CAR_Public/110310.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, March 10, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 49

                             Headlines

1031 TAX GROUP: Wave III Settlement Fairness Hearing on June 27
AFFINION GROUP: Awaits Outcome of Class Action in Alabama
AFFINION GROUP: Court Denies Arbitration in Connecticut Suit
AFFINION GROUP: Awaits Ruling on Arbitration Request in N.Y. Suit
AFFINION GROUP: Hearing on Webloyalty's Motion to Dismiss Suit Set

AFFINION GROUP: Unit Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Conn. Suit
AFFINION GROUP: Webloyalty Faces Class Action Suit in Virginia
ACCELRYS INC: Awaits Final Okay of Symyx Merger Suit Settlement
ALPHATEC HOLDINGS: Class Suit Over Scient'x Deal Still Pending
AMCOR: Parties in Cartel Case Reach In-Principle Agreement

AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Investors May Pursue Arbitration Claims
ANZ BANK: Faces Judge's Ire Over Class Action Delays
ARCA BIOPHARMA: Enters Into Settlement of Securities Class Suit
ARCTIC EXPRESS: 7th Cir. Remands Class Suit by Drivers Group
CALAMOS ASSET: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Remand "Brown" Suit

CALAMOS ASSET: Continues to Defend "Bourrienne" Suit
CALAMOS ASSET: Motion to Dismiss Rutgers Casualty Suit Pending
COMPUCREDIT HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Knox" Suit
COMPUCREDIT HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Greenwood" Suit
COMPUCREDIT HOLDINGS: Consolidated Georgia Suit Dismissed

COMPUCREDIT HOLDINGS: "Sue An" Class Suit Dismissed
DEL MONTE: California Court Stays "Franklin" Proceedings
DEL MONTE: Continues to Defend "Littlefield" Suit in Massachusetts
DEL MONTE: Continues to Defend FLSA Violation Lawsuit in Minnesota
DEL MONTE: Settles Class Action Alleging False Advertising

DEL MONTE: Continues to Defend Class Suits on Pet Food Recalls
DEX ONE: Continues to Defend Delaware Securities Suit
DEX ONE: Continues to Defend ERISA Suit in Illinois
EQUINIX INC: Faces Securities Class Action in California
GT SOLAR: Settles IPO Class Actions for $10.5 Million

GREAT SOUTHERN: Continues to Defend ATM Suit in Missouri
HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Negotiating Settlement of "Sewell" Suit
IBERIABANK CORP: Faces Suits Over Overdraft Fees Imposition
KANSAS CITY POLICE: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary OK
KFORCE INC: Final Hearing on Class Suit Settlement Set for May

KOHLBERG CAPITAL: Class Action Lawsuits in New York Still Pending
LIFE PARTNERS: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
LUZERNE COUNTY: Lawyer Balks at Disciplinary Action
MCKESSON CORP: Judge Certifies Municipal Class Action
MERCER INSURANCE: Enters MOU to Settle Merger-Related Lawsuit

MORTON'S RESTAURANT: Court Denies Class Status of San Diego Suit
MORTON'S RESTAURANT: Continues to Defend Labor Suit in California
NAT'L COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC: Sued in Calif. for Capping Scholarships
NATIONAL SECURITY: Hurricane-Related Cases Still Pending
NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS: Supreme Court Won't Hear "Spygate" Suit

NEW YORK: Settles Suit Over Trespassing-Enforcement Policies
NEW YORK: Inmates in Strip-Search Class Action Get Payouts
NORTEL NETWORKS: Securities Suit Stayed Pending CCAA Proceedings
NORTEL NETWORKS: Canadian Pension Class Action Remains Stayed
PHUSION PROJECTS: Faces Class Action Over "Four Loko" Drinks

RAILAMERICA INC: EPA Didn't File Charges on Styrene Incident
REALOGY CORP: Continues to Shoulder Costs in Cendant's Cooper Case
REPROS THERAPEUTICS: 2009 Securities Class Actions Dismissed
SANTARUS INC: Defends Wage and Hour Lawsuit in New York
SEQWATER: May Face Big Class Action Over Dam Water Releases

ST. JOE: Defends Consolidated Securities Class Action in Florida
STEWART INFORMATION: Continues to Defend Against Antitrust Suits
SUN HEALTHCARE: Awaits Court Approval of Suit Settlement
TORO COMPANY: Continues to Defend Lawnmowers Suit in Canada
WELLS FARGO: Settles Gender Discrimination Class Action

WILMINGTON TRUST: Enters Into MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits



                             *********


1031 TAX GROUP: Wave III Settlement Fairness Hearing on June 27
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James Ware issued a revised order preliminary approving the
Wave III Class Settlement with the Boulder Defendants and the
MacDowell Parties.  A Fairness Hearing pursuant to Rule 23(e) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is scheduled to be held
before the Court on June 27, 2011 at 9:00 a.m., to consider Class
Counsel's motion for final approval of the deal.

Class Representatives, on behalf of themselves and the Settlement
Class and Gerard A. McHale, Jr., P.A., the Liquidation Trustee for
the 1031 Debtors Liquidation Trust, pursuant to the plan of
reorganization confirmed in the chapter 11 bankruptcy cases for
the 1031 Tax Group, LLC, et al., and the 1031 Debtors Liquidation
Trust, have entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement
with Boulder Capital LLC, Boulder Columbus LLC, Boulder West Oaks
LLC, Boulder Holdings VI, LLC, Boulder Holdings X, LLC, and Roy S.
MacDowell, Jr.  and Virginia MacDowell, Baystone Investor, LLC,
Baystone Residual, LLC, and Baystone Fund I GP, LLC.

The Wave III Settlements will total $21,975,000:

    -- the Kutak Parties collectively contributing $8,975,000;
    -- Citibank contributing $5,900,000;
    -- the Foley Defendants contributing $1,700,000;
    -- the Boulder Defendants contributing $2,000,000; and
    -- Jorden Burt and Richard Simring contributing $3,400,000

The settlements will add to the Wave I and Wave II Settlements.

The Wave III Settling Defendants deny any wrongdoing, fault,
liability or damage to the Class or the Trustee and deny that they
acted improperly in any way.  In view, however, of the uncertainty
and expense of litigation, the Wave III Settling Defendants have
agreed to pay these amounts in exchange for, among other things, a
full, final and complete release of, among other claims, all
asserted and unasserted claims against them and Rule 23 Bar Orders
protecting them from any further or potential claims.

The Wave III Settlements will not resolve claims against the other
non-settling defendants and litigation will continue against those
defendants.

The case is Anita Hunter, et al., v. Citibank, N.A., et al., Case
Nos. 09-md-02028 JW, 09-CV-02079-JW (N.D. Calif.)  A copy of the
Court's March 2, 2011 revised order is available at
http://is.gd/jVbG2Xfrom Leagle.com.

                     About 1031 Tax Group

Headquartered in Richmond, Virginia, The 1031 Tax Group LLC --
http://www.ixg1031.com/-- was a privately held consolidated group
of qualified intermediaries created to service real property
exchanges under Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code.
131 Tax Group had total assets of $164.23 million and total
liabilities as of Sept. 30, 2007.

The Company and 15 of its affiliates filed for Chapter 11
protection (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 07-11448) on May 14,
2007.  Gerard A. McHale, Jr., was appointed Chapter 11 trustee.
Jonathan L. Flaxer, Esq., and David J. Eisenman, Esq., at
Golenbock Eiseman Assor Bell & Peskoe LLP, represent the Chapter
11 trustee.  Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC acts as claims and
notice agent.  Thomas J. Weber, Esq., Melanie L. Cyganowski, Esq.,
and Allen G. Kadish, Esq., at Greenberg Traurig, LLP, represent
the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.

Former CEO Edward H. Okun is in federal prison at Northern Neck
Regional Jail in Warsaw, Virginia, after being convicted of mail
fraud and other charges.  Mr. Okun allegedly engaged in several
misappropriations of funds of 1031 Tax Group and other entities.
The funds were used for Mr. Okun's lavish lifestyle including
acquiring properties and luxury asset.


AFFINION GROUP: Awaits Outcome of Class Action in Alabama
---------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc., is awaiting the outcome of a class action
lawsuit in Alabama, according to the Company's March 4, 2011 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

In October 2005, Cendant Corporation completed the sale of its
Cendant Marketing Services Division to Affinion.

On November 12, 2002, a class action complaint was filed against
Sears, Roebuck & Co., Sears National Bank, Cendant Membership
Services, Inc. and Allstate Insurance Company in the Circuit Court
of Alabama for Greene County alleging, among other things, breach
of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of duty of good faith and
fair dealing and violations of the Illinois consumer fraud and
deceptive practices act.  The case was removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama but was
remanded to the Circuit Court of Alabama for Greene County.  The
Company filed a motion to compel arbitration, which was granted by
the court on January 31, 2008.  In granting the motion, the court
further ordered that any arbitration with respect to this matter
take place on an individual (and not class) basis.

On February 28, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration of the court's order.  On April 9, 2010, the court
denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration.  The time for
plaintiffs to file an appeal has expired and, to date, no
arbitration claim has been filed by plaintiffs.


AFFINION GROUP: Court Denies Arbitration in Connecticut Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc.'s request for arbitration in a class action
lawsuit filed in Connecticut has been denied, according to the
Company's March 4, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2010.

On June 17, 2010, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company and Trilegiant Corporation in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut.  The complaint asserts
various causes of action on behalf of a putative nationwide class
and a California-only subclass in connection with the sale by
Trilegiant of its membership programs, including claims under the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practices Act, California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and
California False Advertising Law.  On September 29, 2010, the
Company filed a motion to compel arbitration of all of the claims
asserted in this lawsuit.  On February 24, 2011, the court denied
the Company's motion.  The case is currently pending before the
court.  There has been limited discovery and motion practice to
date.


AFFINION GROUP: Awaits Ruling on Arbitration Request in N.Y. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc., is awaiting a ruling on its request for
arbitration in a class action lawsuit filed in New York,
according to the Company's March 4, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

On November 10, 2010, a class action complaint was filed against
the Company, Trilegiant Corporation, 1-800-Flowers.com, and Chase
Bank USA, N.A. in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.  The complaint asserts various causes of
action on behalf of several putative nationwide classes that
largely overlap with one another.  The claims asserted are in
connection with the sale by Trilegiant of its membership programs,
including claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, and New York's General
Business Law.  On January 28, 2011, pursuant to the court's motion
procedures, the Company filed a letter seeking permission to file
a motion to compel arbitration of all of the claims asserted in
this lawsuit.  On February 16, 2011, the court entered a briefing
schedule on the Company's proposed motion, which requires that all
briefings be concluded by June 8, 2011.  The court did not
indicate when it would rule on the motion.


AFFINION GROUP: Hearing on Webloyalty's Motion to Dismiss Suit Set
------------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed
against a unit of Affinion Group, Inc., has been set for April 11,
2011, according to the Company's March 4, 2011 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2010.

Affinion Group, Inc. and Affinion Group Holdings, Inc., entered
into, and consummated, an Agreement and Plan of Merger that
resulted in Affinion's indirect acquisition of all of the capital
stock of Webloyalty Holdings, Inc., on January 14, 2011.

On June 25, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Webloyalty and one of its clients in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California alleging, among
other things, violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, unjust enrichment, fraud,
civil theft, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act violations, false advertising and
California Consumer Business Practice violations.  This lawsuit
relates to Webloyalty's alleged conduct occurring on and after
October 1, 2008.  On February 17, 2011, Webloyalty filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint in this lawsuit.  A hearing has
been scheduled on the motion to dismiss for April 11, 2011.


AFFINION GROUP: Unit Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Conn. Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
A unit of Affinion Group, Inc., is awaiting a ruling on its
request to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed in Connecticut,
according to the Company's March 4, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

Affinion Group, Inc., and Affinion Group Holdings, Inc., entered
into, and consummated, an Agreement and Plan of Merger that
resulted in Affinion's indirect acquisition of all of the capital
stock of Webloyalty Holdings, Inc., on January 14, 2011.

On August 27, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Webloyalty, one of its former clients and one of the credit card
associations in the United States District Court for the District
of Connecticut alleging, among other things, violations of the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, unjust enrichment, civil theft, negligent misrepresentation,
fraud and Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act violations.  This
lawsuit relates to Webloyalty's alleged conduct occurring on and
after October 1, 2008.  On December 23, 2010, Webloyalty filed a
motion to dismiss this lawsuit.  The court has not yet ruled on
Webloyalty's motion.


AFFINION GROUP: Webloyalty Faces Class Action Suit in Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------------
A unit of Affinion Group, Inc., is facing a class action lawsuit
filed in Virginia, according to the Company's March 4, 2011 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Affinion Group, Inc. and Affinion Group Holdings, Inc., entered
into, and consummated, an Agreement and Plan of Merger that
resulted in Affinion's indirect acquisition of all of the capital
stock of Webloyalty Holdings, Inc., on January 14, 2011.

On February 18, 2011, a class action complaint was filed against
Webloyalty and one of its clients in the District Court for the
Western District of Virginia.  The complaint asserts various
causes of action on behalf of a putative nationwide class,
including unfair and deceptive acts and practices, unjust
enrichment, invasion of privacy, money had and received, larceny,
obtaining money by false pretense, trover, conversion, detinue,
trespass, fraud, misrepresentation and computer fraud and
violations under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act in
connection with the sale by Webloyalty of its membership programs.
The complaint was served on the Company on March 3, 2011.  The
Company has not yet responded to the complaint, but intends to
vigorously defend itself against this lawsuit.


ACCELRYS INC: Awaits Final Okay of Symyx Merger Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Accelrys, Inc., disclosed in a March 4, 2011, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it has obtained
preliminary court approval of its settlement of a class action
lawsuit related to its proposed merger with Symyx Technologies,
Inc.

