  If you are a Class Member and do not
exclude yourself from the Class, you will be bound by the Court's
Order and Judgment.  Any objections to the Settlement must be
filed with the Court and served on counsel for the parties for
receipt on or before April 13, 2011.  If you are a Class Member
and do not timely submit a valid Proof of Claim form, you will not
share in the Settlement, but you nevertheless will be bound by the
Order and Judgment of the Court.

DATED:  February 24, 2011

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA
DIVISION

Counsel for Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana, Public
School Teachers' Pension & Retirement Fund of Chicago, and
Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago, and Court-
appointed Lead Counsel for the Class

          Steven B. Singer, Esq.
          Niki L. Mendoza, Esq.
          Jeremy P. Robinson, Esq.
          Laura H. Gundersheim, Esq.
          John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (866) 648-2524

Counsel for the New Mexico State Investment Council and the Public
Employees Retirement Association of New Mexico, and Court-
appointed Lead Counsel for the Class

          Thomas A. Dubbs, Esq.
          James W. Johnson, Esq.
          Michael Stocker, Esq.
          Michael Woolley, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (888) 219-6877

(fn 1) All capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this
document shall have the meaning provided in the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement with WellCare Health Plans, Inc., dated
December 17, 2010.


WHOLE FOODS: Continues to Defend "Kottaras" Suit
------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market, Inc., continues to defend itself from a class
action lawsuit alleging violations of the federal antitrust laws,
according to the Company's February 25, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
January 16, 2011.

On October 27, 2008, Whole Foods Market was served with the
complaint in Kottaras v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., a putative
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia, seeking treble damages, equitable,
injunctive, and declaratory relief and alleging that the
acquisition and merger between Whole Foods Market and Wild Oats
violates various provisions of the federal antitrust laws. This
case is in the preliminary stages. Whole Foods Market cannot at
this time predict the likely outcome of this judicial proceeding
or estimate the amount or range of loss or possible loss that may
arise from it. The Company has not accrued any loss related to the
outcome of this case as of January 16, 2011.

Whole Foods Market -- http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/--
headquartered in Austin, Texas, is a leading supermarket retailer
which emphasizes natural and organic foods.  The company has 295
stores in the U.S., Canada and U.K., and had approximately $8
billion in revenues over the last 12 months.


WISCONSIN ENERGY: Amended Complaint Over Pension Plan Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin Energy Corporation continues to face an amended class
action complaint in connection with its Cash Balance Pension Plan,
according to the Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2010.

On June 30, 2009, a lawsuit was filed by Alan M. Downes, a former
employee, against The Wisconsin Energy Corporation Retirement
Account Plan in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Wisconsin.  Counsel representing the plaintiff is attempting to
seek class certification for other similarly situated plaintiffs.
The complaint alleges that Plan participants who received a lump
sum distribution under the Plan prior to their normal retirement
age did not receive the full benefit to which they were entitled
in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 (ERISA) and are owed additional benefits, because the Plan
failed to apply the correct interest crediting rate to project the
cash balance account to their normal retirement age.  On
September 6, 2010, the plaintiff filed a First Amended Class
Action Complaint alleging additional claims under ERISA and adding
Wisconsin Energy Corporation as a defendant.  The plaintiff has
not specified the amount of relief he is seeking.

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

Wisconsin Energy Corporation -- http://www.wisconsinenergy.com/--
based in Milwaukee, is one of the nation's premier energy
companies, serving more than 1.1 million electric customers in
Wisconsin and Michigan's Upper Peninsula and more than 1 million
natural gas customers in Wisconsin.  The company's primary
subsidiaries are Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Wisconsin Gas
LLC and W.E. Power, LLC


XL GROUP: Awaits Court Decision on Motions to Dismiss N.J. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
XL Group plc's affiliates await an MDL court's ruling on their
motions to dismiss a proposed class action in New Jersey,
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 2005, plaintiffs in a proposed class action that was
consolidated into a multidistrict litigation in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned In re
Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1663, Civil Action No.
04-5184, filed a consolidated amended complaint, which named as
new defendants approximately 30 entities, including Greenwich
Insurance Company, Indian Harbor Insurance Company and XL Capital
Ltd. aka XL-Cayman, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company.  In
the MDL, the Class Action plaintiffs asserted various claims
purportedly on behalf of a class of commercial insureds against
approximately 113 insurance companies and insurance brokers
through which the named plaintiffs allegedly purchased insurance.
The Amended Complaint alleged that the defendant insurance
companies and insurance brokers conspired to manipulate bidding
practices for insurance policies in certain insurance lines and
failed to disclose certain commission arrangements and asserted
statutory claims under the Sherman Act, various state antitrust
laws and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
as well as common law claims alleging breach of fiduciary duty,
aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment.  By Opinion and Order dated August 31, 2007, the Court
dismissed the Sherman Act claims with prejudice and, by Opinion
and Order dated September 28, 2007, the Court dismissed the RICO
claims with prejudice.  The plaintiffs then appealed both Orders
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  On August 16,
2010, the Third Circuit affirmed in large part the District
Court's dismissal.  The Third Circuit reversed the dismissal of
certain Sherman Act and RICO claims alleged against several
defendants including XL-Cayman and two of its subsidiaries but
remanded those claims to the District Court for further
consideration of their adequacy.  In light of its reversal and
remand of certain of the federal claims, the Third Circuit also
reversed the District Court's dismissal of the state-law claims
against all defendants.  On October 1, 2010 the remaining
defendants including XL-Cayman and two of its subsidiaries filed
motions to dismiss the remanded federal claims and the state-law
claims.  The motions have been fully briefed and await the
District Court's decision.


* U.S. FDA Removes Unapproved Drugs Involved in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
RTTNews reports that seeking to reduce consumer exposure to drugs
that are not proven safe and effective, the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration has prompted the removal of unapproved drug
products from the market as part of its 'Unapproved Drugs
Initiative', which began in June 2006.

The drugs subjected to the class action include, unapproved
prescription cough, cold, and allergy drug products that have not
been evaluated by the FDA for safety, effectiveness, and quality.
Since these drugs' labels do not disclose that they lack FDA
approval, they are being unknowingly prescribed by many health
care providers, according to the FDA.

The regulatory agency in a statement noted that companies that
have previously listed products subject to the action are expected
to stop manufacturing them within 90 days and stop shipping the
products within 180 days.  Companies that have not previously
listed products subject to the action with FDA are expected to
stop manufacturing and shipping their products immediately.

A list of unapproved prescription cough, cold, and allergy
products is available at http://is.gd/X857ZG


                            *********

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  * * *