On February 25, 2011, the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Santa Clara gave preliminary approval to a
settlement of the class action litigation previously disclosed in
the periodic reports filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission by each of Accelrys, Inc. and Symyx Technologies, Inc.,
including the action entitled In Re Symyx Technologies Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 1-10-CV-16862 (including
consolidated actions: Price v. Goldwasser, et al., Case No: 1-10-
CV168621; Joseph v. Goldwasser, et al, Case No: 1-10-CV-168992;
Meeks v. Symyx Technologies, Inc., Case No: 1-10-CV-168988; and
Woelfel v. Goldwasser et al., Case No: 1-10-CV-169334).  The
Derivative Lawsuits were brought, purportedly on behalf of the
stockholders of Symyx, against Symyx and its directors and certain
executive officers, the Company and Alto Merger Sub, Inc., a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.  If approved by the Court
at a hearing currently scheduled to take place on April 22, 2011,
the Proposed Settlement will result in the dismissal with
prejudice of all Derivative Lawsuits, in exchange for supplemental
disclosures previously made by Symyx in its Current Report on Form
8-K filed with the SEC June 23, 2010 and payment by the Defendants
of attorneys' fees awarded to the plaintiffs' attorneys, if any.
The terms of the Proposed Settlement are described in the Notice
of Pendency and Proposed Settlement, a copy of which will be
posted on the Company's website at http://www.accelrys.com/by
March 7, 2011.  The Notice also provides information regarding how
an opposition to the Proposed Settlement may be filed with the
Court.  With the exception of attorneys' fees, the Proposed
Settlement does not contemplate payment of any monetary judgment
by the Defendants and all Defendants have denied and continue to
deny any and all liability in connection with the allegations made
in the Derivative Lawsuits.


ALPHATEC HOLDINGS: Class Suit Over Scient'x Deal Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action lawsuit filed against Alphatec Holdings,
Inc., in California is still pending.

On August 10, 2010, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased
Alphatec's common stock between December 19, 2009, and August 5,
2010, against the Company and certain of its directors and
executives alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  On February 17,
2011, an amended complaint was filed against the Company and
certain of its directors and officers adding alleged violations of
the Securities Act of 1933.  HealthpointCapital, Jefferies & Co.,
Canaccord Genuity, Cowen & Co., and Lazard Capital are also
defendants in this action.  The complaint alleges that the
defendants made false or misleading statements, as well as failed
to disclose material facts, about their business, financial
condition, operations and prospects, particularly relating to the
Company's acquisition of Scient'x and Alphatec's financial
guidance following the closing of the acquisition.  The complaint
seeks unspecified monetary damages, attorneys' fees, and other
unspecified relief.

No further updates were provided in the Company's March 4, 2011
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.


AMCOR: Parties in Cartel Case Reach In-Principle Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------
Australian Associated Press reports that parties in a class action
alleging price-fixing and cartel-like behavior against cardboard
box giants Amcor and Visy Board have reached an "in-principle
agreement", a court has heard.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn, on instructions from Jarra Creek
Central Packing Shed, is conducting a class action against the two
companies.  They are seeking damages for customers who suffered
losses from Amcor and Visy's alleged cartel behavior in the
cardboard box industry.

The six-week trial was due to begin in Sydney on March 8.

Barrister Tony Bannon, SC, acting for Maurice Blackburn, told the
Federal Court on March 8 that the parties had reached an "in-
principle agreement" and were working on documenting the deal.

Mr. Bannon asked the court to reconvene at 10:15 a.m. today,
March 10, when the parties would report progress.

Former Amcor chief executive Russell Jones and former Amcor
Australasia managing director Peter Brown were slated to give
evidence on the first day of the trial.

But not long after the court was in session, Mr. Bannon requested
a 30-minute adjournment for talks between the parties.

The adjournment was extended to 12:30 p.m. then through lunch as
the parties continued last-minute discussions.  When the court
reconvened just after 2:15 p.m., Mr. Bannon asked for a further
extension, telling Justice Peter Jacobson the time so far had been
spent productively.

Mr. Bannon later told the court of the in-principle agreement and
asked the case be held over until Thursday as the parties worked
to write up the deal.

The class action, filed in April 2006, sought damages for
customers that suffered losses as a consequence of Amcor and
Visy's actions.

It alleged that between January and April 2000, Amcor and Visy
entered into a cartel to fix corrugated fiberboard packaging
prices and reduce competition for each other's customers.

Moreover, it was alleged the first cartel arrangement spread via
secondary agreements to see some prices increased each year from
2000 to 2003 for non-contract customers.

Amcor's half-year accounts, released in February, showed the
amount being claimed against it in the class action was $321
million, including interest.

Separately, the late businessman Richard Pratt and his Visy group
of companies in 2007 said they'd manipulated the cardboard market
through price fixing and market-sharing in contravention of the
Trade Practices Act with its rival, Amcor.

The Federal Court fined Visy $36 million, the largest fine in
Australian history.


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Investors May Pursue Arbitration Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Kelly, writing for Investment News, reports that the
proposed class action settlements reached by Securities America
Inc. and its parent Ameriprise Financial Inc. with clients who
bought allegedly fraudulent private placements from Securities
America between 2003 and 2009 could be upended by investors who
opt out of the deal.

As part of the proposed settlement, a federal judge in Dallas,
W. Royal Furgeson Jr., has frozen three arbitration claims by
individual investors who sued Securities America through
arbitration under the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc.

The judge last month issued a temporary restraining order
regarding the arbitrations as part of Securities America's
potential offer of $21 million to investors suing the firm over
private placements issued by Medical Capital Holdings Inc. and
Provident Royalties LLC.  The SEC in 2009 charged both those
sponsors with fraud.

LIMITED FUNDS

Judge Furgeson wrote that his decision, in large part, was due to
the limited funds Securities America has on hand to pay investors.

"If the arbitration were to proceed, it would expend funds for
legal defense that would otherwise be made available to class
members," he wrote.

Attorneys noted that investors' legal path to "opt out" --
declining to join a class and suing individually -- is a
well-established legal precept.

"There is very strong law favoring the right of the individual to
opt out of a class," said William Kelly, a partner at Nixon
Peabody LLP.  "It's always been the case that plaintiffs can
pursue separate claims, distinguished from the class action
lawsuit."

One securities regulator and plaintiff's attorney took issue with
the judge's authority to freeze investors' arbitration claims in
the dispute.

"I don't think Judge Furgeson has the power to do this," said
Joseph Long, director of securities regulation for New Hampshire.
"But on the other hand, [he] thinks he does."

Mr. Long said that he isn't involved in the dispute, Billitteri v.
Securities America Inc., et al., but has been looking at the case.

In a phone call on March 3, Judge Furgeson declined to comment on
the case, adding: "Nothing is settled yet.  I'm still hearing the
issues."

The scope of the proposed settlement widened last week, with the
plaintiffs' lead attorney, Daniel Girard, saying that Ameriprise,
which owns Securities America, will create a separate settlement
pot of $27 million for investors who bought private placements.

"We are pleased to have reached an agreement to settle claims
brought against Ameriprise as corporate parent related to certain
private placements sold by our subsidiary Securities America,"
Ameriprise spokesman Chris Reese wrote in an e-mail.

The suit alleges that Securities America handed clients a private-
placement memorandum that contained untrue statements about the
deals and omitted other material information.

A spokeswoman for Securities America, Janine Wertheim, declined to
comment about the future of the potential settlement.

The proposed settlement also throws into question the status of
complaints by securities regulators for Massachusetts and Montana,
both of which sued Securities America last year.  Those lawsuits
seek restitution to investors in those states, as well as
potential fines.

Brian McNiff, a spokesman for the Massachusetts Securities
Division, said the two states intend to file a brief regarding the
matter.

Judge Furgeson will hold a hearing on the proposed settlements in
federal court in Dallas on March 18.  Lawyers for the plaintiffs
pursuing arbitration plan to argue vigorously against any
settlement that would freeze their claims against Securities
America.

According to Ameriprise, Securities America investors have lost
about $400 million from those two deals.

With Securities America looking to squeeze another $4 million from
its insurance carrier, the money for investors would be about
$52 million, Mr. Girard said.  That works out to about 15 cents on
the dollar for investors.

"The proposed class action settlement is substantially greater
that the net worth" of Securities America, he said, pointing to
the fact that a substantial portion, $11 million, of Securities
America's settlement is to come from the firm's future earnings.

Ameriprise's liability stems from the fact that it was a "control
person" with respect to Securities America, Mr. Girard said.

The Ameriprise and Securities America settlements were independent
of each other, he said.

The potential settlement has eaten into Securities America's
capital foundation, an essential part of a broker-dealer's
remaining in compliance with SEC rules and regulations.  Its
capital on hand has plummeted 86% in the past year, according to
Amerprise's annual report.

The 10-K filing indicated that Securities America had $2 million
in "actual capital" on hand at the end of 2010.  A year earlier,
the firm had $15 million, according to the report.

And according to other SEC filings, Securities America had net
capital of $17.4 million in 2008 and has a minimum net capital
level of about $250,000.

A spokeswoman for Securities America, Janine Wertheim, said that
the reported drop in capital levels was related directly to a host
of legal disputes stemming from clients who bought Regulation D
offerings by Medical Capital and Provident.

The drop in Securities America's capital level occurred because
the firm "has set aside additional capital for the potential
resolution" of the lawsuits, she said.

Ms. Wertheim declined to comment further about the firm's capital
levels and didn't respond to questions about whether the firm
would have difficulty winning the argument that all clients should
be part of the class action.

According to federal court documents detailing the agreement, the
brokerage contributed $7 million of its excess net capital toward
the $21 million settlement, with the rest coming from reserves
($2.3 million), future earnings ($11 million), and available cash
($800,000).

NO 'IMMINENT JEOPARDY'

Finra has eyeballed the potential settlement, according to the
documents.  It has determined that the $7 million payment from
excess net capital "will not place the company in imminent
jeopardy of a net capital deficiency," according to the settlement
document.

Nancy Condon, a spokeswoman for Finra, declined to comment.


ANZ BANK: Faces Judge's Ire Over Class Action Delays
-----------------------------------------------------
Richard Gluyas, writing for The Australian, reports that ANZ Bank
has incurred the wrath of a Federal Court judge over pre-trial
maneuvering and expected long delays in the first of the big class
actions against the industry over penalty, or exception, fees.

Judge Michelle Gordon on March 7 reminded ANZ of its obligations
to its customers and the court when told it could be up to two
years before the case was ready for trial.  "It's breathtaking,
really," Justice Gordon said.

"One wonders how this satisfies (the bank's) duty to its
customers.  I've had no positive submission from the ANZ at all in
how to (speed up the case)."

Justice Gordon, who has taken over the case from Judge Ray
Finkelstein, later scolded the bank further, saying the approach
it had taken was "not the way to conduct modern litigation".

She said long trial delays were precisely why the court system was
criticized by the press, the government and "everyone else".

But Alan Archibald QC, for ANZ, said it was in the bank's
interest, as much as the class-action members, to dispose of the
litigation.  It might appear "attractive" to run some elements of
the case together, but the reality was there would be "long-term"
impediments to structuring the case that way.

"We recognize the unattractiveness of the position, but it is the
harsh reality," Mr. Archibald said.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn filed the case against ANZ last
September.  At the time, it featured three lead applicants and at
least 27,199 individuals and businesses holding 40,000 personal
and business accounts.

The disputed fees include honor and dishonor charges on bank
accounts, as well as over-limit and late-payment fees on credit
cards.

The value of the action at that stage was more than $50 million
from the previous six years, with an average claim of about $1500
per account holder, running from a minimum of hundreds of dollars
to more than $35,000.

The essence of the case is that the fees are illegal because they
are penalties, bearing no relationship to the banks' costs.
Justice Gordon on March 7 reserved her ruling on the pre-trial
process for the case.


ARCA BIOPHARMA: Enters Into Settlement of Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
On February 25, 2011, ARCA biopharma, Inc., entered into a
settlement agreement covering the purported securities class
action lawsuit known as In re Nuvelo Securities Litigation,
pending against ARCA and the other defendants in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, according
to the Company's March 3, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On February 9, 2007, ARCA's predecessor Nuvelo, Inc., and certain
of Nuvelo's former and then current officers and directors were
named as defendants in this lawsuit, which was originally filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. The suit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 related to the clinical trial results of alfimeprase,
which Nuvelo announced on December 11, 2006, and seeks damages on
behalf of purchasers of Nuvelo's common stock during the period
between January 5, 2006 and December 8, 2006.  The plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages and injunctive relief. Three additional
lawsuits were filed in the Southern District of New York on
February 16, 2007, March 1, 2007 and March 6, 2007, respectively.
In July, 2007, all these cases were transferred to the Northern
District of California and consolidated, and plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint in the Northern District of California on
November 9, 2007. Nuvelo filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
consolidated complaint on December 21, 2007.  On December 4, 2008,
the Court issued an order dismissing plaintiffs' complaint, and
granting leave to amend. On January 23, 2009, plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint, alleging similar claims. On March 24, 2009,
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  On
August 17, 2009, the Court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion. ARCA filed its answer to plaintiffs' complaint
on October 1, 2009.

On December 29, 2010, ARCA and the other defendants reached a
settlement of the litigation with the plaintiffs, after
participating in mediation before a retired federal judge.  The
settlement agreement has now been submitted to the Court for
approval.  ARCA's insurance carriers have agreed to fund the
settlement, subject to a reservation of rights by one carrier.  If
the Court approves the settlement, the litigation will be
dismissed against all the defendants.  Members of the class who
participate in the settlement will provide a release to the
defendants, which prevents them from ever asserting any related
claims against the defendants.  Members of the class, if any, who
opt out of the settlement, would not be bound by this release.
Although ARCA's insurance carriers have agreed to pay most of the
legal fees that have been incurred in defending this litigation,
ARCA has separately agreed with its legal counsel to pay $167,000
in legal defense costs incurred on or before December 29, 2010,
but only if ARCA obtains additional funding of at least $10
million in 2011. If ARCA does not obtain such additional funding
in 2011, ARCA will have no such payment obligation.


ARCTIC EXPRESS: 7th Cir. Remands Class Suit by Drivers Group
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc.,
and Carl Harp and Michael Wiese, as representatives of the
certified class of owner-operators, seek to enforce a final
judgment obtained in a class action brought on behalf of
independent owner-operator truck drivers against a regulated motor
carrier, Arctic Express Inc., for maintenance escrow funds owed to
the owner-operators.  Plaintiffs assert that Comerica Bank,
through which Arctic kept several accounts and a revolving line of
credit, holds a portion of the funds included in the judgment in
breach of a statutory trust created pursuant to the Truth-in-
Leasing regulations of the Motor Carrier Act, 49 U.S.C. Sections
14101-02, 14704; 49 C.F.R. Sec. 376.12.  Plaintiffs seek
restitution of the maintenance escrows allegedly withdrawn
unlawfully by Comerica from the trust account as a reduction on
Arctic's loan balance.  On cross-motions for summary judgment, the
district court granted summary judgment in favor of Comerica and
denied plaintiffs' motion.  A three-man panel consisting of
Circuit Judges Alan Eugene Norris, Deborah L. Cook, and Richard
Allen Griffin, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded
the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

"We agree with the district court that genuine issues of material
fact exist which preclude a ruling, as a matter of law, on
Comerica's statute of limitations defense.  The district court
correctly ruled that this is a question for the trier of fact to
resolve," said Judge Griffin, who wrote the opinion.

The lawsuit has its origins in a $5.5 million class action
settlement agreement that Arctic and its affiliate, D & A
Associates Ltd., entered into with plaintiffs, representatives of
a certified class of "owner-operators," who independently own,
lease, and operate motor carrier equipment for the transportation
of commodities.  OOIDA is an owner-operator business association
with over 141,000 members throughout the United States and Canada.
Messrs. Harp and Wiese are individual owner-operators who
contracted with Arctic to lease motor vehicle equipment.  Arctic
is a federally regulated motor carrier that provides
transportation services to the shipping public.  D & A is a non-
carrier company that leases truck units to independent owner-
operators.

The case is Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc.;
Carl Harp, as representatives of the Class and the Certified Class
of Owner-Operators; Michael Wiese, as representatives of the Class
and the Certified Class of Owner-Operators, Appellants, v.
Comerica Bank, Appellee, No. 09-3463 (6th Cir.).  A copy of the
Court's March 3, 2011 opinion is available at http://is.gd/AV5iNT
from Leagle.com.

OOIDA et al. are represented by:

         Joyce E. Mayers, Esq.
         THE CULLEN LAW FIRM, PLLC
         1101 30th Street, N.W. Suite 300
         Washington DC 20007
         Telephone: 202-944-8600
         Facsimile: 202-944-8611
         E-mail: jem@cullenlaw.com

Comerica Bank is represented by:

         Alycia N. Broz, Esq.
         VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP
         52 East Gay Street
         Columbus, OH 43215
         Telephone: 614-464-5481
         Facsimile: 614-719-4810
         E-mail: anbroz@vorys.com

Headquartered in Hilliard, Ohio, Arctic Express Inc., is one of
America's largest refrigerated transportation services.  Arctic
Express and D&A Associates, Ltd., filed for chapter 11 protection
on Oct. 31, 2003 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio Case No. 03-66797).  Nicholas
A. Franke, Esq., and Lisa A. Epps, Esq., at Spencer Fane Britt &
Browne LLP and Guy R. Humphrey, Esq., at Chester, Willcox & Saxbe
LLP, represented the Debtors in their restructuring effort.  The
Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Third Amended Plan of
Reorganization filed by Arctic Express and its debtor-affiliate on
Sept. 9, 2004.


CALAMOS ASSET: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Remand "Brown" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Calamos Asset Management, Inc., is awaiting a court ruling on a
motion to remand a class action complaint filed by Christopher
Brown, the Company disclosed in its March 4, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company and Calamos Advisors LLC, an indirect subsidiary, were
named as defendants in a class action complaint filed on July 15,
2010 (Christopher Brown et al. v John P. Calamos, Sr. et al., No.
10-CV-04422  (N.D. Ill.)) by a putative common shareholder of the
Calamos Convertible Opportunities and Income Fund (CHI).  The
action was voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff in the U.S. District
Court and re-filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
on September 13, 2010 (Christopher Brown et al. v John P. Calamos,
Sr. et al., Civil Action No. 10CH39590).  Other defendants include
CHI, current and former trustees of CHI, John P. Calamos, Sr.,
Weston W. Marsh, John E. Neal, William R. Rybak, Stephen B.
Timbers, David D. Tripple, Joe F. Hanauer, and unspecified
defendants John and Jane Does 1-100.  The plaintiff alleges that
the Company and Calamos Advisors aided and abetted the individual
defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and were unjustly
enriched in connection with the redemption of auction rate
preferred securities of CHI.  As to the Company and Calamos
Advisors, the plaintiff is seeking: (i) declaratory judgments that
the Company and Calamos Advisors aided and abetted the individual
defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and were unjustly
enriched; (ii) an injunction against the Company and Calamos
Advisors serving as advisor or otherwise earning fees for services
to CHI; (iii) an unspecified amount of monetary relief plus
interest; (iv) an award of attorney's fees and expenses; and (v)
such other and further relief, including punitive damages, as may
be available to the plaintiff and the class that plaintiff seeks
to represent.  On October 13, 2010, the defendants removed the
action from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Christopher
Brown et al. v John P. Calamos, Sr. et al., No. 10-CV-06558  (N.D.
Ill.)) and also moved to dismiss the complaint.  The case is
currently awaiting decision on plaintiff's motion to remand it to
the Circuit Court of Cook County.

The Company and Calamos Advisors believe that the lawsuit is
without merit and intend to defend themselves vigorously against
the allegations.


CALAMOS ASSET: Continues to Defend "Bourrienne" Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Calamos Asset Management, Inc., continues to defend itself against
a class action lawsuit filed by Russell Bourrienne, the Company
disclosed in its March 4, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

The Company and Calamos Advisors LLC were named as defendants in a
class action complaint filed on September 14, 2010 (Russell
Bourrienne et al. v John P. Calamos, Sr. et al., No. 10-CV-5833
(N.D. Ill.)) by a putative common shareholder of the Calamos
Convertible Opportunities and Income Fund (CHI).  The action was
voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff in the U.S. District Court and
re-filed in Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois on October 18,
2010 (Russell Bourrienne et al. v John P. Calamos, Sr. et al., No.
10CH45119 ).  Other defendants include current and former trustees
of CHI, John P. Calamos, Sr., Weston W. Marsh, John E. Neal,
William R. Rybak, Stephen B. Timbers, David D. Tripple, Joe F.
Hanauer and unspecified defendants John and Jane Does 1-100.  The
plaintiff alleges that the Company and Calamos Advisors aided and
abetted the individual defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty and were unjustly enriched in connection with the redemption
of auction rate preferred securities of CHI.  As to the Company
and Calamos Advisors, the plaintiff is seeking: (i) declaratory
judgments that the Company and Calamos Advisors aided and abetted
the individual defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and
were unjustly enriched; (ii) an injunction against serving as
advisor or otherwise earning fees for services to CHI; (iii) an
unspecified amount of monetary relief plus interest; (iv) an award
of attorney's fees and expenses; and (v) such other and further
relief, including punitive damages, as may be available to the
plaintiff and the class that plaintiff seeks to represent.  On
November 12, 2010, the defendants removed the action from the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois (Russell Bourrienne et al. v
John P. Calamos, Sr. et al., No. 10-CV-07295  (N.D. Ill.)).
Defendants have also moved to dismiss the complaint.

The Company and Calamos Advisors believe that the lawsuit is
without merit and intend to defend themselves vigorously against
the allegations.


CALAMOS ASSET: Motion to Dismiss Rutgers Casualty Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Calamos Asset Management, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a class action
lawsuit filed by Rutgers Casualty Insurance Company remains
pending, according to the Company's March 4, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company and Calamos Advisors LLC were named as defendants in a
class action complaint filed on August 13, 2010 (Rutgers Casualty
Insurance Company et al. v John P. Calamos, Sr. et al., No. 10-CV-
5106  (N.D. Ill.)) by a putative common shareholder of the Calamos
Convertible and High Income Fund (CHY).  The action was
voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff in the U.S. District Court and
re-filed in Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois on December 22,
2010 (Rutgers Casualty Insurance Company et al. v John P. Calamos,
Sr. et al., No. 10CH53998 ).  Other defendants include CHY,
current and former trustees of CHY, John P. Calamos, Sr., Nick P.
Calamos, Weston W. Marsh, John E. Neal, William R. Rybak, Stephen
B. Timbers, David D. Tripple, Joe F. Hanauer and unspecified
defendants John and Jane Does 1-100.  The plaintiff alleges that
the Company and Calamos Advisors aided and abetted the individual
defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and were unjustly
enriched in connection with the redemption of auction rate
preferred securities of CHY.  As to the Company and Calamos
Advisors, the plaintiff is seeking: (i) declaratory judgments that
the Company and Calamos Advisors aided and abetted the individual
defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and were unjustly
enriched; (ii) an injunction against serving as advisor or
otherwise earning fees for services to CHY; (iii) an unspecified
amount of monetary relief plus interest; (iv) an award of
attorney's fees and expenses; and (v) such other and further
relief, including punitive damages, as may be available to the
plaintiff and the class that plaintiff seeks to represent.  On
January 21, 2011, the defendants removed the action from the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois (Rutgers Casualty Insurance
Company et al. v John P. Calamos, Sr. et al., No. 11-CV-00462
(N.D. Ill.)).  Defendants have also moved to dismiss the
complaint.


COMPUCREDIT HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Knox" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
CompuCredit Holdings Corporation continues to defend itself in a
purported class action lawsuit entitled Knox, et al., vs. First
Southern Cash Advance, et al., according to the Company's March 4,
2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

CompuCredit Corporation and five of its other subsidiaries are
defendants in a purported class action lawsuit entitled Knox, et
al., vs. First Southern Cash Advance, et al., No. 5 CV 0445, filed
in the Superior Court of New Hanover County, North Carolina, on
February 8, 2005. The plaintiffs allege that in conducting a so-
called "payday lending" business, certain of the Company's Retail
Micro-Loans segment subsidiaries violated various laws governing
consumer finance, lending, check cashing, trade practices and loan
brokering.  The plaintiffs further allege that CompuCredit
Corporation is the alter ego of the Company's subsidiaries and is
liable for their actions.  The plaintiffs are seeking damages of
up to $75,000 per class member, and attorney's fees. The Company
is vigorously defending this lawsuit. These claims are similar to
those that have been asserted against several other market
participants in transactions involving small balance, short-term
loans made to consumers in North Carolina.

CompuCredit Corp. -- http://www.compucredit.com/-- is a
provider of various credit and related financial services and
products to or associated with the financially underserved
consumer credit market.  The company serves this market
principally through its marketing and solicitation of credit
card accounts and other credit products and servicing of various
receivables underlying originated accounts and portfolio
acquisitions. It operates through five segments: Credit Cards,
Investments in Previously Charged-Off Receivables, Retail Micro-
Loans, Auto Finance and Other.


COMPUCREDIT HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Greenwood" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
CompuCredit Holdings Corporation continues to defend itself in a
class action lawsuit entitled Wanda Greenwood, et al., vs.
CompuCredit Corporation and Columbus Bank and Trust, according to
the Company's March 4, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

CompuCredit Corporation is named as a defendant in a class action
lawsuit entitled Wanda Greenwood, et al. vs. CompuCredit
Corporation and Columbus Bank and Trust, No. 4:08-cv-4878, filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The plaintiffs allege that in marketing and managing
the Aspire Visa card the defendants violated the federal Credit
Repair Organizations Act and California Unfair Competition Law.
The class includes all persons who within the five years prior to
the filing of the lawsuit were issued an Aspire Visa card or paid
money with respect thereto.  The plaintiffs seek various forms of
damage, including unspecified monetary damages and the voiding of
the plaintiffs' obligations. The Company is vigorously defending
this lawsuit.

CompuCredit Corp. -- http://www.compucredit.com/-- is a
provider of various credit and related financial services and
products to or associated with the financially underserved
consumer credit market.  The company serves this market
principally through its marketing and solicitation of credit
card accounts and other credit products and servicing of various
receivables underlying originated accounts and portfolio
acquisitions. It operates through five segments: Credit Cards,
Investments in Previously Charged-Off Receivables, Retail Micro-
Loans, Auto Finance and Other.


COMPUCREDIT HOLDINGS: Consolidated Georgia Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
entered a final judgment in favor of CompuCredit Holdings
Corporation's former parent and four of its officers in a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit, according to the
Company's March 4, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On July 14, 2008, CompuCredit Corporation and four of its
officers, David G. Hanna, Richard R. House, Jr., Richard W.
Gilbert and J. Paul Whitehead III, were named as defendants in a
purported class action securities case filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia entitled Waterford
Township General Employees Retirement System vs. CompuCredit
Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 08-CV-2270. On August 22,
2008, a virtually identical case was filed entitled Steinke vs.
CompuCredit Corporation et al., Civil Action No. 08-CV-2687.   In
general, the complaints alleged that the Company made false and
misleading statements or concealed information regarding the
nature of its assets, accounting for loan losses, marketing and
collection practices, exposure to sub-prime losses, ability to
lend funds, and expected future performance. The complaints were
consolidated, and a consolidated complaint was filed. The Company
filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted on December 4,
2009.   In its order, the court allowed the plaintiff to amend its
complaint, but the plaintiff failed to do so timely. On
January 13, 2010, the court entered final judgment, with
prejudice, in favor of all defendants.

CompuCredit Corp. -- http://www.compucredit.com/-- is a
provider of various credit and related financial services and
products to or associated with the financially underserved
consumer credit market.  The company serves this market
principally through its marketing and solicitation of credit
card accounts and other credit products and servicing of various
receivables underlying originated accounts and portfolio
acquisitions. It operates through five segments: Credit Cards,
Investments in Previously Charged-Off Receivables, Retail Micro-
Loans, Auto Finance and Other.


COMPUCREDIT HOLDINGS: "Sue An" Class Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
A district court dismissed a class action lawsuit filed by Sue An,
a shareholder of CompuCredit Holdings Corporation's former parent,
according to the Company's March 4, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

CompuCredit Corporation received a demand dated August 25, 2008,
from a shareholder, Ms. Sue An, that CompuCredit Corporation take
action against all of its directors and two of its officers for
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. In general, the alleged
breaches are the same as the actions that were the subject of the
consolidated class action securities case filed in the in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia entitled
Waterford Township General Employees Retirement System vs.
CompuCredit Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 08-CV-2270, and
Steinke vs. CompuCredit Corporation et al., Civil Action No. 08-
CV-2687, prior to its dismissal.  The Company's Board of Directors
appointed a special litigation committee to investigate the
allegations; that investigation concluded that the claims asserted
were without merit; and the Company communicated that conclusion
to Ms. Sue An's legal counsel. On November 20, 2009, Ms. An filed
suit against certain of the Company's officers and directors. On
December 1, 2010, the court entered a stipulated order dismissing
Ms. An's claims with prejudice, and without CompuCredit
Corporation paying Ms. An or her counsel.

CompuCredit Corp. -- http://www.compucredit.com/-- is a
provider of various credit and related financial services and
products to or associated with the financially underserved
consumer credit market.  The company serves this market
principally through its marketing and solicitation of credit
card accounts and other credit products and servicing of various
receivables underlying originated accounts and portfolio
acquisitions. It operates through five segments: Credit Cards,
Investments in Previously Charged-Off Receivables, Retail Micro-
Loans, Auto Finance and Other.


DEL MONTE: California Court Stays "Franklin" Proceedings
--------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court in San Francisco, California, granted
defendants' motion to stay proceedings and denied plaintiff's
discovery motion in a class action lawsuit against Del Monte Foods
Company and other defendants, according to the Company's March 4,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended January 30, 2010.

On November 25, 2010, the Company announced that it had signed a
definitive agreement under which an investor group led by funds
affiliated with Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P., Vestar Capital
Partners and Centerview Partners has agreed to acquire all of the
Company's outstanding stock for $19 per share in cash, subject to
the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement.  At the time of
the Transaction, Blue Merger Sub Inc. will merge with and into Del
Monte Foods Company, with Del Monte Foods Company continuing as
the surviving corporation.  The Company has subsequently been
named as a defendant in fifteen putative class actions related to
the Transaction.

After a series of voluntary dismissals and consolidations of
certain of the fifteen putative class actions, the Company remains
a defendant in these cases:

   * Libby Kaiman and all others similarly situated v. Del Monte,
     each member of the board of directors of the Company and
     KKR, Vestar, Centerview, Blue Acquisition Group, Inc. and
     Blue Sub filed on December 1, 2010, in Superior Court in San
     Francisco, California;

   * James Sinor and all others similarly situated v. Del Monte,
     the Directors and the Buyers filed on December 1, 2010, in
     Superior Court in San Francisco, California;

   * Elisa J. Franklin and all others similarly situated v. the
     Directors, Del Monte, and the Sponsors filed on December 10,
     2010 in Superior Court in San Francisco, California;

   * Sarah P. Heintz and all others similarly situated v. the
     Directors, Del Monte, Blue Group and Blue Sub filed on
     December 20, 2010 in the United States District Court,
     Northern District of California; and

   * Dallas Faulkner and all others similarly situated v. the
     Directors, Del Monte, Blue Group and Blue Sub filed on
     January 21, 2011 in the United States District Court,
     Northern District of California.

The Company was a defendant in In re Del Monte Foods Company
Shareholders Litigation, which named as defendants Del Monte, the
Directors and the Sponsors, consolidated on December 8, 2010 (and
again on December 31, 2010, to incorporate subsequently filed
actions) in the Delaware Court of Chancery.  On December 31, 2010,
the Court of Chancery appointed NECA-IBEW Pension Fund as lead
plaintiff for the consolidated action.  On January 10, 2011, the
lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint removing the Company
as a defendant, but reiterating its earlier allegations regarding
the remaining defendants, including the Directors.  The Company
has a continuing obligation to defend and indemnify the Directors
in this case, as well as in the five California cases.

The named plaintiffs in these six cases allege breach, and aiding
and abetting breach, of the Directors' fiduciary duties to the
Company's stockholders.  Specifically, the complaints allege that
the Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the stockholders
by agreeing to sell the Company at a price that is unfair and
inadequate and by agreeing to certain preclusive deal protection
devices in the Merger Agreement.  The complaints further allege
that the Sponsors and, in some instances, the Company, Blue Group
or Blue Sub (or a combination thereof) aided and abetted in the
Directors' breaches of their fiduciary duties.  In addition, the
Heintz and Faulkner complaints, filed in federal court, allege
violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and, in the Faulkner complaint only, violations of Section 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaints seek
injunctive relief, rescission of the Merger Agreement, an
accounting for all damages suffered by class members and
attorneys' fees.

The Company denies these allegations and plans to vigorously
defend itself.  The Company cannot at this time reasonably
estimate a range of exposure, if any, of the potential liability.

On January 10, 2011, in connection with In re Del Monte Foods
Company Shareholders Litigation, the Court of Chancery entered an
order expediting discovery, setting a briefing schedule with
respect to the lead plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive
relief, and scheduling a hearing on the lead plaintiff's motion to
occur on February 11, 2011.  A hearing on the lead plaintiff's
motion for preliminary injunctive relief was held on February 11,
2011 and on February 14, 2011 the Court of Chancery entered an
order preliminarily enjoining the parties from proceeding with the
vote on the Merger, which was scheduled to occur on February 15,
2011, for a period of 20 days.  In addition, the Court of Chancery
enjoined the parties, pending the vote on the Merger, from
enforcing the no-solicitation and match right provisions in
Sections 6.5(b), 6.5(c), and 6.5(h) of the Merger Agreement, and
the termination fee provisions relating to topping bids and
changes in the board of directors' recommendation on the Merger in
Section 8.5(b) of the Merger Agreement.  The Court of Chancery's
order was conditioned upon the lead plaintiff's posting a bond in
the amount of $1.2 million.  The plaintiff posted such bond on
February 15, 2011.  The special meeting was convened on
February 15, 2011.  At such meeting a quorum was determined to be
present and, in accordance with the Court of Chancery's ruling,
the meeting was adjourned, without a vote on the Merger proposal.
The special meeting was scheduled to reconvene on March 7, 2011.

On February 18, 2011, the lead plaintiffs in In re Del Monte Foods
Company Shareholders Litigation filed an amended complaint adding
Barclays Capital, Inc. as a defendant and adding a cause of action
for breach of fiduciary duty against the Company's Chief Executive
Officer in his capacity as such.

On January 31, 2011, the Company and the Directors filed a motion
to stay the Franklin action pending resolution of the nearly
identical In re Del Monte Foods Company Shareholders Litigation
pending the Delaware Court of Chancery.  On February 4, 2011, the
plaintiff in the Franklin action filed a motion to compel
coordination of discovery with the In re Del Monte Foods Company
Shareholders Litigation or, in the alternative, to expedite
discovery.  At a hearing on February 7, 2011, the San Francisco
County Superior Court ordered that the plaintiff's discovery
motion will be heard concurrently with defendants' motion to stay
proceedings on February 28, 2011.  The Court granted defendants'
motion to stay proceedings and denied plaintiff's discovery motion
on February 28, 2011.


DEL MONTE: Continues to Defend "Littlefield" Suit in Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------------
Del Monte Foods Company continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit filed by Lydia Littlefield pending in
Massachusetts, according to the Company's March 4, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended January 30, 2010.

On December 17, 2010, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company by Lydia Littlefield, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, alleging intentional misrepresentation,
fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express warranty,
breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and unjust
enrichment.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company
engaged in false and misleading representation of certain of its
canned fruit products in representing that these products are safe
and healthy, when they allegedly contain substances that are not
safe and healthy.  The plaintiffs seek certification of the class,
injunctive relief, damages in an unspecified amount and attorneys'
fees.

The Company says it intends to deny these allegations and
vigorously defend itself.  The Company cannot at this time
reasonably estimate a range of exposure, if any, of the potential
liability.


DEL MONTE: Continues to Defend FLSA Violation Lawsuit in Minnesota
------------------------------------------------------------------
Del Monte Foods Company continues to defend itself against a
lawsuit pending in Minnesota alleging FLSA violations, according
to the Company's March 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
January 30, 2010.

On September 30, 2010, a putative class action complaint was
served against the Company, to be filed in Hennepin County,
Minnesota, alleging wage and hour violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.  The complaint was served on behalf of five named
plaintiffs and all others similarly situated at a manufacturing
facility in Minnesota.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that
the Company violated the FLSA and state wage and hour laws by
failing to compensate plaintiffs and other similarly situated
workers unpaid overtime.  The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory
and statutory damages.  Additionally, the plaintiffs are seeking
class certification.

On November 5, 2010, in connection with the Company's removal of
this case to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota, the complaint was filed along with the Company's
answer.  The Company also filed a motion for partial dismissal on
November 5, 2010.  On November 30, 2010, the parties jointly
stipulated that the causes of action in plaintiff's complaint for
unjust enrichment and quantum meruit would be dismissed without
prejudice and further stipulated that the cause of action under
the Minnesota minimum wage law would be dismissed without
prejudice.  The Company denies plaintiffs' allegations and plans
to vigorously defend itself.  The Company cannot at this time
reasonably estimate a range of exposure, if any, of the potential
liability.


DEL MONTE: Settles Class Action Alleging False Advertising
----------------------------------------------------------
Del Monte Foods Company settled for $200,000 a class action
alleging violations of California's False Advertising Act, Unfair
Competition Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, according to the
Company's March 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 30, 2010.

On October 13, 2009, Kara Moline and Debra Lowe filed a class
action complaint against the Company in San Francisco Superior
Court, alleging violations of California's False Advertising Act,
Unfair Competition Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the Company engaged in
false and misleading advertising in the labeling of Nature's
Recipe Farm Stand Selects dog food.  The plaintiffs sought
injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits in an undisclosed
amount, and attorneys' fees.  Additionally, the plaintiffs sought
class certification.  The Company denied plaintiffs' allegations.

The parties reached a settlement agreement which was approved by
the Court on November 9, 2010.  Under the settlement, the Company
agreed to pay $0.2 million and to modify the labels of the
relevant products in the future.


DEL MONTE: Continues to Defend Class Suits on Pet Food Recalls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Del Monte Foods Company continues to defend itself from class
action lawsuits relating to its 2007 pet food recalls, according
to the Company's March 4, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
January 30, 2010.

Beginning with the pet food recall announced by Menu Foods, Inc.,
in March 2007, many major pet food manufacturers, including the
Company, announced recalls of select products.  The Company
believes there have been over 90 class actions and purported class
actions relating to these pet food recalls.  The Company has been
named as a defendant in seven class actions or purported class
actions related to its pet food and pet snack recall, which it
initiated March 31, 2007.

The Company is currently a defendant in Picus v. Del Monte filed
on April 30, 2007 in state court in Las Vegas, Nevada.

The Company was a defendant in these cases:

   * Carver v. Del Monte filed on April 4, 2007 in the U.S.
     District Court for the Eastern District of California;

   * Ford v. Del Monte filed on April 7, 2007 in the U.S.
     District Court for the Southern District of California;

   * Hart v. Del Monte filed on April 10, 2007 in state court in
     Los Angeles, California;

   * Schwinger v. Del Monte filed on May 15, 2007 in the U.S.
     District Court for the Western District of Missouri;

   * Tompkins v. Del Monte filed on July 13, 2007 in the U.S.
     District Court for the District of Colorado; and

   * Blaszkowski v. Del Monte filed on May 9, 2007 in the U.S.
     District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The named plaintiffs in these seven cases allege or alleged that
their pets suffered injury and/or death as a result of ingesting
the Company's and other defendants' allegedly contaminated pet
food and pet snack products.  The Picus and Blaszkowski cases also
contain or contained allegations of false and misleading
advertising by the Company.

By order dated June 28, 2007, the Carver, Ford, Hart, Schwinger,
and Tompkins cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey and consolidated with other purported
pet food class actions under the federal rules for multi-district
litigation.  The Blaszkowski and Picus cases were not
consolidated.

                 Multi-District Litigation Cases

The plaintiffs and defendants in the multi-district litigation
cases, including the five consolidated cases in which the Company
was a defendant, tentatively agreed to a settlement which was
submitted to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey on May 22, 2008.  On May 30, 2008, the Court granted
preliminary approval to the settlement.  Pursuant to the Court's
order, notice of the settlement was disseminated to the public by
mail and publication beginning June 16, 2008.  Members of the
class were allowed to opt-out of the settlement until August 15,
2008.  On November 19, 2008, the Court entered orders approving
the settlement, certifying the class and dismissing the complaints
against the defendants, including the Company.  The total
settlement was $24.0 million.  The portion of the Company's
contribution to this settlement was $0.25 million, net of
insurance recovery.  Four class members have filed objections to
the settlement, which objections have been denied by the Court.
On December 3, 2008 and December 12, 2008, these class members
filed Notices of Appeal.

                           Picus Case

The plaintiffs in the Picus case are seeking certification of a
class action as well as unspecified damages and injunctive relief
against further distribution of the allegedly defective products.
The Company has denied the allegations made in the Picus case.  On
October 12, 2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss in the
Picus case.  The state court in Las Vegas, Nevada granted the
Company's motion in part and denied the Company's motion in part.
On December 14, 2007, other defendants in the case filed a motion
to deny class certification.  On March 16, 2009, the Court granted
the motion to deny class certification.  On March 25, 2009, the
plaintiffs filed an appeal of the Court's decision.  On June 30,
2009, the Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs' appeal.  The Company
denies plaintiffs' allegations and plans to vigorously defend
itself.  The Company cannot at this time reasonably estimate a
range of exposure, if any, of the potential liability.

                        Blaszkowski Case

On April 11, 2008, the plaintiffs in the Blaszkowski case filed
their fourth amended complaint.  On September 12, 2008 and
October 9, 2008, plaintiffs filed stipulations of dismissal with
respect to their complaint against certain of the defendants,
including the Company.  The U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida entered such requested dismissals on such
dates, resulting in the dismissal of all claims against the
Company.


DEX ONE: Continues to Defend Delaware Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Dex One Corporation continues to defend itself in a series of
putative securities class action lawsuits pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware, according to the
Company's March 4, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

Beginning on October 23, 2009, a series of putative securities
class action lawsuits were commenced in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded
securities between July 26, 2007 and the time the Company filed
for bankruptcy on May 28, 2009, alleging that certain of its
officers issued false and misleading statements regarding its
business and financial condition and seeking damages and equitable
relief. On August 19, 2010, an amended consolidated class action
complaint was filed as the operative securities class action
complaint.  The Securities Class Action Complaint extends the
class to include all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
the Company's publicly traded securities between October 26, 2006
and May 28, 2009.

The Company believes the allegations set forth in both of these
lawsuits are without merit and the Company is vigorously defending
the suits.

Dex One Corporation -- http://www.DexOne.com/-- is a leading
marketing services company that helps local businesses reach, win
and keep ready-to-buy customers.  The company's highly-skilled,
locally based marketing consultants offer a wide range of
marketing products and services that help businesses get found
more than 1.5 billion times each year by actively shopping
consumers.  The company offers local businesses personalized
marketing consulting services and exposure across a broad network
of local marketing products -- including the company's "official"
print, online and mobile yellow pages and search solutions, as
well as major search engines.


DEX ONE: Continues to Defend ERISA Suit in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------
Dex One Corporation continues to defend itself in a putative
Employee Retirement Income Security Act lawsuit pending in an
Illinois court, according to the Company's March 4, 2011 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

On December 7, 2009, a putative ERISA class action lawsuit was
commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on behalf of certain participants in, or
beneficiaries of, the R.H. Donnelley 401(k) Savings Plan at any
time between July 26, 2007 and the time the lawsuit was filed and
whose plan accounts included investments in R.H. Donnelley common
stock. The putative ERISA class action complaint contains
allegations against certain current and former directors, officers
and employees similar to those set forth in the Securities Class
Action Complaint pending in Delaware as well as allegations of
breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA and seeks damages and
equitable relief. The Company believes the allegations set forth
in both of these lawsuits are without merit and the Company is
vigorously defending the suits.

Dex One Corporation -- http://www.DexOne.com/-- is a leading
marketing services company that helps local businesses reach, win
and keep ready-to-buy customers.  The company's highly-skilled,
locally based marketing consultants offer a wide range of
marketing products and services that help businesses get found
more than 1.5 billion times each year by actively shopping
consumers.  The company offers local businesses personalized
marketing consulting services and exposure across a broad network
of local marketing products -- including the company's "official"
print, online and mobile yellow pages and search solutions, as
well as major search engines.


EQUINIX INC: Faces Securities Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------
On March 4, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
against Equinix, Inc.  The complaint alleges violations of federal
securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of
issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market
which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price.
The class period is from July 29, 2010 through October 5, 2010.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.  If you
are a member of the Class as described above, you may move the
Court no later than Tuesday, May 3, 2011, to serve as a lead
plaintiff for the Class.  However, in order to do so, you must
meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, participate in this or any
other lawsuit, or have any questions or concerns regarding this
notice, or preservation of your rights, please contact:

          K. Lynn Nunn, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          E-mail: kln@federmanlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com/


GT SOLAR: Settles IPO Class Actions for $10.5 Million
-----------------------------------------------------
Swetha Gopinath, writing for Reuters, reports that GT Solar
International Inc. reached a $10.5 million agreement in two
class-action lawsuits related to the solar equipment supplier's
initial public offering.

Of the total settlement amount, GT Solar will contribute
$1 million and the company's liability insurers the remaining
$9.5 million.

In an earlier regulatory filing, the New Hampshire-based company
said beginning Aug. 1, 2008, a series of lawsuits were filed,
alleging that the registration statement for its IPO contained
material misstatements and omissions regarding its business
relationship with LDK Solar.

A day after GT Solar launched its half-billion dollar initial
public offering in 2008, LDK Solar Co signed a deal with China-
based JYT Corp.

LDK Solar represented 62% of GT Solar's revenue in the fiscal year
2008.

In a statement, GT Solar said the settlement provides for a full
and complete release of all claims in a consolidated federal
securities case pending in the United States District Court for
the District of New Hampshire, and a state securities case pending
in the Superior Court of Hillsborough County, New Hampshire.

Shares of the company have lost nearly 27% of their value since it
listed in July 2008.  They closed at $10.97 on March 4 on Nasdaq.


GREAT SOUTHERN: Continues to Defend ATM Suit in Missouri
--------------------------------------------------------
Great Southern Bancorp, Inc., continues to defend a purported
class action arising from fees associated with the Company's
automated overdraft program, according to the Company's March 4,
2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On November 22, 2010, a suit was filed against the Company in
Missouri state court in Springfield by a customer alleging that
the fees associated with the Company's automated overdraft program
in connection with its debit card and ATM cards constitute
unlawful interest in violation of Missouri's usury laws.  The suit
seeks class-action status for the Company customers who have paid
overdraft fees on their checking accounts.  The Company has filed
a motion to dismiss the suit.

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


HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Negotiating Settlement of "Sewell" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc., is negotiating a settlement of a
purported class action lawsuit entitled Randolph Sewell, et al.,
v. D'Allesandro & Woodyard, et al., pending before a Florida
court.

A subsidiary of the Company has been named as a defendant in a
purported class action lawsuit filed on May 30, 2007 in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Randolph
Sewell, et al., v. D'Allesandro & Woodyard, et al., alleging
violations of the federal securities acts, among other
allegations, in connection with the sale of some of the
subsidiary's homes in Fort Myers, Florida.  Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on October 19, 2007.  Plaintiffs sought to
represent a class of certain home purchasers in southwestern
Florida and sought damages, rescission of certain purchase
agreements, restitution of out-of-pocket expenses, and attorneys'
fees and costs.  The Company's subsidiary filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint on December 14, 2007.  Following
oral argument on the motion in September 2008, the court dismissed
the amended complaint with leave for plaintiffs to amend.
Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on October 31, 2008.
The Company's subsidiary filed a motion to dismiss this second
amended complaint.  The Court dismissed portions of the second
amended complaint.  The Court dismissed additional portions of the
second amended complaint on April 28, 2010.  The Company has had
negotiations with the plaintiffs recently to settle this case.
Based on these negotiations the Company has accrued an immaterial
amount for the potential settlement based on its assessment of the
outcome.  However, the Company's assessment of the potential
outcome may differ from the ultimate resolution of this matter.

No further updates were reported in the Company's March 4, 2011
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended January 31, 2011.

Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. -- http://www.khov.com/-- designs,
constructs, markets and sells single-family detached homes,
attached townhomes and condominiums, mid-rise and high-rise
condominiums, urban infill and active adult homes in planned
residential developments.


IBERIABANK CORP: Faces Suits Over Overdraft Fees Imposition
-----------------------------------------------------------
IBERIABANK Corporation continues to defend itself from two
putative class actions which stemmed from the imposition of
overdraft fees on customer accounts, according to the Company's
March 4, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

IBERIABANK and IBERIABANK Corporation have been named as
defendants in two putative class actions relating to the
imposition of overdraft fees on customer accounts.  The first such
case, Eivet v. IBERIABANK, is pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida and presently
bears Case No. 1:10-CV-23790-JLK.  The case was originally filed
in Florida and in October 2010 was transferred to the Southern
District of Florida for coordinated pre-trial proceedings as part
of a multi-district litigation involving numerous defendant banks,
In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, Case No. 09-MD-02036-
JLK.  Plaintiff challenges IBERIABANK's practices relating to the
imposition of overdraft fees and non-sufficient fund fees on
consumer checking accounts.  Plaintiff alleges that IBERIABANK's
methodology for posting transactions to customer accounts is
designed to maximize the generation of overdraft fees and brings
claims for breach of contract and of a covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, unconscionability, conversion, unjust enrichment and
violations of state unfair trade practices laws.  Plaintiff seeks
a range of remedies, including restitution, disgorgement,
injunctive relief, punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

The second of the two cases, Sachar v. IBERIABANK Corporation,
Case No. 60CV2011-0770, was filed in Pulaski County, Arkansas
Circuit Court on February 18, 2011.  Plaintiff asserts that
IBERIABANK Corporation engaged in the practice of re-sequencing
customers' accounts in high-to-low order by posting the largest
transactions first and the smallest transactions last which is
alleged to increase the number of overdraft fees.  The complaint
seeks damages for allegedly deceptive trade practices under
Arkansas state law, for breach of contract, for unjust enrichment,
for conversion, and for injunctive relief.

Currently there is uncertainty around whether either putative
class will ultimately be certified, the dimensions of any such
class, and the range of remedies that might be sought on any
certified claims.


KANSAS CITY POLICE: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Morris and Christine Vendel, writing for The Kansas City
Star, report that George Ricketts and possibly hundreds of others,
many of them convicted drug felons, could find themselves with
part of a multimillion-dollar settlement of a lawsuit alleging
that Kansas City police mismanaged the forfeiture of their
property during criminal investigations.

That payout of up to $3.65 million could happen this spring,
pending final court approval.  The settlement would end a decade
of litigation in which plaintiffs contended that police illegally
handed over their property to the federal government for
forfeiture, rather than running it through a state system that
would have given the money to schools.

Jackson County Circuit Judge Brian C. Wimes already has given his
preliminary approval to the class-action settlement, which could
become final at an April 8 hearing.

Mr. Ricketts' life crashed in April 1996, when 13 police officers
and an FBI agent searched his house and seized money and cars,
convinced he was a drug dealer.

But even though an appeals court later threw out his conviction,
he never was compensated for losing all that stuff, including cash
and a certificate of deposit together worth $129,482, jewelry
worth about $700, a laptop and a BMW.

The Police Department admitted no wrongdoing.  In court records,
both sides said they were settling "because of the time and
expense of the lawsuit, uncertainty of trial for both sides and
the desire to finally resolve these disputed claims."

Lawyers for the Police Department and the plaintiffs declined to
comment about the proposed settlement because it is not final.

Settlement documents and court records obtained by The Kansas City
Star show that more than 500 people may be eligible to make
claims.  But police said the actual number will be closer to 50.

March 4 was the deadline for applications.

Money to pay the claims will come from the Police Department's
budget.

Potential class members were notified of the settlement by mail
and through a December legal advertisement published in The Star.

The issue driving the settlement came to light in a Star series
published in May 2000, "To Protect and Collect," which exposed how
police circumvented state laws by turning over millions of dollars
in drug money they had allegedly seized to the federal government.
Federal agencies kept most of the money and returned a percentage
to the Police Department.

State law, however, required that forfeited money be used for
public school education.  A state prosecutor and a state judge
would need to sign off on cases where assets were transferred to
the federal government -- and that wasn't happening routinely.

Police contended they didn't need state court approval in cases
that essentially were federal investigations with minor police
involvement.

In January 2001, a Missouri appeals court ruled that Kansas City
police had to return $34,000 to an imprisoned drug felon.  Lawyers
filed the class action suit a couple of weeks later.

Police soon changed their forfeiture procedures.  They say they
now run every case through state court unless a federal judge
signs a warrant demanding assets in a particular case.

The class action suit sat in the courts for years as lawyers
haggled over whether it was a class action and whom it should
include and exclude.

The court file includes a master list compiled by lawyers of more
than 350 known class members.  The value of the seized cash and
property totals almost $19 million, and ranges from about $1,000
for some members to more than $1 million for at least four.

Kansas City police have reserved the right to challenge the claims
of any applicant it judges to be ineligible.

Mr. Ricketts and Albert Raymond Pearsall served as the lead
plaintiffs in the suit and are guaranteed payments should the
settlement be approved.

Mr. Ricketts, who operates G's Jamaican Cuisine at 7940 Troost
Ave., would be paid $200,000.

He did not return a call seeking comment.

Mr. Pearsall, of Albuquerque, N.M., came to the authorities'
attention in 1999 after Missouri troopers found more than four
pounds of cocaine in his minivan.  Mr. Pearsall said he was
driving to Kansas City to deliver it to another man.

When police went to the other man's home, they found $38,605 in a
safe, which Pearsall claimed was his and earned legitimately.  The
money was forfeited to the federal government.

Under the settlement, Mr. Pearsall would be paid $73,102.  He
could not be reached for comment.

And, of course, the lawyers would be paid.

Under the terms of the settlement, the George A. Barton law firm
could apply for legal fees of up to $1.36 million plus up to
$100,000 in litigation expenses.


KFORCE INC: Final Hearing on Class Suit Settlement Set for May
--------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing to consider final approval of an agreement to settle a
class action lawsuit against Kforce Inc. is scheduled for May
2011, according to the Company's March 4, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2010.

Kforce is a defendant in a California class action lawsuit
alleging misclassification of California Account Managers and
seeking unspecified damages.  A tentative settlement has been
preliminarily approved by the Court in the adjusted amount of
approximately $2.5 million, which has been recorded within
accounts payable and other accrued liabilities in the accompanying
consolidated balance sheets.  A hearing on the final approval is
scheduled to take place in May 2011.


KOHLBERG CAPITAL: Class Action Lawsuits in New York Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kohlberg Capital Corporation continues to face class action
lawsuits filed against the Company and certain of its directors
and officers, according to the Company's March 4, 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 directors and officers are named as
defendants in three putative class actions pending in the Southern
District of New York brought by stockholders of the Company and
filed in December 2009 and January 2010.  The complaints in these
three actions allege violations of Sections 10 and 20 of the
Exchange Act based on the Company's disclosures of its year-end
2008 and first- and second-quarter 2009 financial statements.  The
Company believes that the suits are without merit and will defend
each vigorously.


LIFE PARTNERS: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
---------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, a nationwide, investor-rights law
firm, reminds investors that they must file a motion with the
court no later than April 4, 2011, if they wish to serve as lead
plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit that charges Life Partners
Holdings, Inc. with deceptive business practices.  A lawsuit has
been filed on behalf of purchasers of LPHI common stock in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.

"As the final phase of this investigation advances, we expect to
hear from more witnesses who can provide more details about these
claims and from investors who believe that they have been damaged
by Life Partners Holdings' practices."

Investors who purchased more than $100,000 worth of LPHI stock
between May 29, 2007, and Jan. 20, 2011, are encouraged to call
Hagens Berman partner Reed R. Kathrein at 510-725-3000 for a
personal consultation.  Investors can also contact the Hagens
Berman legal team through e-mail at LPHI@hbsslaw.com

"As the final phase of this investigation advances, we expect to
hear from more witnesses who can provide more details about these
claims and from investors who believe that they have been damaged
by Life Partners Holdings' practices," said Mr. Kathrein.
"Investors with significant losses who wish to move to be a lead
plaintiff should carefully consider the qualifications of the
counsel they choose to represent them."

Life Partners Holdings, Inc., headquartered in Waco, Texas, is
engaged in the secondary market for life insurance, commonly
called "life settlements."  Life Partners Holdings, Inc. helps
investors buy the life insurance policies of terminally ill
patients and the elderly at a discount of the policies' face
value.

Hagens Berman welcomes any additional information from investors,
agents or policyholders regarding actual experience with the
policies and their performance.

Shares of LPHI dipped by $2.61, or about 17%, to $12.43 after Life
Partners Holdings, Inc. confirmed an SEC investigation.  Today the
stock trades for less than $10 per share.  In December 2010, and
prior to news articles from The Wall Street Journal, the LPHI
stock traded as high as $18.34.

More details of the investigation can be found at
http://www.hbsslaw.com/LPHI

Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP --
http://www.hbsslaw.com/-- is one of the top class-action law
firms in the nation, with offices in Boston, Chicago, Colorado
Springs, Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Francisco and Washington, D.C.
Founded in 1993, we represent plaintiffs in class actions and
multi-state, large-scale litigation that seek to protect the
rights of investors, consumers, workers and whistleblowers.

Contacts: Mark Firmani, Esq.
          FIRMANI + ASSOCIATES INC.
          Telephone: 206-443-9357
          E-mail: mark@firmani.com


LUZERNE COUNTY: Lawyer Balks at Disciplinary Action
---------------------------------------------------
Terrie Morgan-Besecker, writing for The Times Leader, reports that
Attorney James Hayward says he believes he was subjected to unduly
harsh punishment by the state's disciplinary board because he
publicly criticized Luzerne County Children and Youth Services and
the court system.

Mr. Hayward, of Wilkes-Barre, was suspended by the state Supreme
Court for one year on Jan. 19 based on the recommendation of a
disciplinary panel that investigated his mishandling of a
bankruptcy case.

The suspension, which took effect on Feb. 19, precludes
Mr. Hayward from representing any clients on new matters or those
that remain pending.  That includes clients who are still
attempting to regain custody of their children from Children and
Youth.

Mr. Hayward said it was those clients he had in mind when he filed
a petition with the state Supreme Court on Feb. 18 that asks it to
take jurisdiction over the county's dependency court.

The petition asks the court to review all cases dating back to
1999 to determine whether parents and their children were denied
their right to effective counsel.

In an interview on March 3, Mr. Hayward said a hearing committee
consisting of three attorneys who first reviewed the allegations
against him deemed he should be placed on probation and given a
public censure.

The state's disciplinary board, which was not obligated to accept
the committee's recommendation, suggested much stiffer sanction to
the Supreme Court, which agreed with the board.  Mr. Hayward said
that decision was made after he held a press conference in June to
announce he planned to file a federal class action suit against
Children and Youth.  The suit was never filed.

"I went before a panel of three attorneys and pleaded my case.
They recommended a censure and probation.  As soon as I started
fighting Children and Youth, there are exceptions filed and a
panel above them says I'm horrendous, I should be suspended,"
Mr. Hayward said.  "It doesn't pass the smell test."

The disciplinary action against Hayward stemmed from his handling
of the 2008 bankruptcy case of Melissa Meade.  Mr. Hayward
acknowledged he took money from Ms. Meade but failed to file
required paperwork, leading to the dismissal of her case.

The disciplinary board rejected the suggestion that Mr. Hayward be
placed on probation based on its finding that he had lied to the
hearing committee regarding certain aspects of the Meade case,
according to a report filed by the board.

Mr. Hayward said he agrees he made mistakes and should be
punished, but the suspension was too severe given the nature of
the allegations.

He said he is particularly upset because attorneys who he believes
engaged in far more egregious conduct -- those who stood by while
former Judge Mark Ciavarella violated the constitutional rights of
juveniles -- have had no sanctions imposed upon them.

"I'm being bashed for disciplinary action that is trivial compared
to what scores of attorneys did by not reporting that," he said.
"None of them have even been scolded by the Supreme Court."

Mr. Hayward said he has filed a petition with the Supreme Court,
asking for permission to be able to continue representing parents
whose cases were still pending in dependency court.  He has not
received an answer yet.

He said he is also trying to find an attorney to file several
individual lawsuits against Children and Youth in lieu of the
class-action suit he planned to file.

Mr. Hayward said he abandoned the plan for the class-action suit
after determining the allegations raised by parents would not meet
the criteria for a class action.  He said he believes he has a
strong ground for individual complaints, however.


MCKESSON CORP: Judge Certifies Municipal Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
On March 4, 2011, a United States District Court judge certified a
nationwide, class-action lawsuit against McKesson Corporation on
behalf of municipalities claiming McKesson engaged in a scheme to
inflate fraudulently the price of more than 400 brand-name
prescription drugs, including blockbusters such as Prozac,
Lipitor, Zocor and Vioxx.

The lawsuit, filed by Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro,
comes on the heels of a $350 million settlement McKesson paid to
consumers and third-party payors who made similar charges.  That
settlement was reached in 2008 and was given final approval by
United States District Court Judge Patti B. Saris on Aug. 3, 2009.

This class action represents cities, counties and other
municipalities that overpaid for medications because of the price
inflation scheme outlined in the complaint, originally filed on
August 7, 2008, in U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts in Boston.

"Since uncovering McKesson's AWP scheme, we have been fighting the
battle to return money to victims of the company's conduct for
years.  We are still amazed at the depth and breadth of the
scheme's reach," said Steve Berman, Hagens Berman managing partner
and lead attorney in the In re McKesson Governmental Entities AWP
Litigation.  "We've successfully returned $350 million to
consumers and other purchasers, and we anticipate this case will
provide economic justice for thousands of other payors who --
especially in a time of tight government budget -- lack the
resources to seek recourse from McKesson individually."

Mr. Berman calculates that the damages of this case could total
hundreds of millions of dollars, which are subject to trebling
under the federal RICO statutes.

The suit claims McKesson conspired to rig the average wholesale
price of brand-name drugs while raising the spread between the
published AWP and the wholesale acquisition cost from 20 to 25
percent in an effort to increase profits by currying favor with
its large retail pharmacy clients.  The Complaint alleges that
McKesson cleverly concealed the scheme so that payors like
municipalities would wrongfully attribute the increases to drug
manufacturers.

In an earlier ruling in the consumer case, Judge Saris cited
internal documents where McKesson boasted that by the end of 2004
nearly "99%" of all brand-name drugs were set at a higher price as
a result of the scheme.

Judge Saris has certified the case for liability for those non-
state and non-federal government entities that paid inflated rates
for drugs from Aug. 1, 2001, to June 2, 2005, as a result of the
AWP scheme.

Municipalities pay for drugs used by their employees enrolled in
self-insured health plans, and in some cases administer community
clinics and other non-Medicaid or Medicare public assistance
programs.

For more information on this case and to sign up as a public payor
you can visit the Hagens Berman Web site at
http://www.hbsslaw.com/

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, is based in Seattle with 10 offices
across the country.  Since 1993, it has developed a nationally
recognized practice in class-action and complex litigation.  Among
recent successes, HBSS has negotiated a $300 million settlement in
the DRAM memory antitrust litigation, one of the largest antitrust
settlements in history; a $340 million recovery on behalf of Enron
employees; a $150 million settlement involving charges of
illegally inflated charges for the drug Lupron; and served as
co-counsel on the Visa/Mastercard litigation which resulted in a
$3 billion settlement, the largest antitrust settlement to date.

Contacts: Steve Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
          Telephone: 206-623-7292
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - or -

          Mark Firmani, Esq.
          FIRMANI + ASSOCIATES INC.
          Telephone: 206-443-9357
          E-mail: mark@firmani.com


MERCER INSURANCE: Enters MOU to Settle Merger-Related Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mercer Insurance Group has entered into a settlement agreement of
a consolidated lawsuit filed in relation to its merger with United
Fire & Casualty Company, according to the Company's March 4, 2011,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On November 30, 2010, Mercer Insurance Group, Inc., a Pennsylvania
corporation, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with
United Fire & Casualty Company, an Iowa corporation, and Red Oak
Acquisition Corp., a Pennsylvania corporation and wholly-owned
subsidiary of United Fire, pursuant to which, upon the terms and
subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, the
Acquisition Sub will merge with and into Mercer, with Mercer
surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of United Fire.

On February 10, 2011, Mercer filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission a definitive Proxy Statement in connection
with the proposed Merger.

Following announcement of the Merger Agreement, two putative class
action complaints were filed against Mercer, the Mercer board of
directors, United Fire and Acquisition Sub in the Superior Court
for Mercer County, New Jersey.  These complaints alleged generally
that Mercer's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties,
that United Fire and Acquisition Sub aided and abetted such
breaches of fiduciary duty, and that the Proxy Statement contained
deficiencies in the disclosure of information relating to the
Merger.

The Court entered an order to consolidate the Lawsuits for all
purposes, including trial, on February 25, 2011.

Subsequently, Mercer and the plaintiffs in the Lawsuits entered
into a memorandum of understanding dated as of March 4, 2011,
regarding settlement of the Lawsuits.  In connection with the
settlement, the parties agreed that Mercer would make certain
disclosures to its shareholders relating to the proposed Merger,
in addition to the information contained in the Proxy Statement.

The memorandum of understanding also contemplates that the parties
will seek to enter into and present to the Court a stipulation of
settlement.  The stipulation of settlement will be subject to
customary conditions, including Court approval.  In the event that
the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will
be scheduled at which the Court will consider the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement.  There can be no
assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the Court will approve the
settlement even if the parties were to enter into such a
stipulation.  In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated.
If the Court approves the settlement, the settlement will resolve
all of the claims that were or could have been brought in the
Lawsuits, including all claims relating to the Merger, the Merger
Agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith.

Mercer and the other defendants have vigorously denied, and
continue to vigorously deny, that they have committed, or aided
and abetted in the commission of, any violation of law or engaged
in any of the wrongful acts that were or could have been alleged
in the Lawsuits, and expressly maintain that they diligently and
scrupulously complied with their fiduciary and other legal duties
and are entering into the contemplated settlement solely to
eliminate the burden and expense of further litigation, to put the
claims that were or could have been asserted to rest, and to avoid
any possible delay in the consummation of the Merger.  Nothing in
this document, the parties' memorandum of understanding or any
stipulation of settlement shall be deemed to be an admission of
liability or wrongdoing by any defendant in the Lawsuits nor shall
anything in this document, the parties' memorandum of
understanding or any stipulation of settlement be deemed an
admission of the materiality of any of the disclosures set forth
herein.


MORTON'S RESTAURANT: Court Denies Class Status of San Diego Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A California court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in a lawsuit against Morton's Restaurant Group,
Inc., filed by two former employees, according to the Company's
March 4, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended January 2, 2011.

In February 2010, two former employees of the San Diego Morton's
steakhouse filed a class action complaint against Morton's of
Chicago/San Diego, Inc. in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Diego, alleging certain
violations of the California Labor Code and the California Unfair
Competition Law for failure to provide meal and rest breaks,
failure to pay overtime and failure to provide employees with
accurate wage statements.  The plaintiffs are seeking recovery of
statutory penalties, unpaid wages and overtime, as well as
injunctive and declaratory relief and attorneys' fees and costs.
The Company is contesting this matter vigorously.

On January 7, 2011, the Company's partial motion for summary
judgment was granted and the plaintiffs' claims for failure to
provide rest periods and failure to provide employees with
accurate wage statements were dismissed.  In addition, on
February 18, 2011, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  The court has scheduled a trial to hear the
individual claims of the two former employees who filed the
lawsuit.  Based on these developments, at this time the Company
does not believe that this litigation will result in any material
damages to the Company.


MORTON'S RESTAURANT: Continues to Defend Labor Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Morton's Restaurant Group, Inc., continues to defend itself
against a state-wide class action complaint alleging violations of
California's labor laws, according to the Company's March 4, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended January 2, 2011.

In August 2010, a former employee of the Costa Mesa Morton's
steakhouse filed a state-wide class action complaint against
Morton's of Chicago in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, alleging certain
violations of the California Labor Code and the California Unfair
Competition Law for failure to provide meal and rest breaks,
failure to pay overtime and failure to provide employees with
accurate wage statements as a result of the classification of
California-based Assistant Managers and Day Managers as salaried
exempt.  The plaintiff is seeking recovery of statutory penalties,
unpaid wages and overtime, as well as injunctive and declaratory
relief and attorneys' fees and costs.  The Company is contesting
this matter vigorously.

In September 2010, the Company removed the case to Federal court
and the plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to remand.  On
January 26, 2011, the plaintiff's motion to remand was denied.
The plaintiff in this matter has not stated the amount of damages
sought and, at this stage of the proceedings, it is not possible
to state the estimated damages sought by the plaintiff.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC: Sued in Calif. for Capping Scholarships
------------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that another federal antitrust
class action accuses the NCAA of conspiring to fix the cost of a
college education at artificially high prices by, among other
things, capping schools' athletic scholarships.

A copy of the Complaint in Agnew v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 11-cv-00293 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/07/NCAA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          E-mail: shanas@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Stuart M. Paynter, Esq.
          THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM, PLLC
          1200 G Street N.W., Suite 800
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 626-4486
          E-mail: stuart@smplegal.com

               - and -

          Robert B. Carey, Esq.
          Leonard W. Aragon, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          2425 East Camelback Road, Suite 650
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 840-5900
          E-mail: rcarey@hbsslaw.com
                  leonard@hbsslaw.com


NATIONAL SECURITY: Hurricane-Related Cases Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
The National Security Group, Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to
defend themselves against lawsuit filed in the aftermath of
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in three states, according to the
Company's March 4, 2011 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2009.

The Company's property & casualty subsidiaries are defending a
number of matters filed in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama.  These actions include
individual lawsuits and purported statewide class action lawsuits,
although to date no class has been certified in any action.  These
actions make a number of allegations of underpayment of hurricane-
related claims, including allegations that the flood exclusion
found in the Company's subsidiaries' policies, and in certain
actions other insurance companies' policies, is either ambiguous,
unenforceable as unconscionable or contrary to public policy, or
inapplicable to the damage sustained.  The various suits seek a
variety of remedies, including actual and/or punitive damages in
unspecified amounts and/or declaratory relief.  All of these
matters are in various stages of development and the Company's
subsidiaries intend to vigorously defend them.  The outcome of
these disputes is currently uncertain.


NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS: Supreme Court Won't Hear "Spygate" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press reports that the Supreme Court on March 7 said it
won't review a decision throwing out a lawsuit stemming from the
New England Patriots' 2007 "Spygate" scandal.

The high court refused to revive a New York Jets fan's class-
action lawsuit against their football archrivals and coach, Bill
Belichick.

Carl Mayer, a lawyer in Princeton, N.J., known for filing legal
actions against New Jersey politicians, is a Jets season ticket-
holder.  He wanted millions of dollars from the Patriots and
Belichick, claiming they deceived customers by secretly
videotaping Jets coaches' in-game signals.  His lawsuit claimed
fans spent large sums to see games that were essentially rigged.

The suit alleged that the Patriots taped the Jets' signals in
their twice-yearly contests for seven years, and sought triple
damages for Jets fans based on a rough average of $100 a ticket.
Mr. Mayer sought $185 million in damages for Jets fans alone.

The Patriots were caught taping signals at the Jets' 2007 home
opener in Giants Stadium, a game New England won 38-14.

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell fined Mr. Belichick $500,000 and
the team $250,000 for that incident, and stripped New England of a
first-round draft choice.

A U.S. District Court judge and a federal appeals panel dismissed
Mayer's class-action lawsuit.  The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals in Philadelphia said Mr. Mayer failed to prove any legal
right to damages.

The Supreme Court, without comment, refused to reconsider that
decision.

The case is Mayer v. Belichick, 10-867.


NEW YORK: Settles Suit Over Trespassing-Enforcement Policies
------------------------------------------------------------
Al Baker and Joseph Goldstein, writing for The New York Times,
report that New York City has quietly reached settlements with
several plaintiffs in a federal class-action lawsuit alleging that
the city's trespassing-enforcement policies in public housing
complexes are discriminatory and unlawful, lawyers and others said
this week.

Eleanor Britt, 63, of the Taft Houses rejected a city offer to
settle her claims as part of a class-action lawsuit.

Of the 16 claimants originally named in the lawsuit, which was
filed in January 2010, nine have agreed to settle, according to
court papers, city officials and lawyers involved in the case.
The city made its offers in October and December and is in the
process of paying a total of slightly more than $170,000, with
individual payments ranging from $5,000 to $75,000, said a
spokesman for the comptroller's office.

The lawsuit, filed in United States District Court in Manhattan,
claims that residents of public housing complexes, as well as
their visitors, are subjected to police aggression and unwarranted
trespass stops and arrests.  Both stops and arrests have increased
substantially between 2004 and 2008, the plaintiffs say.  The suit
also contends that the city's enforcement tactics are aimed at
minority-dominated communities and, therefore, violate equal
protection rights.

"You could not imagine this practice going on in many of the white
neighborhoods of the city," said William D. Gibney, director of
the special litigation unit for the Legal Aid Society.

Despite the settlements, the suit, filed by the Legal Aid Society,
the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and the firm of
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, is continuing, with
depositions set for "the next few weeks," said Johanna B.
Steinberg, a lawyer with the NAACP Legal Defense fund.

None of the payments are an admission of wrongdoing, said Connie
C. Pankratz, a spokeswoman for the city's law department.  She
declined to discuss the city's strategy in settling with some
plaintiffs and said the city had filed a motion to dismiss the
overall claim.

"We believe the settlements were in the best interest of all
parties," Ms. Pankratz said.

Before the lawsuit was filed, public housing officials arrayed a
"safety and security task force" to address tenants' safety
concerns, said Sheila Stainback, a spokeswoman for the city's
housing authority.  Days after it was filed, Reginald H. Bowman,
the president of a council of public housing residents' leaders,
wrote to the plaintiffs that the litigation could harm a process
of "influencing the change in policy and practices that we all
agree need to be changed. "

On June 8, the Police Department put new public safety initiatives
into effect for public housing, an effort that began a year
earlier partly in response to concerns raised by the Civilian
Complaint Review Board.  Specifically, police officials revamped
the rules for floor-to-floor sweeps of high-rises to make clear
that officers could not temporarily detain someone suspected of
trespassing unless the officer reasonably believed the person
should not be there.  The department also developed new training
for officers, focusing on the legal standard for taking police
action.

"Police officers assigned to public housing developments try to
provide safety for the low-income residents who live there that
occupants of doormen buildings elsewhere take for granted," said
Deputy Commissioner Paul J. Browne, the department's chief
spokesman.  "One of the ways they accomplish this is through
vertical patrols."

Lawyers pursuing the lawsuit say more is necessary.

"We still see too many instances of illegal arrests occurring
around the city in public housing residences," said Mr. Gibney, of
the Legal Aid Society. "So, the change that did occur has not
seemed to stop the practice."

He and Ms. Steinberg said that while the settlements were a
welcome compensation for some of the plaintiffs, the loss of more
than half of the original complainants did not help the case.
Still, Ms. Steinberg noted, all that is needed to go forward is
"at least one person."  Six plaintiffs remain; one withdrew from
the case without a settlement.

Eleanor Britt, 63, one of the remaining plaintiffs, said no price
could be put on the issues of policing, safety and civility in the
city's housing authority.

Things crystallized for her in January 2009, when her grandson
Roman Jackson, then 24, was arrested on a trespassing charge while
talking with others in a stairwell at the Taft Houses in Harlem.
He did not have identification with him.  The police took him
away, she said, then knocked on her door, where he was living,
asking for his identification.  The charge was later dismissed.

"The district attorney looked at the paperwork and said, 'We are
not going to move on this case,'" Mr. Gibney said.

Before it was cleared up, though, the episode rippled with trouble
in Mr. Jackson's life.  He received letters the next week from his
employer "to ask him what happened," Ms. Britt said.  "He was just
very, very upset by what happened."

Now, she said, "I want to see change take place.  It's about being
treated with dignity and respect."


NEW YORK: Inmates in Strip-Search Class Action Get Payouts
----------------------------------------------------------
Reuven Blau, writing for The New York Post, reports that the city
has started doling out $1,000 checks to 26,131 former jailbirds
who won a $35.7 million class-action settlement for illegal strip
searches -- and recipients who are back in jail are throwing their
newfound weight and windfall around.

"I own you!" inmates are bragging to jailers on Rikers Island,
according to Correction insiders.

The taxpayer gifts -- an average of $1,130 per prisoner -- are
deposited into inmate commissary accounts, leading to logjams at
snack bars, inmates and officers said.

The crooks are cashing out with loads of chocolate bars, Ruffles
chips, Rolet beef sticks and Pop-Tarts, as well as radios,
headphones and batteries, jail officers said.

"They are just gloating.  They are saying that they sued and will
sue again and that we'll be paying them," a jail supervisor fumed.

"At the same time we are looking to lay off teachers, we are
rewarding people who commit crimes? How many teachers could we
hire with $35 million? It's lawsuits gone wild."

The money has also led to a boom in black-market items like
cigarettes

"It's just crazy, man!" one inmate told The Post.

Incredibly, the city has paid out $81 million to settle three
identical class-action strip-search suits over the past decade.

In 1986, a federal appeals court ordered the city to stop strip-
searching inmates during their initial processing at Rikers if all
they were facing were misdemeanor charges.  The invasive, nude
frisk, the court said, violated the prisoners' constitutional
rights.

In the first class-action suit, in 2001, the city paid $43 million
to settle with thousands of inmates who said the searches
continued.  A year later, the city shelled out another $5 million
to a fresh batch of suing inmates.

The city finally came up with a plan in 2002: Inmates would change
into a paper "hospital gown," walk through a metal detector and
sit on a body-scanning chair.

But the Correction Department either didn't buy enough gowns or
didn't use the ones it had.

Last March, the city agreed to shell out $35.7 million to the
inmates arrested on misdemeanor charges between July 15, 1999, and
Oct. 4, 2007.  Of that sum, about $29 million went to ex-inmates,
$4 million to lawyers and $2.7 million to a court-appointed
monitor.

Inmate Danique Lewis, 23, told The Post he ended up with a check
for about $500 for the commissary after money was subtracted for
child support for his daughter.

The Bushwick, Brooklyn, native was first strip-searched after he
was arrested in 2007 for jumping a turnstile.

"They made me squat down naked.  It was terrible," he recalled.

He was searched two more times after arrests on other
misdemeanors.  He's back in jail on charges he assaulted his
girlfriend.

The city defended the settlement as "prudent."

"Given the inherent risks involved with any litigation, the
settlement was in the city's best interest," said Muriel Goode-
Trufant of the Law Department.  "[The monitor] has since affirmed
that the city has complied with all required procedures."

Correction Department spokesman Stephen Morello said, "Payments to
recipients in custody have had no disruptive effect on operation
of the city's jails."


NORTEL NETWORKS: Securities Suit Stayed Pending CCAA Proceedings
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit over alleged violations of securities laws
by Nortel Networks Corporation's former chief executive officer
and chief financial officer remains stayed pending developments in
the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act proceedings, according to
the Company's March 4, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

On May 18, 2009, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York alleging violations of
federal securities law between the period of May 2, 2008 through
September 17, 2008, against Mike Zafirovski, the Company's former
President and Chief Executive Officer, and Pavi Binning, the
Company's former Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
and Chief Restructuring Officer.  Although the Company is not a
named defendant, this lawsuit has been stayed as a result of the
Creditor Protection Proceedings.  Messrs. Zafirovski and Binning
have filed claims in the U.S. Court for indemnification and
contribution for potential liability arising out of this matter in
amounts to be determined.  As of November 8, 2010, the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
ordered that the matter be placed on the suspense docket pending
developments in the Company's proceedings under the Companies'
Creditors Arrangement Act before the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Canadian Pension Class Action Remains Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit against Nortel Networks
Corporation and its affiliate is still stayed pending the
Company's proceedings before a Canadian court, according to the
Company's March 4, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On June 24, 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and Nortel Networks Limited in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice in Ottawa, Canada alleging, among other
things, that certain recent changes related to Nortel's pension
plan did not comply with the Pension Benefits Act or common law
notification requirements.  The plaintiffs seek declaratory and
equitable relief, and unspecified monetary damages.  As a result
of the Company's proceedings under the Companies' Creditors
Arrangement Act before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, this
lawsuit has been stayed.


PHUSION PROJECTS: Faces Class Action Over "Four Loko" Drinks
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Roberts, writing for Reuters Legal, reports that a new class
action suit accuses controversial beverage maker Phusion Projects
of deceiving consumers about the dangers of its "Four Loko"
drinks, whose potent mix of alcohol, caffeine and other stimulants
have been called "blackout in a can."

The case, filed in federal court in California last week, said
that Phusion's Four Loko misled consumers by disguising the
drink's dangers with vibrant packaging.  Each can of Four Loko
contains the caffeine equivalent of a cup of coffee and about as
much alcohol as in four to five beers, according to the complaint.

In November, Phusion received a warning letter from the Food and
Drug Administration about the safety of Four Loko, which has been
banned in a number of cities and states in part because of
concerns about young people being hospitalized after drinking the
product.

The class-action suit says that Phusion committed fraud and
violated California consumer protection law.  It seeks damages
that include a refund for every person who purchased Four Loko
during the last four years.

In an e-mailed statement, the company said it is a responsible
member of the alcoholic beverages industry, and that it would
vigorously defend the lawsuit, which it described as "meritless."

Phusion, a privately held company based in Chicago, introduced
Four Loko in 2005.  The beverage, sold in brightly covered 23-
ounce cans in flavors like Watermelon and Uva Berry, rapidly
gained popularity among college students and hip-hop artists.

Last November, under pressure from regulators and the media,
Phusion Projects announced it would replace the beverage with a
new version that does not contain caffeine and other stimulants.
The original product has since appeared for sale at premium prices
at online sites such as Craigslist.

The case is Jacqueline Richardson et al v. Phusion Projects et al,
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, No.
11-cv-0456.

For the plaintiffs: Alan Mansfield of the Consumer Law Group;
Patrick Sheehan of Whatley Drake & Kallas; the Law Offices of
Howard Rubinstein.


RAILAMERICA INC: EPA Didn't File Charges on Styrene Incident
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency decided not to press
charges and allowed the statute of limitations to lapse in
connection with a styrene incident in RailAmerica, Inc.'s Indiana
& Ohio Railway property in Ohio, according to the Company's
March 4, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On August 28, 2005, a railcar containing styrene located on the
Company's Indiana & Ohio Railway property in Cincinnati, Ohio,
began venting, due to a chemical reaction.  Styrene is a
potentially hazardous chemical used to make plastics, rubber and
resin.  In response to the incident, local public officials
temporarily evacuated residents and businesses from the immediate
area until public authorities confirmed that the tank car no
longer posed a threat.  As a result of the incident, several civil
lawsuits were filed, and claims submitted, against the Company and
others connected to the tank car.  Motions for class action
certification were filed.

Settlements were achieved with what the Company believes to be all
potential individual claimants.  In cooperation with the Company's
insurer, the Company paid settlements to a substantial number of
affected businesses, as well.  All business interruption claims
were resolved.  Total payments exceeded the self insured
retention, so the IORY's liability for civil matters was
exhausted.  The incident also triggered inquiries from the Federal
Railroad Administration and other federal, state and local
authorities charged with investigating such incidents.  A
settlement was reached with the FRA, requiring payment of a
$50,000 fine but no admission of liability by the IORY.  Because
of the chemical release, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
investigated whether criminal negligence contributed to the
incident, and whether charges should be pressed.  A series of
conferences with the Company's attorneys and the U.S. EPA
attorneys took place through 2009 and into 2011, at which times
legal theories and evidence were discussed in an effort to
influence the U.S. EPA's charging decision. The IORY submitted a
proffer addendum in May 2009 analyzing its compliance under the
Clean Air Act.  As of December 31, 2010, the Company had accrued
$1.3 million for this incident.

The statute of limitations was extended by a tolling agreement as
to the IORY only (the Company had been dropped from this
violation) through February 27, 2011.  The U.S. EPA attorneys
decided not to press charges and allowed the statute of
limitations to lapse resolving this matter.


REALOGY CORP: Continues to Shoulder Costs in Cendant's Cooper Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
Realogy Corporation continues to take responsibility for a class
action lawsuit related to Cendant Corporation's Real Estate
business, according to the Company's March 4, 2011 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Pursuant to a Separation and Distribution Agreement between
Realogy and Cendant, Realogy has agreed to be responsible for all
of the related costs and expenses in the case captioned Frank K.
Cooper Real Estate #1, Inc. v. Cendant Corp. and Century 21 Real
Estate Corporation (N.J. Super. Ct. L. Div., Morris County, New
Jersey) -- the Cooper Litigation.

In 2002, Frank K. Cooper Real Estate #1, Inc. filed the Cooper
Litigation against Cendant Corporation and Cendant's subsidiary,
Century 21 Real Estate Corporation.  The complaint alleges breach
of certain provisions of the Real Estate Franchise Agreement
entered into between Century 21 and the plaintiffs, breach of the
implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and breach of certain express and
implied fiduciary duties.  The complaint alleges, among other
things, that Cendant diverted money and resources from Century 21
franchisees and allotted them to NRT LLC-owned brokerages or
otherwise improperly charged expenses to the Century 21
advertising fund.  The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages, injunctive relief, interest, attorney's fees
and costs.  The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act provides for treble
damages, attorney's fees and costs as remedies for violation of
the Act.  On August 17, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs'
renewed motion to certify a class.  The certified class includes
Century 21 franchisees at any time between August 1, 1995, and
April 17, 2002, whose franchise agreements contain New Jersey
choice of law and venue provisions and who have not executed
releases releasing the claim (unless the release was a provision
of a franchise renewal agreement).

A case management order was entered on November 29, 2010, that
includes, among other deadlines, a trial date of April 16, 2012.
On December 20, 2010, the court held a status conference to
address plaintiffs' motion regarding notice to be issued to the
class, the language of the notice, publication of the notice and
how class members can opt out of the class.  As directed by a
court order, Century 21 has delivered to plaintiffs' counsel and
the court lists of the names and contact information for (1)
franchisees that meet the class definition and (2) franchisees
that would have met the class definition but for the fact that
they signed a waiver of claims against Century 21.  Pursuant to
the court order, a notice of pendency of the action will be mailed
to class members on March 4, 2011, and a summary of that notice
will be published in various publications within 30 days of that
mailing.  Plaintiffs' counsel has advised that it may file a
motion requesting that notice be sent to all Century 21
franchisees during the class period, not solely those that meet
the class definition.  This case remains in its very early stages,
with most of the effort in the past six months directed at class
identification.  Discovery on the merits is in its early stages.
This class action involves substantial, complex litigation.


REPROS THERAPEUTICS: 2009 Securities Class Actions Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Repros Therapeutics Inc. disclosed that the pending securities
class action lawsuits that were filed against it during 2009 have
been dismissed, according to the Company's March 4, 2011, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

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 August 2, 2009, and asserted claims
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint.  On January 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.


SANTARUS INC: Defends Wage and Hour Lawsuit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
Santarus, Inc. is defending itself against a class action lawsuit
alleging violations of New York's labor laws, according to the
Company's Mach. 3, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

In December 2010, a complaint styled as a putative class action
was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York by a person employed by the Company
as a sales representative and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated current and former employees.  The complaint seeks
damages for alleged violations of the New York Labor Law 650
Section et seq. and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.  The
alleged violations include failure to pay for overtime work.  The
complaint seeks an unspecified amount for unpaid wages and
overtime wages, liquidated and/or punitive damages, attorneys'
fees and other damages.  The Company denies all claims asserted in
the complaint.  Over the last few years, similar class action
lawsuits have been filed against other pharmaceutical companies
alleging that the companies' sales representatives have been
misclassified as exempt employees under the Federal Fair Labor
Standards Act and applicable state laws.  There have been varying
outcomes in these cases to date, and it is too early to predict an
outcome in the Company's matter at this time.

Although the Company intends to vigorously defend against the
litigation filed against it, litigation often is expensive and
diverts management's attention and resources, which could
adversely affect the Company's business regardless of the outcome.


SEQWATER: May Face Big Class Action Over Dam Water Releases
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosanne Barrett, writing for The Australian, reports that a
Brisbane Labor MP has labeled a potential claim for negligence
against the city's dam operators as possibly the "biggest class
action in Australia's history" and called for figures on the dam
water releases to be revealed "sooner rather than later".

Graham Perrett, whose Brisbane southside electorate of Moreton
includes the flood-hit areas of Rocklea and Tennyson, has stepped
up calls for dam operator SEQWater to divulge its water releases
in the days leading up to the flood disaster in January.

SEQWater has resisted calls for the public release of data on
water outflows in the lead-up to the Jan. 11-13 floods in Brisbane
and Ipswich, amid opposition claims of a "culture of cover-up".

Mr. Perrett said the flood inquiry being conducted by Supreme
Court Judge Cate Holmes would be the appropriate forum, but
information should be made public sooner rather than later.

"I'm totally supportive of a claim being tested in the courts," he
said.  "It might be the biggest class action in Australia's
history, but it's certainly something I would support.  If
SEQWater has nothing to hide, then the courts will ascertain
that."

Mr. Perrett also called on the insurance companies to act with
appropriate speed to determine whether they would pay out on flood
claims.

"People have been hit with a sledgehammer, and they're told
they're not sure whether they can recover or not," he said.

Queensland Chamber of Commerce and Industry president David
Goodwin, who visited the dam site the weekend before the flood
disaster, called on the operators to release the information.

"I would have thought that would be fairly straightforward," he
said.  "I would have thought it would be day one. I can't see
what's secret about it."

A spokesman for the Local Government Association of Queensland
said it was happy for the inquiry to determine the cause of the
flood.

In response to questions about whether the dam's operations
contributed to the floods, a spokesperson for SEQWater said the
dam operations had been within the guidelines.


ST. JOE: Defends Consolidated Securities Class Action in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The St. Joe Company is defending itself against a consolidated
securities class action lawsuit in Florida, according to the
Company's March 2, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

On November 3, 2010 and December 7, 2010, two securities class
action complaints were filed against the Company and certain of
its officers and directors in the Northern District of Florida.
These cases have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Florida and are captioned as Meyer v. The
St. Joe. Company et al. (No. 5:11-cv-00027).  A consolidated class
action complaint was filed in the case on February 24, 2011.  The
complaint was filed on behalf of persons who purchased the
Company's securities between February 19, 2008 and October 12,
2010 and allege that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors, among others, violated the Securities Act of 1933 and
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and/or misleading
statements and/or by failing to disclose that, as the Florida real
estate market was in decline, the Company was failing to take
adequate and required impairments and accounting write-downs on
many of the Company's Florida-based properties and as a result,
the Company's financial statements materially overvalued the
Company's property developments.  The plaintiffs also allege that
the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance
with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, and that the
Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls, and as a
result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were
materially false and misleading.  The complaint seeks an
unspecified amount in damages.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the
plaintiffs' claims and intends to defend the action vigorously.


STEWART INFORMATION: Continues to Defend Against Antitrust Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stewart Information Services Corporation has obtained, and
continues to seek, dismissal of antitrust class action lawsuits
filed against it in various courts, according to the Company's
March 3, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

In February 2008, an antitrust class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
against Stewart Title Insurance Company, Monroe Title Insurance
Corporation, Stewart Information Services Corporation, several
other unaffiliated title insurance companies and the Title
Insurance Rate Service Association, Inc.  The complaint alleges
that the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust
Act by collectively filing proposed rates for title insurance in
New York through TIRSA, a state-authorized and licensed rate
service organization.

Complaints were subsequently filed in the United States District
Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York and in
the United States District Courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey,
Ohio, Florida, Massachusetts, Arkansas, California, Washington,
West Virginia, Texas and Delaware.  All of the complaints make
similar class action allegations, except that certain of the
complaints also allege violations of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act (RESPA) and various state antitrust and consumer
protection laws.  The complaints generally request treble damages
in unspecified amounts, declaratory and injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees.  To date, 78 such complaints have been filed,
each of which names us and/or one or more of the Company's
affiliates as a defendant (and have been consolidated in the
aforementioned states), of which seven have been voluntarily
dismissed.

As of February 3, 2011, the Company has obtained dismissals of the
claims in Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Massachusetts,
New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania (where the court
dismissed the damages claims and granted defendants summary
judgment on the injunctive claims), Texas and Washington.  The
Company filed a motion to dismiss in West Virginia (where all
proceedings have been stayed and the docket closed).  The
plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal in Ohio to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the dismissals
in Delaware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  The dismissals in New
York and Texas have been affirmed by the United States Courts of
Appeals for the Second and Fifth Circuits, respectively, and on
October 4, 2010, the United States Supreme Court denied the
plaintiffs' petitions for review of those decisions.  The
plaintiffs have appealed to the Second Circuit the dismissal of
the RESPA claims by the court in New York.  Although the Company
cannot predict the outcome of these actions, the Company intends
to vigorously defend itself against the allegations and do not
believe that the outcome will materially affect its consolidated
financial condition or results of operations.


SUN HEALTHCARE: Awaits Court Approval of Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Sun Healthcare Group, Inc., is awaiting court approval of its
settlement of a wage and hour lawsuit filed by a former employee,
according to the Company's March 3, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2010.

In September 2010, a lawsuit was filed by a former employee of a
subsidiary of the Company's medical staffing company, alleging
violation of various wage and hour provisions of the California
Labor Code.  The Company denies all of the allegations in the
employee's complaint.  The lawsuit, which was filed as a purported
class action on behalf of the former employee and all those
similarly situated, has been settled.  The terms of the settlement
are confidential pending court approval.  The Company believes
that its reserves are adequate for this matter.


TORO COMPANY: Continues to Defend Lawnmowers Suit in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Toro Company remains a defendant in a class action lawsuit
filed by individuals who allegedly purchased landowners in Canada,
according to the Company's March 4, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
January 28, 2011.

In March 2010, individuals who claim to have purchased lawnmowers
in Canada filed class action litigation against the Company and
other defendants that (i) contains allegations under applicable
Canadian law that are similar to the allegations made by the
United States plaintiffs, (ii) seeks certification of a class of
all persons in Canada who, beginning January 1, 1994 purchased a
lawnmower containing a gas combustible engine up to 30 horsepower
that was manufactured or sold by the defendants, and (iii) seeks
under applicable Canadian law unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages, attorneys' costs and fees, and equitable relief.

Management continues to evaluate this Canadian litigation.  In the
event the Company is unable to favorably resolve this litigation,
management is unable to assess at this time whether this
litigation would have a material adverse effect on the Company's
annual consolidated operating results or financial condition,
although an unfavorable resolution or outcome could be material to
the Company's consolidated operating results for a particular
period.


WELLS FARGO: Settles Gender Discrimination Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit against
Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, Wells Fargo & Co., Wachovia Securities,
LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Wells Fargo & Co., and Wachovia
Corporation in the United States District Court for the District
of Columbia (styled Evelyn Carter, et al. v. Wells Fargo, et al,
Class Action Case No. 1:09-CV-01752 (CKK)) alleging, among other
things, that Wells Fargo engaged in gender discrimination with
respect to career advancement, distribution of accounts, work
assignments, partnerships and teams, compensation, and/or other
terms and conditions of employment of certain female employees,
purportedly in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000(e), et seq., and under
parallel state and local laws prohibiting gender discrimination,
according to the Wells Fargo & Wachovia financial advisor gender
discrimination class action lawsuit settlement notice.

Members of the Wells Fargo & Wachovia class who may be affected by
the class action settlement reportedly include the following
persons, unless otherwise excluded: All women who are or were
employed in the United States as Financial Advisors by: (a)
Wachovia Securities, LLC, or its successor Wells Fargo Advisors,
LLC, at any time between March 17, 2003 and Jan. 25, 2011; and/or
(b) Wells Fargo Investments, LLC at any time between December 31,
2008 and Jan. 25, 2011. Women who were employed as Financial
Advisors by Prudential Securities Inc. or A.G. Edwards & Sons,
Inc. are included only as of the effective date of the respective
business consolidation or merger of these corporations with
Wachovia Securities/Wachovia Corporation.

Under the proposed Wells Fargo & Wachovia gender discrimination
class action lawsuit settlement, Defendants will pay $32 million
dollars ($32,000,000) into a Settlement Fund; a portion of the
Settlement Fund will be used to reimburse costs and expenses of
the litigation, pay Class Counsel's fees as awarded by the Court,
and pay for the administration of the settlement process and the
remainder of the Settlement Fund will be distributed to the Named
Plaintiffs and Class Members to compensate them for the asserted
claims.

Defendants have also agreed to continue, revise and enhance
various policies and practices applicable to Financial Advisors
that are intended to further attract women Financial Advisors and
enhance their success.

Class Members who wish to remain Class Members and have an
opportunity to receive a payment from the Settlement Fund
reportedly must return a Claim Form postmarked by Monday,
April 25, 2011.  The reported deadline for Class Members to opt-
out and exclude themselves from the monetary relief or object to
the settlement is Thursday, March 31, 2011.

The Court will decide whether or not to give final approval to the
Wells Fargo & Wachovia gender discrimination class action lawsuit
settlement after the Settlement Hearing.

For more information on the Wells Fargo & Wachovia financial
advisor gender discrimination class action lawsuit settlement,
visit the Wells Fargo & Wachovia gender discrimination class
action lawsuit settlement Web site:
http://wachoviagenderdiscrimination.com/


WILMINGTON TRUST: Enters Into MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
On March 3, 2011, Wilmington Trust Corporation, a Delaware
corporation, entered into a memorandum of understanding with
plaintiffs and other named defendants regarding the settlement of
three putative class action lawsuits filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware in response to the announcement
of the proposed merger of the Company with M&T Bank Corporation, a
New York corporation, according to the Company's Form 8-K filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2011.

On February 7, 2011, three purported class action lawsuits related
to the merger were filed against the Company, each of its current
directors, M&T, and MTB One, Inc., a Delaware corporation and
wholly owned subsidiary of M&T, and were consolidated under the
caption In re Wilmington Trust Corporation Shareholders
Litigation, C.A. No. 5958-VCL (Del. Ch.), filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware.

Under the terms of the memorandum of understanding, the Company,
the other named defendants, and the plaintiffs have agreed to
settle the Consolidated Lawsuit and release the defendants from
all claims relating to the merger, subject to court approval.  If
the court approves the settlement contemplated by the memorandum,
the Consolidated Lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice.
Pursuant to the terms of the memorandum, the Company has agreed to
make available additional information to its stockholders.  In
addition, the defendants in the Consolidated Lawsuit have agreed
not to oppose Plaintiffs' counsel's request for an award of fees
and expenses up to $475,000.

The settlement will not affect the merger consideration to be paid
to the Company's stockholders in connection with the proposed
merger or the timing of the special meeting of the Company's
stockholders, scheduled for March 22, 2011 in Wilmington,
Delaware, to vote upon a proposal to adopt the Agreement and Plan
of Merger dated October 31, 2010, by and among M&T, Merger Sub and
the Company.

The Company and the other defendants deny all of the allegations
in the Consolidated Lawsuit and believe the disclosures in the
Proxy Statement are adequate under the law. Nevertheless, the
Company and the other defendants have agreed to settle the
Consolidated Lawsuit in order to avoid costly litigation and
reduce the risk of any delay to the completion of the merger.



                            *********

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  * * *